■\ 
 
 <- 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
t 
 
 JL*- 
 
 "-''■ '■-■ <■''•'-■' *'■ 
 
 4a 2S 
 
 / 
 
 .' 
 
 « 
 
 COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND i 
 
 ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE j 
 
 f 
 
 1^ LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY i 
 
 PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 
 
/7' 
 
 '^^a-;;^^^. 
 
 i 
 
% 
 
 f 
 
 i 
 
A 
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 O F ,p' H E 
 
 DOCTRINE 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 Holy and Ever Blejfed T KIN ITT, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 'INCARNATION 
 
 %\^t ^on of #01). 
 
 CTCCASIONED %^ 
 
 By the Brief NOTES on the Creed of St. Athanafim, 
 
 I and the Brief HISTORY of the VniUriam , or 
 
 Socinians'-y and containing an A N s w e a to both. 
 
 By WlillAM^ SHERLOCK, D. D. 
 
 Dean of St. P a u l's. Matter of the Temple, and 
 
 Chaplain in Ordinary to Their MAJESTIES. 
 
 IMPRIMATUR, 
 
 Jaf^. 9. 1690. Z. IJI)am, R. P. D, Henrico 
 
 Epifc. Lond. a Sacris. 
 
 LONDON, 
 
 Printed for 3^* EOffetlS 5 at the 6*/^;? , over-againft 
 St. Dunjianh Church, in Fleet-jinet, 1 694. 
 
A 
 
 ^F^^S^^^^m-^ 
 
 1 
 
T O T H E 
 
 E A D E R 
 
 Will r/take no Apology for pithlijhing this Vindica^ 
 Hon of the Great and Fundamental Myfleries of 
 our Religion^ for if ever it ivere neceffary^ it is novp^ 
 when Atheifls and Hereticks^ fome openly^ fame un^ 
 der a dijguife^ confpire together to ridicule the Trimty^ 
 and the Incarnation, 
 
 Iconfefs^ the Book. ^ too hig^ could I have made it 
 lefs^ as at firfl I intended 5 but when I was once enga- 
 ged^ Ifaw a necejjity of going farther 5 and I hope no 
 Man will have reafon to complain^ that I havefaid too 
 mtich^ but thofe^ who will find a great deal too much 
 faid^ for them to anfwer. 
 
 My Original Defign was to vindicate the Doctrines 
 of the Trinity and Incarnation^ from thofe pretended 
 Abfurdities and Contradictions^ which werefo confident- 
 ly charged on them : And this Tmfure 1 have done 3 for 
 I have given a very eafie and intelligible Notion of a 
 Trinity in Unity ^ and if it be pojjlble to explain this 
 Do&rine intelligibly^ the Charge of Contradi&ions va- 
 nijhes 5 and whether Men will believe this Account or 
 not^ they cant deny^ but that it is very pojjible and in- 
 telligible^ and if we could go no farther , that is enough 
 in Matters of Revelation, 
 
 But I hope^ I have done a great deal more than this, 
 and proved^ That it is the true Scripture Account of 
 
 A 2 ' it. 
 
The P R E F A C E. 
 
 Jt^ and agreeable to the DoSrine of the Ancient Fa^ 
 tkers'-^ and hdve vindicated the Scripture-Proofs of a 
 Tri*?7ty and Incarnation from the pitifnl Sophijiries of 
 the lute Socinian Htftorian. 
 
 I have not indeed anfwered, particularly the whole 
 Book^ in Order and Method^ as it lies^ which was too 
 tedious a Worh^^ and notnecejfiry.'^ but I have confidered 
 whatever was moft material in it ^ and have avoided 
 
 * nothings becanfe it was hard to anfwer^ but becaufe it 
 needed no anfwer^ as I am ready tofatisfie the World^ 
 whenever a juji Occajion calls for it: For having dipt 
 my Pen in the Vindication offo glorious a Caufe^ by the 
 Grace of God^ I will never dejert it^ while I can hold 
 a Pen in my Hand, 
 
 I niujh thanhfnlly own^ that the writing of this Boo^ 
 has given me clearer and more diflindl Notions of this 
 Great Myflery.^ than I had before^ which is the Reafbn^ 
 why the Reader will find Jo me things explained towards 
 the end^ which I fpoke doubtfully ofatfirfi^ as parti cu-^ 
 larly the difference between the Eternal Generation of 
 the Son^ and the Procejfion of the Hvly Ghofl'-^ and I 
 hope^this is a pardonable Fault, 
 
 * The writing this Book, has cofl me many Thoughts^ and 
 thofe ivho have a mind throughly to understand it^ mufl not 
 thinks much if it cofl them fome 5 and if they cannot be 
 contented to bejiow fome ferious Thoughts on it^ it will 
 be loji labour to read it, I pray God give fuccefs to it^ 
 and open the Eyes of thofe Men^ before it be too late, who 
 are fo induflrious to write or difperfe fuch Brief Notes 
 and Brief Hi/lories^ as are valuable for nothing but 
 Blafphemy and Nonfenfe 5 for I will be bold to fay^ That 
 Socinianifm ( after all.its pretences to Reafon ^ is one of 
 the moji fiupid fenfiefs Herefies^ that ever infeUed the 
 Chrijiian Church. 
 
 THE 
 
THE 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. I. /concerning the Nature of a Contradi^ion, and 
 
 V^ how to know it. Page i 
 
 Many ContradiBions fretended, where there are none, as in the 
 
 Notion of a Spirit y and of God. j 
 
 How to difcover when a pretended ContradiBion is not realy hut in 
 
 our imperfeci Conception of things. 4 
 
 It is ahfurdto difpute againft the Being of any thing from the dif 
 
 ficuky of conceiving it. 5 
 
 TVhat the natural Boundaries of Humane Knowledge are. 9 
 
 SECT. 11. The Athanafian Creed contains nothing hut what 
 
 is neceJJ'ary to the true Belief of the Trinity and Incarnation. I o 
 7he Vifpute between the Greek and Latin Churchy about the 
 
 Filioque. 17 
 
 SECT. III. Concerning the necejjlty of the Catholick Faith t& 
 
 Salvation, and a Brief Hifiorj of Athanaiius. 21 
 
 That the Catholick Faith is necefjary to Salvation. 2 5 
 
 JVhat is meant by keeping the Catholick Faith whole and unde- 
 
 filed. 28- 
 
 The Scriptures being a compleat Rule of Faith^ do not make A- 
 
 thanSLCius' s Creed an unnece£ary Rule. ip 
 
 The great ufefulnefs of ancient Creedt. 3 1- 
 
 Tope Leo III. would not deny Salvation to thofe who difowned 
 
 the Filioque. 3 j 
 
 What is meant by the Catholick Faith. 55 
 
 The Hifiory of KthAn2i{\us, 37 
 
 SECT. IV. The Catholick DoBrine of a Trinity in Unity , and 
 
 Unity andTrinity, explained and Vindicated from all pretended 
 
 Abfurdities and ContradiBions. 4^ 
 
 What it is that makes any Snb fiance numerically One. 48 
 
 The Unity of a Spirit nothing elfe but Self-confcioufnefs* ibid. 
 
 And 
 
The C O N T E N T S. 
 
 .And therefore mutual confcioufnefs makes 'Three Terfons ejjeniially 
 
 and numerically One. Page 49 ' 
 
 The unity of a Mtnd or Spirit reaches as far as its Self con fcioufnefs 
 
 does. ' e o 
 
 Ihat this is the true Scripture Notion of the Unity of the Father, 
 
 Sen, and Holy Ghofi. ' ibid. 
 
 The Unity het^i^een Father and Son Explained, e j 
 
 The Union of created Spirits, an 'Vnion in Knowledge^ Will and 
 
 Love. ^ 2 
 
 The fame Union between Father, Son, and FloIyGhoj^. ibid. 
 
 But this, 'which is only a moral Vnion between Creatures^ is an ef- 
 
 fential Union between Father, Son, "and Holy Ghofi, as it is the 
 
 effe^ of mutual Con fcioufnefs. e^ 
 
 This proved from Scripture, as to the Unity between Father and 
 
 Son. ^5 
 
 Ihts makes all Three Divine Perfons coejfential and coequal, 58 
 That the Holy Spirit is One 7vith Father and Son by a mutual Con- 
 
 Jcicufnefs, proved from Scripture, ^^ 
 
 This Notion contains the true Ortohdox Faith of a Trinity in U- 
 
 nity. ^5 
 
 For it does not confound the Terfons, but makes them diftinfh ibid. 
 Nor divide the Sub fiance, but makes them numerically One, 68 
 This makes the Voflrine of the Trinity as .intelligible as the Notion 
 
 of One God. JbiJ. 
 
 The material Images of Subfiance confound our Notions, both of 
 
 One God ^ and of a Trinity in Unity. ^o 
 
 God muffi be co7ifidered as Eternal Truth and Wifdom. ^o * 
 
 Wtflom and Iruth a pure and fmpk /M, and contains all Divine 
 
 PerfeBions, • ^j 
 
 Three nfnite ]}/inds mufi necejfarily be mutually cciifcious to each 
 
 other. • ^4 
 
 No poftive Notion of Infinity, but only in a Mind. ^ 5 
 
 No infinite Extenfwn. n(y 
 
 What the true Notion of Infinite is, that it is abfolute PerfetUon. 7 8 
 Ihat there are no ahjolute Ferfdtions, but thofe of a Mind. '79 
 Extenfcn is vo PerfeBion, nor to be Omfuprefent by Extcffon* 80 
 Jhefary.e abfolute Pcrftlions of a Mmd, by a mutual Ci.nfcioufnefsy 
 
 may be entire and e^ualin Three infinite Minds. 81 
 
 Th 
 
 IS 
 
The CONTENTS. * 
 
 This reconciles the ferfeci equality and fuhordination of the Di~ 
 
 'vine Verfons. Page ibid. 
 
 • Andlhowi^ how each Verfon is God, and all hut One God. 82 
 
 This gives an Account of the different modifubliftendi, of Tphicb 
 the Schools f^eak. 83 
 
 And hsTV the Operations of the Trinity ad extra are common to all 
 Three Per/ons. ' 85 
 
 An Anfwer to the Ahfuriities and ContradiSiions charged on the 
 Dotirine of the Trinity by the Brief Notes. 87 
 
 SECT. V. TheVocirine of the Fathers and Schools about a Tri- 
 nity inUuity^ reconciled to the foregoing Explication of it* 1 00 
 
 That the Fathers made the Three Divine PerfonsThree difiind in- 
 finite Mtnds, lOi 
 
 That Father y Son^ and Holy Ghofi are as difiinB Perfons as Peter, 
 ]3,mQS, and ]ohtii hov^ to he underflood. * 1 04 
 
 How the Fathers Explain the Unity of the Godhead, 105 
 
 1. By the oiAja^imm? or coeffentiality of the Divine Perfons, 106 
 What they meant hy the otioamm. ibid. 
 How they proved the Unity ofEffencefrom the famenefs of Nature. 
 
 Gregory Nyffctv's reafoningm this matter, and vindicated from 
 the Mifreprefentation (?f Pecavius an^ Dr, Cudworth. i o9.&:c. 
 
 2 . To this the Fathers added a Numerical Unity of the Divine Ef- 
 fence 121 
 
 Co?7cernwg the Unity of Energy and Power. 123 
 
 The cifei;^'p«a7? or Ctrcumincejfion is Self-confcioufnefs, 115 
 
 St, Auitin explains the Unity of the Divine Perfons hy Examples 
 
 of Self con fcioufnefs, 116 
 
 The Unity of the Godhead conffts in the Unit) of Principle. 1 28 
 How the Three Divine Perfons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi are ef 
 
 fential to the Notion of One God, explained at large. 129.6CC. 
 SECT. VI. Concerning expour^ding Scripture hy Reafon. 14^ 
 The Arguments againfi a Trinity in the Hiflory of the Uflitaiians, 
 
 Letter I, particularly anfwered, 155.&C. 
 
 His fir fi Argument. 154 
 
 His fecond Argument. 155 
 
 I ColoiT. 17. The frfi-horn of every Creature explained. 156 
 The Mediatory Kingdom of Chrifi explained at large, 159 
 
 His third, fourth, and fifth Arguments anfwered, 176 
 
 His fixth Argument. 178 
 
 m 
 
The CONTENTS. 
 
 Hisfevmh Argument. VsgQ 184 
 
 His eig-hth /jgument from tbofe Texts y which declare that the Fa- 
 ther only is God. ^^^^'' 
 Hts ninth Argument , that if Chrifi were God, there was no need ef 
 giving the Holy Sprit to his Human Nature. 187 
 Hts tenth and eleventh Arguments, ' ^ ^^ ^ . ^ ,}^} 
 His Arguments againft the Godhead of the Holy GboiL ibid. 
 Concermng the Ferfonality of the Holy Ghofi. 1 89 
 That the Spirit is obtained of God by our Prayers, therefore it feif 
 
 is not God, Anfwered, ,. r. rrr. n- ^ ^ ^ 
 
 Father,Sm,andHoly Ghofi, the entireOhjeBofWvrJlnf 193 
 
 Thofewho donot worfhip the Trinity, do notworjhip the true God, 
 
 if Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft be God. / 94 
 
 No need of any new Command to worjhtp the Holy Ghofi, when u 
 
 is revealed that he is One God with the Father and Son. ibid. 
 That the Scripture [peaks of God as One Terjon, Anfwered i<^6 
 Whether the Socmian Faith be a reafonable and accountable Fatth. 
 
 190 
 
 The Socinian Faith ridicules the Scriptures. • r 99 
 
 This is particularly ffljown in the Expofitions of Scripture, contain- 
 edintheHifioryoftheVniUvmns. ibid 
 
 The Form of Baptifm in the Name of the Father, and of the Son 
 and of the Holy Ghofi. explained ^1 • /""^j 
 
 I John 1,2. In the beginning was the Word, &C. explained and 
 
 qjindicated, r i r^ ^' ' ««I 
 
 How this Ht(torian has reprefented Grotius. 220 
 
 Socinianifm makes the Jewi\h Oeconomy very unreafonable and 
 
 unaccountable. ]^l 
 
 Socinianifm ridicules theChnfitan Rekgton 2 ;8 
 
 <>FrT VII An Anfwertowhat remains tn toe Brief Notes. 250 
 Concernifig the Generation of the Son. ^^j^ 
 
 The equality and coeternity of the Perfons m the Trinity. 2 59 
 
 Concerning the Incarnation. „ r ^, 
 
 How an infinite and finite Being may he united into one Per/on. a6| 
 What makes a Terfonal Union. 166 
 
VINDICATION 
 
 Ofthe DOCTRINE • 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 Holy and Ever Blefed TKINITT, 
 
 AND OF TH E 
 
 Incarnation of the SON of GOD ^ 
 
 In ANSWER to the Brief NOTES 
 on the Creed of St. Jthanajius. 
 
 S E c T. I. 
 
 Concerning the ISatj^re of a Coniradi&ion^ and 
 
 hovp to know it. 
 
 E F o K E I particularly Examine the Brief 
 Notes on AthanafiusV Creed ^ which under a 
 pretence of expofing that Creed, charge the 
 Chriftian Faith it felf of Three Perfons and One God^ 
 with the moft monftrous Abfurdities and Contra- 
 dictions : I (hall, I. Shew what a Contradidion is, 
 and in what Cafes we can judge of a Contradiftion. 
 2. I (hall take a brief view of the Athanafian Creed, 
 
 B and 
 
A ViniicdUon of the DoBrine of the 
 
 and (hew that it fignifies no more than that there are 
 Three Perfons and One God, or a Trinity in Unity, 
 and Unity in Trinity ^ and that if we own this, we 
 muft own the particular Explications of the Athafia- 
 jian Creed. 
 
 F/r/?, As for the firft : A Contradiftion is to deny 
 and affirm the fame thing in the (ame fenfe 5 as to 
 fay; that a thing is, and is not at the fame time 5 
 that there is but One God, and that there are Three 
 Gods 5 that is, that there is, and that there is not, but 
 One God ^ for if there be Three Gods, then it is not 
 true that there is only One God: Things which are 
 fo contrary as to contradift each other, can never 
 be both true, for all Contradidions finally refolve 
 into this : It is, and It is not 3 which is abfolutely 
 impofliblc. 
 
 But when we come to apply this to the nature of 
 Things, we may eafily fancy Contradictions where 
 there are none : For a Contradidion in,the nature of 
 Things, is fuch a Notion or Idea of any thing as im- 
 plies a Contradiftion 5 and then it is impoflible any 
 fuch thing can be, as it is impoilible, that fuch a Pro- 
 pofition whofe terms contradift each other fhould be 
 true : But then before we can pronounce, that fuch 
 a Notion or Idea is contradifiious, we muft be fure, 
 that we perfedly iinderftand and comprehend the 
 nature of that Being 3 otherwife the Contradiftion 
 may not be in the thing, but in our manner of con- 
 ceiving it : It is not enough in this Cafe to (ay, we 
 cannot underftand it, and know not how to reconcile 
 it ^ but we muft fay, that we do perfeftly under- 
 ftand it^ and know that it cannot be reconciled. 
 
 As 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^IIINITY. 5 
 
 As for inftance : Some new Philofophers will tel] 
 you, that the Notion of a Spirit, or an immaterial 
 Subftance is a Contradiftion , for by Subftance they 
 underftand nothing but Matter, and then an imma- 
 terial Subftance is immaterial Matter, that is, Mat- 
 ter and no Matter, which is a Contradidion : But 
 yet this does not prove an immaterial Subftance to 
 be a Contradiftion, unlefs they could firft prove, 
 that there is no Subftance, but Matter 5 and that 
 they cannot conceive any other Subftance but Mat- 
 ter, does not prove, that there is no other. 
 
 Thus the Atheift di(covers a great many Contra- 
 diftions or Abfurdities in the very Notion and Idea 
 of a God, or of an Eternal^ O^niprefent^ Omnipotent^ 
 Omnifcient Being. For to be without a caufe, and 
 without a beginning, without time, and without 
 fucceflion ^ to be prefent every where, and to fill all 
 Places, and yet to have no parts, no extenfion $ to 
 be able to create a World, and to annihilate it again, 
 to make all things of nothing, and to reduce all things 
 to nothing again 5 to know all things, paft, prefent, 
 and to come, efpecially the moft contingent Futuri- 
 ties, the freeft Thoughts and Coun(els of Men, be- 
 fore they think them, or fome Ages before they thera- 
 felves are in being, without impofing a Fatal Necet 
 fity on Humane Aftions , I fay, the Notion of fuch 
 a Being is very much above our conception 5 and 
 to an Atheift, who is for believing nothing, but what 
 he can fully comprehend, feems very abfurd and 
 contradiftious. 
 
 This fhews, that Men may eafily miftake in char- 
 ging the Nature and Notions of Things with Contra- 
 diftions, and therefore we muft enquire, how we 
 may difcover, when fuch an appearing Contradidipn 
 
 B 2 is 
 
 I 
 
A p^indication of the DoSirine of the 
 
 is not real, but is wholly owing to our imperfeft 
 conception of things. 
 
 I. Now in the firft place we have great reafon to 
 fufpeft this, when it relates to fuch things as all Man- 
 kind agree, we do not, and cannot fully underftand 
 or comprehend ^ for it is a vain and arrogant pre- 
 fumption to fay what is, or what is not a Contradi- 
 ftion, when we confefs, we do not underftand or 
 comprehend the thing we fpeak of: A Contradiftion 
 in the Nature of Things, is what is contrary to the 
 Nature of that Being o^ which we fpeak : Now fo far 
 as we underftand the Nature of any Being, we can 
 certainly tell what is contrary and contradiftious to 
 its Nature : As that Accidents ftiould fubfift without 
 their fubjeft, that a Body fhould be without exten- 
 fion, or an organized Body without any diftinftion 
 of Parts 5 that the fame individual Body fhould be in 
 Heaven and on Earth, and ina thoufand diftant places 
 at the fame time 5 that Flefh and Blood ftiould lie in- 
 vifible under the Species of Bread and Wine 5 that a^ 
 Body, fuppofe of five or fix Foot long, fhould be con- ' 
 cealed under the leaft crum of Bread ^ thefeand fuch 
 like are the manifeft Abfurdities and Contradidions of 
 Tranfubftantion 5 and we know that they are fo, 
 becaufe we know the Nature of a Body, and know 
 that fuch things are a Contradiftion to the Eflential 
 Properties of a Body : But now all Men muft confels, 
 that they have not a clear and comprchenfive Notion 
 of the Nature and Efiential Properties of a Spirit, e- 
 fpecially of an infinite Spirit, as God is 5 and it isim- 
 poflibletoknow, what is contrary to the Nature of 
 a Spirit, if we know not, what the Nature of a Spi- 
 rit is, and that Man, who fhall pretend to compre- 
 hend all that is poftible in an infinite Nature, is as con- 
 temptibly 
 
Holy, and Evtr ^leffed TRINITY. 5 
 
 temptibly ridiculous^ as i f he fhould challenge to him- 
 felf inSnite Knowledge, for without that, no Man can 
 comprehend what is infinite. 
 
 II. It is a fufficient proof, that fuch feeming Con- 
 tradidions are not in the nature of things, but in our 
 imperfeft manner of conceiving them, when we have 
 other evident proofs, that the thing is, though we 
 cannot comprehend it : For nothing can be, which 
 involves a Con tradition in its nature," and therefore 
 if it is, the Contradiftion is not real, butimaginary. 
 As for inftance ; As unconceivable as the Notion of 
 Eternity is, yet all Mankind, even Atheifls them- 
 felves, muft confefs, that fomething was from Eter- 
 nity 5 for if ever there v/as nothing, it is impoffible 
 there ever ftiould have been any thing :, for that which 
 once was not, can never be without a Cauft, and 
 therefore whatever Difficulties there may be in the 
 Notion of an Eternal Being, we muft acknowledge 
 fomething Eternal , and that is proof enough, that 
 there is nothing abfurd or contradiftious in the Noti- 
 on, though we cannot comprehend it ^ and I am 
 fure the Notion of a firft Eternal Caufe, is much more 
 eafie and natural, than to make either Matter, or the 
 World, and all the Creatures in it Eternal. What- 
 ever we can certainly prove to be, either by Senfe, 
 Reafon, or Revelation, if there be any difficulty in 
 conceiving it, we rauft attribute that to the imper- 
 feftion of our own Knowledge, not to any Abfurdity 
 or Contradiftion in the thing it felf. 
 
 This fhews how unreafonable that Method is, 
 which is taken by Atheifts, Infidels, and Hereticks, to 
 difpute againft the Being of any thing from the diffi- 
 culty of conceiving it, and fome pretended Abfur- 
 dities and Contradiftions in it, when there are very 
 
 plain 
 
A F'mdtcation of the Do[Jrine of the 
 
 plain proofs thsrt the thing is, and fuch as it is impof- 
 fible for them fairly to anfwer ^ this is the funda- 
 mental Mifcarriage, which is not owing to a prudent 
 Caution, as is pretended, but to wilfulnefs and obfti- 
 nacy, and pride of Underftanding, or to a fixed pre- 
 judice and averfion to the behef of fuch Matters, and 
 therefore I (hall not only obferve, but particulaftly 
 prove the unreafonablenefs of it. 
 . The proof of this comes to this one Point, That 
 we may have fufficient Evidence of the Being of a 
 Thing, whofe Nature we cannot conceive and com- 
 prehend ^ he who will not own this, contradifts the 
 Senfe and Experience of Mankind 5 and he who 
 confelles this, and yet rejefts the belief of that, which 
 he has good evidence for, meerly bedufe he cannot 
 conceive it, is a very abfurd andfenflefs Infidel. 
 
 And the reafon of this is very plain, becaufe all the 
 Ways whereby the Being of any thing can be proved, 
 are obvious and intelligible to all Mankind , but 
 the Nature of moft things are very dark and ob(curc, 
 and fuch as the wifeft Men know little or nothing 
 of: And therefore we may certainly know, that a 
 great many things are, whofe Nature and ellential 
 Properties we cannot conceive : As to fhew this par- 
 ticularly. 
 
 I. The Proofs that anything is, are either from 
 Senfe, from Reafon, or from Revelation. What is 
 evident to Senfe, is evident to all Men, who have 
 their Senfes ^ what is plainly proved by R.ea{bn (and 
 it is not a fufficient Proof, if it be not plain) is plain 
 to all Men, who can ufe their Realon, and what is 
 plainly revealed every Man may know, who can 
 read and underftand the Scriptures 5 the Being and 
 Nature of things are known very different ways, and 
 
 the 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T^lKlTt , 7 
 
 the Being of things not only may, but mod common- 
 ly is known without knowing their natures : Any 
 Man may know the firft, but few Men in any mea- 
 fare can know the fecond : Whoever has his Senfe 
 about him, knows that there are fuch things, as he 
 lees, hears, or feels, but the Philofophy of Nature is 
 not learnt by Senfe : Reafon will convince us by 
 fome vifible and fenfible Effefts, that there arefome 
 invifible Caufes , without informing us diftinftly, 
 what the Nature and Powers of fuch Caufes are 5 and 
 God may and does reveal many things to us, which 
 we either are not capable of fully Comprehending, or 
 the Nature of which he does not think fit particularly 
 to explain tons, and in allthefe Cafes we may cer- 
 tainly know, that things are, without underftanding 
 the Nature and Philofophy of them. 
 
 2. It is fo far from being a wonder to meet with 
 any thing, whofe Nature we do not perfeftly under- 
 ftand^ that I know nothing in the World, which we 
 do perfeftly underftand : It is agreed by all Men, 
 whoever confidered this Matter, that the EfTences of 
 Things cannot be known, but only their Properties 
 and Qualities : The World is divided into Matter,and 
 Spirit, and we know no more, what the fubltance of % 
 
 Matter, than what the fubftance of a Spirit is, though 
 we think we know one, much better than the other : 
 We know thus much of Matter, that it is an exten- 
 ded Subftance, w^hich fills a fpace, and has diftinft 
 parts, which may be feparated from each other, that 
 It is fulceptible, of very different qualities, that it is 
 hot or cold, hard or foft, &c, but what the fubftance 
 of Matter is, we know not : And thus we know the 
 eflential Properties of a Spirit f, that it is a thinking; 
 Subftance, with the Faculties of Underftanding and 
 
 Will. 
 
8 J VinJtcatton of the Doclrine of the 
 
 Will, and is capable of different Vertues or Vices, as 
 Matter is of fenfible qualities, but what the fubftance 
 of a Spirit is, we know no more than what the fub- 
 ftance of Matter is : 
 
 Thus as for the efTential Properties, Operation?, 
 and Powers, of Matter, Sencc, Experience, and Ob- 
 fervation will tell us what they ^re, and whatCaufes 
 ccnftantly produce fuch EfFefts, and this is all we do, 
 or can know of it 5 and he who will not believe that 
 Matter is extended, that the Fire burns, that Water 
 may be condenfed by Froft into a firm and folid 
 Pavement , that Seed fown in the Earth will produce 
 its own kind again, that a Body can move from one 
 place to another ^ that a Stone falls to the Ground, 
 and Vapours afcend and thicken into Clouds, and 
 fall dow^n again to the Earth in gentle Showers, d^c^ 
 I fay, he who will not believe thefe things till he can 
 give a Philofophical account of them, muft deny his 
 Senfe in complement to his Underfranding 5 and he 
 who thinks, that he does underftand thefe matters, 
 would make a Man queftion, whether he has any 
 Senfe. 
 
 Thus it is alfo with reference to a Spirit : We feel 
 within our felves,that we can think and reafon, that 
 we can choofe and refufe, that we can love and hate, 
 and defire and fear, but what thefe natural Powers 
 and PafGcns are, we know not --^ how ^Thoughts rife 
 in our Minds, and how one Thought begets another ^ 
 how a Thought can move our Bodies, or fix them in 
 their Seat^ how the Body can raife Thoughts and 
 Paliionsin the Soul, or Lhe Thoughts and PafiTionsof 
 the Soul can afFeft the Body : The Properties and 
 Operations both of Bodies and Spirits are great Se- 
 crets and Myflerics in Nature, which we undcrftand 
 
 nothing 
 
 I ' 
 
Holy and Ever (Blejfed T (J^/ N/ T /. ^ 
 
 nothing of, nor are concerned to underftand them, no 
 more than it is our bufinels to underftand, how to 
 make either a Body or a Spirit 5 which we have no 
 power to do, if we did underftand it, and therefore it 
 would bean ufelefs piece of Knowledge, which would 
 ferve no end but curiofity^ and that is realbn enough, 
 why our wife Maker fhould not communicate this 
 Knowledge to us, were we capable of it, becaufe it 
 does not belong to our Natures^ as no Knowledge 
 does which we can make no ufe of ; The perfeft No- 
 tions and Idea's of Things are proper only to that 
 Almighty Mind, which can give Being to them. 
 
 Now this plainly Ihews, what the Natural Boun- 
 daries of Humane Knowledge are, how far we may 
 attain to a certain Knowledge, and where we muft 
 give off our Enquiries, unlefs we have a mind to im- 
 pofe upon our Underftandings with fome uncertain 
 and fanciful Conjeftures,or to perplex our felves with 
 iaexplicable Difficulties, 
 
 1. As firft we have certain ways of di(covering 
 the being of Things, which fall within the compafs of 
 our Knowledge 5 this our Senfes, Reafon, or Revela- 
 tion, will acquaint us with , and therefore we may 
 know what Things there are in the World, as far as 
 they fall under the notice of Senfe, or are dilcovered 
 by Reafon or Revelation. 
 
 2. We may know what things are, or what their 
 eflemial Properties, Qualities, Operations, and Pow- 
 ers are, whereby v/e can diftinguiQi one fort of Be- 
 ings from another 5 as fuppofe, a Body from a Spirit, 
 Bread from Flefti, and Wine from Blood s and can 
 reafon from Effefts to Caufes, and from Caufes to Ef- 
 fefts, with as great certainty as we underftand, what 
 the Caufes or Effefts are, 
 
 C 5- But 
 
I o A Vindication of the DoSiri?ie of the 
 
 5. But the Eflences of Things, and the Philofbphy 
 of their Natures, theReafonsof their Eflential Pro- 
 perties and Powers, which immediately refult from 
 their Natures, the manner of their Produftion, and 
 the manner of their Operations, are Myfteries to us, 
 and will be fo, do what we can , and therefore here 
 our Enquiries muft ceafe, if we enquire wifely 5 for 
 it is vain and abfurd to perplex our felves, with fuch 
 Queftions, which we can no more anfwer, than we 
 can make a World. 
 
 The fumm is this, when we charge any Doftrine 
 with Abfurdities and Contradiftions , we muft be 
 fure, that weunderftand the thing :, for if it be fuch 
 a thing, as we do not, and cannot underftand the Na- 
 ture of, we may imagine a thoufand Abfurdities and 
 Contradictions, which are owing wholly to our Igno- 
 rance of Things. 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 The AthanaGan Creed contar^rs nothing hnt rvhat k ne- 
 (ejjary to the true Belief of the Trinity and IncarnH' 
 tion. 
 
 II. T ET us now take a view of the Athenajian Creed, 
 I , which this prophane Author makes the Sub- 
 jed of his Drollery and Ridicule 5 and examine, whe- 
 ther there be any thing in it, which a good Catholick 
 Chriftian can rejeft, without rejefting the Catholick 
 Doftrines of the Holy and EverBlefled Trinity, 
 and the Myfterious Incarnation of the Son of God s 
 for if this Creed contains nothing but what is necef- 
 fary to this behef, and what every Chriftian who be- 
 lieves thefe Doftrines muft profefs, then all thefe 
 Scoffs, which are caft upon the Athanapan Creed, do 
 
 indeed 
 
Holy and Ever mfed T^IKI TY. 1 1 
 
 indeed belong to theChriftian Faith it felf, if the Tri- 
 nity and Incarnation be Chriftian Doftrines. 
 
 As to begin withthe Doftrineof the Holy Trinity* 
 The Athanapan Creed tells us; The Catholic^ Faith 
 is this^ that we worfhip One God in Trinity^ and Tri- 
 nity in Unity : That is, that we worfhip One God, 
 and Three Perfdns, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft ^ 
 and this allChriftians grant to be the Catholick Faith, 
 except Arians^ Alacedonianr^ and 'Sr?^^/*?;^/, and fuch 
 like Hereticks : And how we mufl: worfhip One God 
 in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, is explained in the 
 next Paragraph. 
 
 Neither confounding the Perfons^ nor dividing the 
 Sfibjiance. . 
 
 Which muft be acknowledged, if there be Three 
 Perfons and One God : For if we confound the Per- 
 fons, by faying, that they are all but One Perfbn 
 under Three different Names and Titles, or Deno- 
 minations, then we deftroy the Diftinftion of Per- , 
 fons^ if we divide the Subftance , by faying, that 
 every Perfon has a feparate Divine Nature of his' 
 own, as every Man has a feparate Humane Nature, 
 then we make Three Gods, as Peter ^ James^ and John^ 
 are Three Men, which is to overthrow the Doftrine 
 of One God 5 and therefore the Creed adds, 
 
 For there is One Perjbn of the Father^ another of the 
 Son^ and 4/iother of the Holy Ghoji 5 
 
 Bfit the God head of the Father ^ of the Son^ and of 
 the Holy GhoJi is all One 3 the Glory eqnal^ the Majejly 
 CO -eternal. 
 
 C 2 " This 
 
1 1 A Findicatm of the DoSlrine of the 
 
 This is fo far from being a Nicity, that it is nolefi 
 than a Demonftration, it we confefs Three Perlbns 
 and One God --, for if there be Three Perfons, then 
 the Perfon of the Father, the Perfon of the Son, the 
 Perfon of the Holy Ghoft, muft be diftinft Perfons, 
 or they cannot be Three :> if there be but One God, 
 then the Godhead of all the Three Perfons is but One, 
 for if the Godhead were more than One, there muft 
 be more than One God 5 for the Godhead makes the 
 God, and there muft be as many Gods, as there are 
 Godheads 5 as there muft be as many Men as there 
 are particular Humane Natures : And if the Godhead 
 be but One, then with refpeft to the fame One God- 
 head, all Three Perfons muft have the fame Glory 
 and Majefty 5 for there cannot be Three different 
 Glories and Ma jefties of the fame One Godhead 3 and 
 therefore as it follows : 
 
 Stich as the Father is^ fuch is the Son^ and fuch is 
 the Holy Ghofi. 
 
 The Father Uncreate^ the Son Z)ncreate^ and the 
 Holy Ghoji ZJncreate, ^ 
 
 The Father Incomprehenjible^ the Son Incomprehenjihle^ 
 the Holy Ghofi Incomprehenfihle. 
 
 The Father Eternal^ the Son Eternal , and the Holy 
 Ghofi Eternal, 
 
 And yet they are not Three Eternals^ hut One Eter-^ 
 naU 
 
 Js alfo there are not Three Incomprehenfihlcs^ nor 
 Three Uncreated 3 bht One Uncreated^ and One Incom^ 
 frchenfihle. 
 
 So likemfe the Father is Almighty^ the Son Almighty^ 
 and the Holy Ghofi AUnighty^ 
 
 And 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T\IKlTr. ij 
 
 And yet there are not Three AlpHighties^ bnt One Al- 
 mighty. 
 
 So the Father is God^ the Son is God, and the Holy 
 Ghoji is God. 
 
 And yet there are not Three Gods^ but One God. 
 
 So lik§vpife the Father is Lordy the Son Lord^ and 
 the Holy Ghoji Lord. 
 
 And yet not Three Lords ^ hut $ne Lord. 
 
 For like as rve are compelled by the Chrijlian Ferity^ 
 to acknovpledge every Perfon by himfelf to be God and 
 Lord. 
 
 So are vpe forbidden by the Catholick^ Religion i^ ^ofyr 
 there are Three Gods^ or Three Lords. 
 
 This is the fumm of all, That as the Catholick Re- 
 ligion, both Natural, Molaical , and Chriftian, re- 
 quires us to believe, that there is but One God, lb 
 efpecially the Chriftian Religion teaches us , that 
 there are Three Divine Perfons, Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghoft, who are this One God. Now if each 
 Perfon with refpeft to the fame Divine Nature be 
 God, then all the eflential Attributes and Perfedtions 
 of a God muft be allowed to each Perfon 3 that he 
 is Uncreated, Infinite, or Incomprehenfible, Eternal, 
 Almighty God and Lord 5 unlefs we will fay, that 
 there may be a Created, Finite, Temporal, Impo- 
 tent God 5 that is, a God, who is not in truth ei- 
 ther God or Lord : and yet though v/e muft acknow- 
 ledge each Perfon to be God and Lord, we muft not 
 aflert Three diftinft Uncreated, Incomprehenfible, 
 Eternal, Almighty Gods ( which is the true Sence of 
 the Article, of which more anon) for that is to make 
 not One, but Three Gods and Lords, which over- 
 throws the Unity of the Godhead. 
 
 Now 
 
V4 ^ VinXicatxon of the Vo^rine of the 
 
 Now whatever diSictiky there may be in concei- 
 ving this (which I do not now difpuce) if that be 
 any fault, it is no fault of the Athanafan Creed, but 
 of the Doftrine of the Trinity it felf 5 the Athmafian 
 Creed only tells us what we muft believe^ if we be- 
 ^ lieve a Trinity in Unity, Three Perfons and One 
 
 God : And I challenge any Man, who fincerely pro- 
 fefl'es this Faith, to tell me, what he can leave out of 
 this Expofition, without deftroying either the Divi- 
 nity of fome of the Three Perfons, or the Unity of 
 the Godhead. If each Perfon muft be God and Lord, 
 muft not each Perfon be Uncreated, Incomprehenfi- 
 ble, Eternal, Almighty? If there be but One God, 
 and One Lord, can there be Three feparated Uncrea- 
 ted, Incomprehenfible , Eternal, Almighty Gods! 
 which muft of neceflity be Three Gods, and Three 
 Lords : This Creed does not pretend to explain, how 
 there are Three Perfons, each of which is God, and 
 yet but One God, (of which more hereafter) but 
 only aflerts the Thing, that thus it is, and thus it 
 muft be, if we believe a Trinity in Unity 5 which 
 (hould make all Men, who would be thought neither 
 Arians^ nor Socinians^ more cautious how they ex- 
 prefs the leaft diflike of the Athana^ian Creed, which 
 muft either argue, that they condemn it, before they 
 underftand it, or that they have fome fecret diflike 
 to the Doftrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Nor is this to make any additions to the Chriftian 
 Faith, as fome objeft, no more than to explain what 
 we mean by GOD is an addition to the Faith : This 
 was all the Chriftian Fathers aimed at in their Di- 
 fpuies againft A.rins^ and other Enemies cf the Ca- 
 tholick Faith, and in thofe Creeds theyTramed in op- 
 pofition to thefe Herefies, to aflert the true Divinity 
 
 of 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T^lKlTY. if 
 
 of the Son and Holy Spirit in fach exprefs terms, as 
 would admit of no evafion ; For this reafon they 
 infifted fo immovably upon the term Homo-oufios^ 
 which fignifies, that the Son was of the (ame Nature 
 with the Father, as he muft be, if he be true and real 
 God 3 whereas had he been only hke the Father, as 
 the Arims alierted, he could not be One God with 
 him 5 for that which is only Uk^ fomething elfe, is 
 not the fame : Now though the term o^H<n(^^ is not 
 in Scripture, yet this is no unfcriptural addition to 
 the Faith, becaufe all that is fignified by it is there 5 
 that is, that Chrift is the Eternal and Only Begotten 
 Son of God, a true and real, not a made, or crea- 
 ted, or nominal God : And the Athxnaftan Creed, 
 as far as it relates to this matter, is only a more parti- 
 cular explication of the Homo^oufios^ or in what fenfe 
 the Son is of the fame Nature with the Father, and 
 One God with him. 
 
 In the next place , the Anhanaftan Creed, having 
 very explicitely declared the Unity of the Godhead 
 in Three Perfons, proceeds to the diftinft Chara- 
 ders of each Perfon, and their Unity among them- 
 felves, and here alfo it teaches nothing but what 
 feems eflential to the Diftinftion and Unity of the 
 Three Divine Perfons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. 
 
 The Father is made of none^ neither created nor he-- 
 gotten. 
 
 The Son is of the Father alone ^ not made^ nor crea- 
 ted^ hut begotten. 
 
 The Holy Qhoft is of the Father^ and of the Son^ 
 neither made^ nor created^ nor begotten^ hut proceed" 
 
 So 
 
1 6 A Findicatm of Htc DoBr'me of the 
 
 So there is One Father^ not Three Fathers ^ One Son, 
 not Three Sons 3 One Holy Ghoji^ not Three Holji Ghojis. 
 
 The Diftindtion then between thefe Three Divine 
 Perfons, ( if I may fo fpeak) is in the manner of their 
 Subfiftence: That the Father is 'Avt^^^v©^^ God of 
 Himfelf, the Original Fountain of the Deity ^nvt made^ 
 nor created^ for then he would be a Creature, not a 
 God 5 nor begotteny for then he would be a Son, not 
 the firft Father and Origin of all. 
 
 The Son is of the Father alone, which is eflential to 
 his being a Son 5 not tnade^ nor created, for there was 
 no time, when he was not, as all things made or 
 created muft have a beginning, hut begotten ^ which 
 is the proper term, whereby we exprefi Generation, 
 and whereby the Eternal Generarion of the Son is ex- 
 prefled in Scripture : What it fignifies we know not 
 any further than this, That it is the Eternal commu- 
 nication of the Nature and Image of the Father to ^ 
 Him 5 as an earthly Parent communicates lus own 
 Nature and Likcnefs to his Son. 
 
 The Holy Ghoji is of the Father and of the Son, not 
 made, nor created, for no Creature 5 not begotten, for 
 no Son ^ but proceeding, tyic^pAjojjS^-jov, the manner 
 of which we underftand no more, than the manner o^ 
 the Eternal Generation 5 but there is this plain diffe- 
 rence between being begotten and proceeding, that 
 though the Holy Spirit have the fame Nature with 
 the Father and the Son, yet he reprefentsth#Perfon, 
 of neither, as the Son does the Perfon of the Father, 
 as heing the hrightnefs of his Father s Glory, and the 
 exprefs Image of his Perfon : And therefore is (aid not 
 to be begotten, but to proceed. 
 
 But 
 
Holy and Ever Blejfed T (?^ 7 N / T I 17 
 
 But the difficulty of this is with reference to th^ 
 Difpute between the Greel{^ and Latin Church about 
 ttie Filioque^ or the Spirit^s proceeding from the Fa- 
 ther and from the Son : The rea(bn why the Latin 
 Church infifts on this, is to preferve the Unity and 
 Subordination of the Divine Perfons to each other : 
 The Son is united and fubordinate to the Father, as 
 begotten by him : The holy Ghoft is united and 
 fubordinate to Father and Son, as proceeding both 
 from the Father and from the Son , but if the Holy 
 Spirit proceeded only from the Father, not from the 
 Son, there would be no Union and Subordination be- 
 tween the Son and the Spirit 5 and yet the Spirit is 
 the Spirit of the Son, a« well as of the Father, and 
 that thefe Three Perfons be One God, it isneceilary, 
 there fhould be an Union of Perfons, as well as One 
 Nature : But then the Gree)^ Church confefles. That 
 the Spirit proceedeth from the Father by the Son, 
 though not from the Son 5 and by znd from are fuch 
 Niceties, when we confefs, we underftand not the 
 manner of this Proceffion of the Holy Spirit, as ought 
 to have made no Difpute, much lefs a Schifm be- 
 tween the two Churches : The Qreek^ Church ac- 
 knowledges , the Diftindion of Perfons, and their 
 Unity and Subordination 5 That there k One Father^ 
 not Three Fathers 3 One Son^ not Three Sons 5 One Holy 
 Ghoft , not Three Holy Ghojis 5 that the Unity in 
 Trinity^ and the Trinity in Unity ^ is to be worfhipped : 
 Which is all this Creed requires as neceflary to Sal- 
 vation : He therefore^ that will he faved^ muft thus 
 think, of the Trinity^ that is, muft acknowledge and 
 worlhip a Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity 5 
 which the Greek Church does, and therefore are not 
 excluded from Salvation in this Creed upon the 
 
 D nice 
 
1 8 A J^tndication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 nice Difpute of the Spirit's iprocQtdin^ from or bj the 
 Son. 
 
 That which feems to found harfheft in this Creed 
 is what follows: 
 
 Afjd in thk Trinity^ none is afore or after other ^ none 
 is greater or lefs than another. 
 
 But the whole Three Perfons are co' eternal^ and co- 
 equal. 
 
 And yet this we muft acknowledge to be true, 
 if we acknowledge all Three Perfons to be Eternal, 
 for in Eternity there can be no afore^ or after other 3 
 and that we cannot conceive an Eternal Generation 
 or Proceflion, is no great wonder, when we cannot 
 conceive an Eternal Being, without any beginning or 
 any caufe : As for greater or left, and the equality of 
 the Three Perfons, this we muft confefs alfo, if we 
 believe all Three Perfons to be one Supreme and So- 
 vereign God 5 for in one Supreme Deity, there can- 
 not be greater or lefs ; But then we muft diftinguifti 
 between Subordination and Equality : Perfons who 
 are equal may be fubordinate to each other ^ and 
 though there be not a greater or lefs, yet there is 
 Order in the Trinity : Equality is owing to Nature, 
 Subordination to Relation and Order,which isindeed 
 a greater and lefs in Relation and Order without an 
 inequality of Nature, and it is the Equality of Perfons 
 with refpeft to their Nature, not to their Order and 
 Subordination,of which the Creedfpeaks^ for in this 
 fenfe the Father i'igrcr.ter than the Son, and the Fa- 
 ther and the Son than the Holy Spirit, as being hrft 
 in Order, but their NatULC is the fame, and their Per- 
 fons with refpcd' to thi: fame Nature co-equa). 
 
 And 
 
my and E^cr ^lejfed T^lKlTt 19 
 
 And now I fee no reafon to make fuch exclarnati- 
 ons, as fome Men do, againft that damnatory Sen- 
 tence, That except every One do keep thk Faith ivhole 
 and Tin defiled^ without doubt he jlull perifi everlaji- 
 tngly^ and that he that will be faved mttji thus think^of 
 the Trinity :y which referrs to no more than the be- 
 lief of Three Perfons and One God, or a Trinity in 
 Unity, and Unity in Trinity 5 which I take to be the 
 true Chriftian Faith, and as neceflary to Salvation as 
 any part of the Chriftian Faith is : But of this more 
 anon. 
 
 Thus much for the Doftrine of the Trinity 5 as 
 for the Doftrine of the Incarnation, no Man can rea« 
 fonably except againft that Explication, which is gi- 
 ven of it in the Athanafian Creed, without rejefring 
 the Doftrine it felf, and then wx may as well part with 
 the Dodlrine of the Incarnation, as with the Atkana- 
 fan Creed. As to ftievv this particularly : 
 
 For the right Faith k^ that we believe and. coK'fifs^ 
 that our Lord Jefus Chriji the Sor^ of God^ is God and 
 Man : For otherwife the Son of God is not Incarnate^ 
 has not taken Humane Nature upon him. 
 
 God of the Subfiance of the Father begotten before 
 the Worlds : As he muft be, if he be God : Man of 
 the Subjiance of his Mother^ born in the World -^ for he 
 could not be true Man, if he did not partake of Hu- 
 mane Flefti and Blood. 
 
 Perfe& God and perfect Man 5 for otherwife he were 
 neither God, nor Man : Of a reafonable Soid^ and hu- 
 mane -Flejl) fubjifting : For a perfeft Man confiftsof 
 Soul and Body, and unlefs he have both he is not a 
 Man 5 inoppofition tothofe Hereticks, who thought 
 that the Divine Nature animated a Humane Body, 
 
 D 2 in- 
 
2 A Vindication of the DoSlrine of the 
 
 inftead of a Soul, but that Chrift hadaio Humane 
 reafonable Soul, though he had a Humane Body, and 
 therefore was no more a Man, than a Humane Body 
 without a Soul is a Man, but a God cloathed with 
 Flefti and Blood. 
 
 Eqfial to the Father as tonchirtg his Godhead ^ for 
 he is perfeft God, of the fame Subftance with the 
 Father , and wferiour to his Father a^ touching his 
 Manhood : For a Man is inferiour to God, and there- 
 fore inferiour to the Father, though united in one 
 Perfon to the Son. 
 
 Who although he be God and Man^ yet he is not Tvpa 
 hut One Chriji, 
 
 One^ not by the Converfion of the Godhead into Flejb^ 
 hut by takjng the Manhood into God^ 
 
 One altogether^ not by Confufion of Subjiance^ but by 
 Uuity of Ptrfon, 
 
 For m the reafonable Soul and Flejh is one Man 5 fo 
 God and Man is One Chrift, 
 
 All this is neceflary to the belief of the Incarnati- 
 on, that the fame Jefus Chrift is both God and Man , 
 for if he be but One Chrift, he muft be God and Man 
 in One Perfon 3 for two Perfons make two Chrifts 5 
 and if the fame One Chrift be both God and Man, 
 then the Divine and Humane Nature continue diftinfl: 
 without any mixture or confufion, he is perfeft God 
 and perfeft Man, in oppofition to the Herefies of Ne- 
 ftorius and Entyches 5 the firft of whom divided the 
 Perfons, the fccond confounded the Natures ^ the 
 firft made God and Man two diftind Perfons, and 
 tv/o Chrifts 5 the fecond fwallowed up the Humanity 
 in Godo 
 
 This 
 
Holy and Evtr mjfed TT^INlTl 1 1 
 
 This may ferve for a brief Vindication of the A- 
 thanafan Creed, that it teaches nothing, but what is 
 neceflary to the true belief of a Trinity in Unity, and 
 Unity in Trinity, and the Incarnation of the Son of 
 God J, and I thought fit to premife this, to let the 
 World fee , that all the fpight againft Athanafims 
 Creed, is not fo much intended again(t the Creed, as 
 againft the Doftrine of the Trinity and hicarnation, 
 which are fo fenced and guarded from all Heretical 
 Senfes and Expofitions in that Creed, that there is no 
 place left for tricks and evafions i And now 1 come 
 to confider the Brief Notes, and to expofe the Ve- 
 nonie and Blafphemy of them , which deferves a 
 {harper Confutation than this: And that this Author 
 may not complain of unfair ufage, I ftiall examine 
 them Paragraph by Paragraph. 
 
 S E e T. III. 
 
 Concerning the Necejjlty of the Fatholick^ Faith to Sal- Tht Creed, 
 vation^ and a brief Hiftory ^/Athanafius. 
 
 1 Hofoever will be faved ^ before all things^ 'tis Brief Notes, 
 necejftry^that he hold the CatkoUcl^Faith, 
 ^^ A good Life is of abfolute neceffity to Salvation 5 
 "but a right belief in thefe Points, that have been 
 " always controverted in the Churches of God, is in 
 no degree neceflary, much lefs necejfury before all 
 things. He that leads a profane and vicious Life, 
 '* fins againft a plain acknovviedged Rule, and the 
 plain and unqueftioned Word and letter of the Di- 
 vine Law, and the dictates of natural Coiifcience, 
 " he vpilfnlly repijes to advert to thefe Monitors, s^ad 
 " therefore can no way palliate or excufe his v»Mcked- 
 
 " nels : 
 
 
 
±t A Vindication of the VoSlrine of the 
 
 " nefs : But he that errs in a matter of Faith, after 
 '^ having ufed reafonable diligence to be rightly in- 
 '^ formed, is in no fault at all : His Error is pure Ig^ 
 ^' norance 5 not a culpable Ignorance ^ For how can 
 " it be culpable not to know that, of which a Man 
 "is ignorant, after a diligent and impartial en* 
 " quiry ? 
 
 Anjiver. This, I muft confefs^ is as artificial an Introdafti- 
 
 onto thefe "Notes, as could have been invented 5 for 
 it makes Faith a very ufelefi, and Herefie a very in- 
 nocent and harmlefs thing , and then Men need not 
 be much concerned what they believe, if they take 
 care to live well : The Creed affirms, That//j<^ Qatho- 
 lich^ Faith is before all things neceffary to Salvation 5 if 
 this be true, then how vertuoufly foever Men live, 
 they may be damned for Herefie 5 and this is a dan- 
 gerous Point, and will make Men too much afraid of 
 Herefie to trade in fuch Notes as thefe 5 and there- 
 fore this muft be confuted in the firft place,to take off 
 the dread and fear of Herefie : Now can we hope^ 
 that any thing fhould efcape the Cenfurcs of fuch a 
 Critick, who will not allow the Catholick Faith to 
 be neceflary to Salvation ? For if the Catholick Faith 
 is not necellary, no Faith is, and then we may be fa- 
 ved without Faiths and yet the Scripture tells u?, 
 that we are juftified and faved by Faith 5 and if nny 
 Faith favcs us, I fuppofe, it muft be the Carholick 
 Faith , and then whoever does not hold this fa- 
 ving Catholick^ Faith muft be damned. So that at 
 beft, he has placed this Note wrong 5 he fhould only 
 have oppofed the neceility of AthanafiHs^ Catholick^ 
 Faith \o Salvation, not of the Catholick Faith in ge- 
 neral 5 and yet this fecms not to be a miftakc, but 
 
 defign, 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T(^INITY. zj 
 
 defign, for his Arguments equally hold againfc all 
 Faith, as well as againft Athanafii^^ Creed, and will 
 ferve a Tnrk.^ a j^ea?, or a Paga//^ as well as a Here- 
 tick. For if what he fays is true : He that errs in 
 a ^Ineflion of Faith^ after having nfed reafonable dili^ 
 gence to he rightly informed^ is in no fault at all : How 
 comes an Atheifl, oran Infidel, a Turk, or a Jew to 
 be in any fault ^ and if they be good Moral Men, and 
 many of them are, or may be ^o^ why fhould they 
 be damned for their Atheifin or Infidelity, for their 
 not believing a God, or not believing in Chrift at all > 
 For are not thefe Queftions of Faith, v/hether there 
 be a God and a Providence, and whether Chrift be 
 that Mejfias^ who came from God ? Or does'our A.u- 
 thor think, that no Atheift or Infidel, no unbe- 
 lieving Jew, or Heathen, ever ufed reafonable diligence 
 to be rightly informed? Whatever he can fay againft 
 their reafonable diligence^ I doubt, v/ill be as eafily 
 faid againft the reafonable diligence of Socinians^ and 
 other Hereticks. 
 
 If you fiy, he confines this to fijch Points as have 
 always been controverted in the Churches of God^ I de- 
 fire to know a reafon, why he thus confines it ? For 
 does not his Reafon equally extend to the Chriftian 
 Faith it felf, as to thofe Points, which have been con- 
 troverted in Chriftian Churches? And why then 
 fhould not Infidels as well have the benefit of this 
 Principle, as Hereticks ? But I defire to know, what 
 Articles of our Faith have not been controverted by 
 fome Hereticks or other ? And whether then this does 
 not give fufficient fcope to Infidelity, to renounce all 
 the Articles of our Creed, which have been denied or 
 corrupted by fome profelled Chriltians ? 
 
 But 
 
2 4 A ymdication of the DoSlme of the 
 
 But what he would infinuate in this, that thefc 
 Points of the Athanafian Creed have always been 
 matter of Controverfie in the Chrillian Church, is 
 manifeftly falfe, as appears from all the Records of 
 the Church : The kntx-Nicene Fathers were of the 
 fame Faith, before the Definition of the Council of 
 TSice^ as the learned Dr. Bf^I/ has abundanly proved 5 
 this was always the Faith of the Chriftian Church 5 
 and thofe Hereticks, who taught otherwife, either 
 feparated themfelves from the Church, or were flung 
 out of it ^ and I hope the Diiputes of Hereticks a- 
 gainft the Catholick Faith, (hall not be called Con- 
 troverfies in the Churches of God. 
 
 And yet I defire to know, why that may not be 
 the Catholick Faith, and neceflary to Salvation, which 
 has always been matter of Controverfie ? Has the 
 Catholick Faith any fiich Priviledge as not to be con- 
 troverted ? Or is it a fulficient Proof that nothing is 
 a Point of the Catholick Faith, which has been difpu- 
 ted and controverted by fome or other in^U Ages of 
 the Church ? And if Men of perverfe Minds may 
 difpute the moft neceflary Articles of Faith, then if 
 any Faith be neceflary, it may be of dangerous con- 
 fequence, to err with our reafonabU diligence in (uch 
 neceflary and fundamental Points, as are and have 
 been difputed. 
 
 But before I difmifs this Point, it may be conveni- 
 ent to inftruft this Author ( if he can ufe any reafo- 
 nable diligence to underftand ) how neceflary it is to 
 Salvation, and that before all other things^ to hold the 
 true Catholick Faith, and that the Faith of the Atha- 
 nafmn Creed is that Catholick Faith, which is necef- 
 fary to Salvation. 
 
 I. As 
 
^ 
 
 Holy and Ever Slejfed T(11INITY. 25 
 
 I. As for thefirft of thefe, I would cTefire him to 
 confider, that though without HoHnefsno Man (hall 
 fee God, yet no Man is faved by his good Works, 
 but by Faith in Chrift : to fay, that we (hall be laved 
 by Holinefs and good Works without Faith inChriflr, 
 is to aflert the Merit of good Works ten thoufand 
 times more than ever Papifts themfelves did ; The 
 meritorious Works of Popery ferve only infteadrcf 
 Penance , to keep them out of Purgatory , or to 
 fhorten their time there 5 they ferve inftead of that 
 Temporal Punifhment, which abfolved and penitent 
 Sinners muft undergo for thofe fins, the Eternal Pu- 
 ni(hment of which is remitted, not for their own me- 
 ritorious Works, but for the merits and expiation of 
 Chrift 5 but he who expefts to be faved for his good 
 Works without Faith in Chrift, attributes fuch a me- 
 rit to good Works, as redeems him from the Wrath 
 of God, and the Eternal Puni(hments due to Sin, and 
 purchafes Eternal Rewards for him, which is fome- 
 what more than the Church of Ro;^e pretends to 3. 
 efpecially fince whatever merit they attribute to 
 good Works, they afcribe wholly to the Merits of 
 Chrift , whofe Merits alone have made •our good 
 Works meritorious, which is very honourable to our 
 Saviour, and very Orthodox Divinity, in comparifon 
 with thofe, who think good Works fuch meritorious 
 things, whatever their Faith be 5 and if he confiders 
 this twice, I fuppofe, he will confefs, that Faith in 
 Chrift, the true Catholick Faith, is neceffary to Sal- 
 vation. 
 
 2. Nay, it is necefiary before all other things to 
 our Salvation, becaufe it is neceflary to Baptifm, 
 which alone puts us into a ftate of Salvation: For he 
 that believes and is baptized ^ /hall be faved ^ but he 
 
 E that 
 
i6 A Vindxcatlon of the DoBrlne of the 
 
 that believe? not jhall he damned : All Chriftians muft 
 confefs, that there is no other Name given under 
 Heaven whereby Men can be faved, but only the 
 Name of Chrift ^ that Faith in Chriftin adult Perfons 
 is neceflary to Baptifm, that Baptifm alone incorpo- 
 rates us into the Body of Chrift, and puts us into a 
 ftate of Salvation 5 and therefore that neither Jews, 
 nor Turks, nor Heathens, none but 'believing and 
 baptized Chriftians are in a ftate of Salvation, how 
 morally Vertuous foever their Lives may be ; Who- 
 ever does not confefs this, makes nothing of the 
 Covenant of Grace in Jefus Chrift, nothing of his Sa- 
 crifice, Priefthood, and Interceflion 5 makes the Chri- 
 ftian Religion nothing but a new and more perfect 
 Seft of Philofophy, than either Jews or Heathens 
 taught before 5 whofe Condition yet is as fafe as the 
 Condition of Chriftians, if they live according to the 
 knowledge they have: Our Author then muft either 
 renounce the Chriftian Religion, or confefs the true 
 Catholick Faith, or a true Faith in Chrift, is before all 
 other things neceflary to Salvation, becauft this is that 
 which puts us into a ftate of Salvation by Chrift, 
 without which no Man can be faved according to 
 the terms of the Gofpel. 
 
 3. If Faith in Chrift be neceflary to Salvation, I fup- 
 pofe, all Men will grants, it muft be the true Faith in 
 Chrift, not a falfe and heretical Faith , for that is equi- 
 valent to Infidelity , there feems to be little difference 
 between not believing in Chrift at all, and not belie- 
 ving what we ought to believe of him, and the belief 
 of which is necejfiary to Salvation 5 for if we do not 
 believe that of Chrift, which is necefl&ry to Salvation, 
 we may as well believe nothing : And then to befure 
 it concerns us to hold the Catholick Faith, whatever 
 that be. ' 4. That 
 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T(^INITY. 27 
 
 4. That the Faith of the Holy Trinity is that true 
 Chriftian Faith, which is neceilary to Salvation, ap- 
 pears from the Form of Baptifm it felf 5 for we are 
 baptized m the Name of the Father^ and of the Son^ 
 and of the Holy Ghoji 5 that is, into the Faith and 
 Worrfiip of the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Tri- 
 nity, which is the fubftance of the Athartafian Creed : 
 This is the Baptifmal Faith, and that certainly is ne- 
 ceflary to Salvation, if any Faith be : Now when 
 we confider, that Baptifm is our folemn Dedication 
 to God, and Admiffion into Covenant with him, to 
 be dedicated to the Son, and Holy Ghoft, in the lame 
 manner, in the very fame aft , and fame form of 
 words, whereby we are dedicated to the Father, 
 were they not One Supreme and Sovereign God 
 with the Father, would make any confidering Man ^ 
 abhor the Chriftian Religion, as the moft open and 
 bare-faced Idolatry, as joyning Creatures with God 
 in the moft folemn Aft of Religion, that of dedicating 
 Men to his Worlhip and Service : But not to infift 
 on that now, our Author may hence learn, that to 
 believe in Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, is neceflary 
 to Salvation, becaufe it is the Faith of Baptifm 3 and 
 if that Expofition which the Athenafian Creed has 
 given of this Faith, be the true Catholick Doftrine, 
 then that is neceffary to Salvation 5 and therefore 
 the Creed begins very properly with aifferting the ne- 
 ceflity of holding the Catholick Faith, if we will be 
 faveds which muftbe as neceflary to Salvation, as it 
 is to be Chriftians. 
 
 Which Faith except a Man k^ep whole and undefikd^ 
 without doubt hejijal/ perifh everUflingly. 
 
 E 2 «By 
 
i8 A Vindication of the DoSirine of the 
 
 Notes* " By keeping this Faith ivhole a^d undefiled mnft 
 
 " be meant, ( if any thing be meant ) that a Man 
 " fhould believe and profeG it, without adding t& H^ 
 ^^ or takjngfrom it : If we take from it, we do not 
 "keep it whole, if we add ought to it, we do not 
 " keep it undefiled, and either way we (hall perifti 
 " everlaftingly. 
 
 Anfrver* A Man of ordinary Senfe and Candor would have 
 faid, that to keep this Faith whole and undefiled^ fig- 
 nified not to corrupt the Faith either by adding to it^ 
 or taking from it: For whatever we add, or vvhatever 
 we take away, which does not alter the Ellentials of 
 our Faith, the Faith remains whole and undefiled ftijl ; 
 But this would have fpoiled his notable Remarks both 
 as to adding and taking away. 
 
 Notes.. " Firft for adding : What if an honeft plain Man, 
 
 " becaufe he is a Chriftian and a Proteflant , fhould 
 " think it necellary to add this Article to the Atha- 
 '' najian Creed : / believe the Holy Scriptures of the 
 " Old and New Tejiament^ to be a Divine^ Infallible^ and 
 " compleat Rule^ both for Faith and Manners .<? I hope 
 " no Proteftant would think a Man damned for fuch 
 '^ addition : And if fo, then this Creed of Athanafius 
 " is at leaft an nnnecejfary Rule of Faith. 
 
 Anfwer. That is to fay, it is an addition to the Catholick 
 Faith, to own the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith : 
 As if it were an addition to the Laws of England to 
 own the Original Records of them in the Tower : 
 For the Catholick Faith is what we are to believe, the 
 Rule of Faith is that Book or Writing v^herein this 
 Catholick Faith is to be found, and upon the Autho- 
 rity 
 
Holy and Eyer mjfed T^IKlTY. ip 
 
 rky. of which we mufl beheve ic 5 and therefore 
 what the Catholick Faith is, and what is the Rule of 
 Faith, are two very diftinct Queftions, and to apply 
 what isfaidofthe Catholick Faith, to the Rule of 
 Faith, becomes the Wit and Underftanding ofan He- 
 retick : This is the very Argument, which the Pa- 
 pifts ufe againft our Authors Compleat and Infallible 
 Rule of Faith, the Scriptures 5 that they do not con- 
 tain all things neceflary to Salvation, becaufe they 
 do not prove the great Fundamental of the Protefrant 
 Faith, that the Canon of Scripture, which w^e receive 
 is the Word of God 5 now what Anlwer he would 
 give to Papifts, with reference to the fuflSciency of 
 Scripture, let him fuppofe, I give him the fame An- 
 fwer in Vindication of the Catholick Faith of the 
 AthcLnafian Creed, and we are right again. 
 
 But his parting blow is worth fome little obferva-" 
 tion, That if the Scriptures be a compleat Rule of 
 Faith, then this Creed ^/ Athanafius // at leajl' d?i mt- 
 neceffary 'Rule of Faith : But why did he not fay the 
 fame thing of the Apoftles Creed, or Nicene Creed, 
 or any other Creeds , as well as of the Athanafian 
 Creed ? for it feems a Creed, as a Creed ( for there 
 is no other fenfe to be made of it ) is a very umieief- 
 fary thing, if the Scripture be a compleat Rule of 
 Faith ; And thus both Catholicks and Hereticks, even 
 his dear Avians and 5/?a;;/^;/j-, -have troubled them- 
 felves and the World to ncpurpofe, in drawing up 
 Creeds and Confeffions of Faith. 
 
 But this Author ought to be fent to School to learn 
 the difference between a Creed, and a Rule of Faith : 
 A Rule of Faith is a divinely infpired Writing, which 
 contains all matters to be believed, and upon the 
 Authority of which we do believe 5 a Creed is a Sum- 
 mary 
 
3^ o A Vindication of the Vo^rine of the 
 
 rnary of Faith, or a CoUeftion of fuch Articles, as 
 we ought to believe, the Truth of which we muft 
 examine by fome other Rule : The fumm then of our 
 Author's Argument is this , That becaufe the Scri- 
 pture is the Rule of Faith, and contains all things 
 neceflary to be believed, therefore it is very unne- 
 cellary to colled out of the Scripture fuch Propofi- 
 tions, as are neceflary for all Chriftians explicitely 
 to believe : He might as well have proved from the 
 Scriptures, being a compleat Rule of Faith, that there- 
 fore there is no neceflity of Commentators, or Ser- 
 mons, cr Catechifms, as that there is no necefTity of 
 Creeds. 
 
 But as fenfelefs as this is, there is a very deep 
 fetch in it 5 for he would have no other Creed, but 
 that the Scripture is the Divine^ Infallible^ compleat 
 Rule of Faith ^ which mak§s all other Creeds unneceffa- 
 rji'^ and then he can make what he pleales of Scri- 
 pture, as all other Hereticks have done before him : 
 But let me ask this Author, whether to believe in 
 general, that the Scripture is the compleat Rule of 
 Faith, without an explicite belief of what is contain- 
 ed in Scripture, will carry a Man to Heaven? There 
 feems to me no great difference between this general 
 Faith in the Scriptures, without particularly know- 
 ing and believing what they teach, and believing as 
 the Church believes. 
 
 We fuppofe then, he will grant us the neceflity of 
 an explicite belief of all things contained in the Scri- 
 pture neceflary to Salvation 5 and ought not the 
 Church then to inftruft People, what thefe neceflary 
 Articles of Faith are, and what is the tyue fenfe of 
 Scripture about them? Efpecially when there are a 
 great many damnable Herefies taught in the Church 
 
 by 
 
Holy and E^er ^leffed T^I^INITY. j 
 
 by Men of perverfe Minds , who wreft the Scri- 
 ptures to their own deftrudion '-, and does not this 
 (hew theneceffity of Orthodox Creeds and Formula- 
 ries of Faith ? 
 
 And this puts me in mind of the great ufefulnefs 
 of aficient Creeds, though the Holy Scripture be the 
 only Divine and Infallible Rule of Faith, viz. That 
 they are a kind of fecondary Rule, as containing the 
 Traditionary Faith of the Church : It is no hard mat- 
 ter for witty Men to put very perverfe fenfes on Scri-^ 
 pture to favour their heretical Dodrines, and to de- 
 fend them with fuch Sophiftry as (hall eafily impofe 
 upon unlearned and unthinking Men 5 and the beft 
 way in this cafe is, to have recourfe to the ancient 
 Faith of the Chriftian Church, to learn from thence, 
 how thefe Articles were underftood and profeffed by 
 them : for we cannot but think, that thofe who con- 
 verfed with the Apoftles,and did not only receive the 
 Scriptures, but the fenfe and interpretation of them 
 from the Apoftles, or Apoftolical Men, underftood 
 the true Chriftian Faith much better than thofe at a 
 farther remove 5 and therefore as long as we can rea- 
 (bnably fuppofe this Tradition to be preferved in the 
 Church, their Authority is very Venerable 5 and this 
 gives fo great and venerable Authority to fome of 
 the firft General Councils ^ and therefore we find 
 TertuUian himfelf confuting the Hereticks of his 
 Days, by this argument from Prefcription, or the 
 conftant Tradition of all Apoftolical Churches, which 
 was certain and unqueftionable at that time 5 and as 
 much as Papifts pretend to Tradition, we appeal to 
 Tradition for the firft Three or Four Centuries 5 and 
 if theDoftrine of the Athanafim Creed have as good 
 a Tradition as this> as certainly it has, it is no unne- 
 
 cellary 
 
u 
 
 cc 
 
 CG 
 
 -J 2 J Vindication of the DoBrlne of the 
 
 ceflary Rule, though we do not make it a prima- 
 ry and uncontroulable Rule, as the Holy Scripture is ; 
 Where there are two different Senfes put on Scri- 
 pture, it is certainly the fafeft, to embrace that fenfe 
 (if the words will bear it) which ismoft agreeable 
 to the received Doftrine of the Primitive Church, 
 contained in the Writings of her Doftors, or Ancient 
 Creeds, or fuch Creeds, as are conformed to the Do- 
 ftrine of the Primitive Church. 
 
 Notes, " Then j^r taking ought from this Creed, the whole 
 
 GreeA. Church (difFufed through fo many Provinces) 
 rejefts as Heretical that Period of it. The Holy 
 ^^ Ghofl is of the Father arid of the S'-''-) contending 
 that the Holy Spirit is from the Fah^^ only^ which 
 alfo they clearly and demonltratively orove^as we 
 " fhall fee in its proper place. And for the m.enace 
 " here of Athanafius^ that they (hall perifh everla- 
 " ftingly 5 they laugh at it, and fay. He wm drunks 
 " when he made that Creed, Gennad, SchoL Arch- 
 " Bi{hop of Confiantin. 
 
 Ar?fwer. This addition of the Filioque^ or the Holy Ghoft 
 
 proceeding from the Father and from the Son, 
 which was difputed between the Greeks and Latin 
 Church, is no corruption of the Elientials of the 
 Chriftian Faith about the Doftrine of the Holy Tri- 
 nity, as I obferved before 5 nor does Athanafu^ de- 
 ny Salvation to thofe, who do not believe it : For 
 he that will be faved^ muji thus thinks of the Trinity^ 
 does not relate to every particular Word and Phrafe, 
 but to that Doftrine, which immediately proceeds 5 
 That the Trinity in Unity ^ and Unity in Trinity^ is 
 io he worfhiffed , which the Greekj acknowledged 
 
 as 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T(^miri 35 
 
 as well as the Lcitins^ and therefore agreed in the 
 Subftantials of Faith, neceflary to Salvation. 
 
 And that I have reafon for what I fay, appears from 
 this ; that after the Latins were perfwaded, that the 
 Holy Ghoft did proceed from the Son, they were far 
 enough from denying Salvation to thofe, who belie- 
 ved otherwiic: Pope Le(9 HI. affented to the defini- 
 tion of the Cauncil of Aamfgrme^ An. 809 con- 
 cerning the Proceffion of the Holy Ghoft from the 
 Son, and yet would by no means allow, thatit fliould 
 be added to the Creed ; nor would he deny Salvaci- 
 on to thofe who believed otherwife, but when that 
 Queftion was asked him, returned this AnTwer; That voSiii4 detn- 
 tvhofotver has fuhtilty enough to attain to the }\jjoiv^ ^^'-^ SymbeL 
 ledge of this^ or knowing it^ will not believe it, can- fJj^^^- ^ ^^P- 
 j^ot be favtd ; but there 'are many^ and this among '^ 
 the rejt , deep Mj/leries of the Holy Faith , which all 
 cannot reach to , fame by reafon of Age, others for 
 want of underfi an dingy and therefore as we [uid be- 
 fore^ he that can, and wont^ cannot be faved ' And 
 therefore at the fame time he commanded the Con- 
 fiantinopolitan Creed to be hung up at Rome in a 
 Silver Table without the addition of the Filioqm .- nor cap. .u 
 can any Man tell when this was added to the Creed ; ibid. 
 however we never read the Greeks were Anathema- 
 tized upon this account, till Pope Urban II. io97-cap48- 
 and in the Council of Florence under Eugenics \V.ibid\ 
 14^8-9. Jofeph the Patriarch of Confiantinople 
 thought this Controverfie between the two Churches 
 might be reconciled, and the Filioque added in a 
 fence very confiftent with the belief of the Greek 
 Church. 
 
 As for what he adds, that the Greek, Church con- 
 demned this addition a^ Heritical, I defire to know, 
 
 f what 
 
J A A J^tndicat'ton of the DoEinne of the 
 
 . what Greek Council did this, Foffias 2l very dili- 
 c^^p. 44. gent Oblerver, gives no account of it; the quar- 
 rel of the Greeks with the Latins was. That they 
 undertook without the Authority of a General Coun- 
 cil, to add to the Creed of a general Council, when 
 the Council of Ephefas and Chdcedon had Anathemati- 
 ZL^d thofe who did fo; and therefore for this reafbn 
 the Gret-yt/ Anathematized theL4/^/;^Church, without 
 declaring the Filioque to be Heritical, and as that 
 Learned Man obferves, this was the true caufe of the 
 Schifin, that the G^ef /('J thought, the Pope of Rome, 
 and a VVeftern Synod, took too much upon themfelves, 
 to add to the Creed of a General Council, by their 
 own Authority,without ccnfulting ih^Eaflerr^Chmchj 
 which was equally concerned in matters of Faith. 
 
 But the Comical part is fiill behind; for he 
 fays, The Greeks laNgh at AthanariusW/.;d^;^.?rt', and 
 fay he was drunk rvhsn he made the Creed \ and for 
 this he referrs us to Georgim Scholarius^ or Gennaditts^ 
 who was made Patriarch of Conftantinofle by Maho- 
 met, when he had taken that City. I confefs, I 
 have not read all that Gennadias has Writ, and know 
 not where to find this place, and he has not thought 
 fit to direfl us : Eut this 1 know, that whether Gen- 
 n^dius fays this himfelf, or only reports it as the 
 faying of fome foolifh Greeks ( for I cannot guefs 
 by our Author, which it is J whoever faid it, faid 
 more than is true, for Athanafuis neither made the 
 Creed, drunk nor fbber, for as moft Learned Men 
 agree, he never made it at all, though it bears bis 
 name ; but I wi(h I could fee this place x^Gennadi- 
 . tis, for I greatly fufpcQ: our Author ; Gennadtus be- 
 ing a very unlikely Man to fay any ill thing of A- 
 th.in.ifius^ upon account of the Folioqne^ who himfelf 
 
 took 
 
 • ♦ 
 
Holy and Ever mjjcd T(^1KI11 55 
 
 took the fide of the Latm Church in this difpute, 
 and, as Vofjlus relates, gives AthmAfms a very dif- 
 ferent, and more honourable Charafter 6 t^$ ^m- Di^tfU2.Q.u 
 
 Gao^ ycA^v^ ^ hjji^XoyrrrAi o fj^yctA 'A,^^vccai@^. The 
 
 great Athar^afms the Preacher and Confeflbr of 
 Truth. 
 
 But there is nothing foiites me more than to hear 
 this Aria?7^ or Socinun^ or whatever he is, affirm, 
 
 That th'd Greeks h^xve clixrly ansi demon fir at rjily 
 proved^ that ths Holy Spirit is from the father on- 
 ly ; For that which is proved ckarly and demonftra- 
 tively^ I hope is true, and then this alone is a con- 
 futation of his brief Notes, for the Gretkj taught, 
 and proved demonflratively^ as he fays, that the Ho- 
 ly Spirit (b proceeds from the Father only, as to be 
 of the fame Subftance, and One God with the Fa- 
 ther. 
 
 And the Catholick Faith is this. Creed. 
 
 *• Cathohck Faith is as much as to fay in plain Notes. 
 '^ E'figlifh^ the Faith oithe whole Churchy now in what 
 '^ Age was this, which here follows, the Faith of the 
 " whole Church. 
 
 The Catholick Faith, I grant, is To called with rela- Anfwer^ 
 tipn to the Catholick Church, whofe Faith it is, and 
 the Catholick Church is the Univerfal Church, or all 
 the true Churches in the World, which are all but 
 one whole Chflrch, united inChrifi: their Head : the* 
 Profeffion of the true Faith and Worfbip of Chrift 
 makes a true Church, and all true Churches are 
 the One Catholick Church , whether they be 
 fpread over all the World, or fhut up in any one 
 corner of it , as at the firft Preaching of the 
 
 F 2 Gofpel 
 
1 6 A Fmdication of the Dochine of the 
 
 Gofpel the Catholick Church was no where but in 
 Jud£a. Now as no Church is the Catholick Church 
 of Chrift, how farfoeverit hasfpread it felf over the 
 World, unlefs it profefs the true Faith of Chrift, no 
 more is any Faith the Catholick Faith, how univer- 
 fally foever it be profefled, unlefs it be the true Faith 
 of Chrift ; nor does the true Cliriftian Faith ceafe to 
 be Catholick, how few foever there be, who fincerely 
 pnpfefs it. It is down right Popery to judge of the 
 Catholick Church by its multitudes or large extent, 
 or to judge of the Catholick Faith by the vaft Num- 
 bers of its Profeffors : Were there but one true Church 
 in the World, that were the Catholick Church, be- 
 caufe it would be the whole Church of Chrift on 
 Earth^and were the true Chriftian Faith profefled but 
 in one fuch Church, it would be the Catholick Faith 
 ftill, for it is the Faith of the whole true Church of 
 Chrift,the fincere belief and profeflion of which makes 
 a Catholick Church, 
 
 Note, " ^^^ ^" ^^^ ^§^ ^^ Athanafiiis himfelf, who for 
 
 '* this Faith, and for Seditious Praftices was banifh- 
 *' ed from Alexandria in /E^ypt (where he was Bi- 
 *^ fliop) no left than four times ; whereof the firft 
 *' was by Qon(lmtine the Great. 
 
 Anfwtr ^^^^^^t (hall he done unto thee, thou lying Tongue ? 
 
 ^^ ' What Impudence is this, to think to Cham the World 
 at this time of day, with fuch ftories as thefe ? when 
 the Cafe of Athanafms is fb well known, or may be, 
 even to Engl/{h Readers, who will take the pains to 
 - read his Life, written with great exaftnefs and fide- 
 lity by the learned Dr. Caz^e. 
 
 But 
 
Holy and Ever mffed TRINITY. 37- 
 
 But when he thinks a fecond time of it, will he fay, 
 that the Church of God in Jthamfinis Age, was 
 not of the fame Faith with him ? What thinks he of 
 the Nicene Fathers , who condemned .Arms ? In 
 which Council Athamftus himfelf was prefent, and 
 bore a confiderable part, and fo provoked the Anah 
 Fadion by his Zeal for the Catholick Faith, and his 
 great skill and dexterity in managing that Caufe, 
 as laid the Foundation of all his future Troubles. 
 
 Will he fay^ that Confl/intine the Great, w^ho called 
 the Council at Nicq in the Caufe of Arms^ and was 
 fb zealous an Afferter of the Nicene Faith, banifhed 
 Athaniifxus for this Faith ? No , his greateft Ene- 
 mies durft not make his Faith any part of their Ac- 
 cufation , though it was the only Reafon of their Ma- 
 lice againft him ; but they charged him with a great 
 many other Crimes ; and that the Reader may the 
 better underftand by what Spirit thefe Men were a- 
 fted, which ftill appears in this Author, 1 (hall give 
 a fhort Account of the Story. 
 
 The Aria^ Faction headed by Eiiftblus of Nicome-^ 
 dta^ perceiving how impoffible it was to retrieve their 
 loft Caufe, while Athamfius was in Credit, and fb 
 great Authority in the Church, having ripened their 
 Defigns againfl him in their private Cabals, prevail 
 with Conftantine to call a Council at Cafarea in Pale- 
 fii?2€, at which ^/A^z/i^/z/^i did not appear, fufpefting, 
 probably, the partiality of his Judges, who were his 
 declared Enemies. This was reprefented at Court as 
 a contempt of the Imperial Orders, and another 
 Council was appointed at Tyre, which met Jm. j j 5. 
 with a peremptory Command for his appearance ; 
 where he firft excepted againft the competency of 
 
 his 
 
 '^.,- 
 
^8 ^ Vindication of the DoSlrine of the 
 
 his Judges, but that being over-ruled, he was forced 
 
 ) to plead. 
 
 And firfl: he was charged witS Oppretlion and Cru- 
 elty, particularly towards Jfchyras, QAlUnicus^ anJ 
 the M/A'//^/^ Bifhops : But this fell of it felf, for want 
 of proof. In the next place, he was accufed for ha- 
 ving ravillied a Woman, and one too who had vow- 
 ed Virginity: The Woman was brought into the 
 Council, and there owned the Faft ; but Timothus^ 
 one of Atbcinxfiuis Friends , perfbnates Jthanafu^^ 
 and asks the Woman, whether he had ever offered 
 fuch Violence to her ; (he fuppofing him to have been 
 Jtha?2afifis^ roundly declared him to be the Man, 
 who had done the Faft ; and thus this Cheat was dif- 
 covered. His next Accufation was, That he had 
 murdered Arfcnius^ a MiUtim Bifhop, whole Hand 
 he had cut off, and kept by him for fbme Magical Q- 
 fes ; and the Hand dried and faked was taken out of 
 a Box, and fhewn to the Council: And to make this 
 more credible, they had of a long time conveyed Ar^ 
 feniu^ away, and kept him out of fight : But he ha- 
 ving made his efcape about this time, and being ac- 
 cidentally met by fome Friends of AthnnAriifs, was 
 on a fudden brought into the Council, where he 
 (hewed both his Hands fafe, to the fhame and confu- 
 fion of the malicious Inventers of that Lye. This 
 failing, they accufehim of Impiety, and Profanation 
 of holy Things : That his Ordination was tumultua- 
 ry and irregular ; the contrary of which was evident- 
 ly true: That Munrim his Presbyter, by his com- 
 mand, had broke into //J^^r.^ A Chancel, while he was 
 performing the Holy Offices , and overturned the 
 Communion Table, broke in pieces the Sacramental 
 Chalice, and burnt the Holy Books; all which Jfchy- 
 ras 
 
Holy and Ever mjfd T^INlTt 3 9 
 
 rds was prcfent to atteft ; but the contrary in every 
 branch of the Accufation was made apparent, and 
 the whole Plot difcovered by a Writing under Ifchyras 
 his own Hand, (ufficiently attefted. 
 
 After all thefe (liameful baffles they would not give 
 over, but fent Commiflioners from the Synod to in- 
 quire into the matter of faQ upon the place, and ha- 
 ving raked together any thing, which they could 
 make look like Evidence, though gained by the moft 
 barbarous Cruelties, and other vile arts, they return 
 to the Council, who without more adocondemnand 
 depofe Athanafias from his Bifhoprick, and command 
 him to go no more ioAlexar^dria'-^ upon this he with- 
 drew himfelf and went to Court, prays the Empe- 
 ror for a more fair and impartial Tryai, who there- 
 upon fent to the Council, then adjourned to Jerufakm^ 
 to come to C^;?/?^;^//;^^^/^, and make good their charge; 
 Five Commiffioners appeared, who joyned with fbme 
 others, whom they could get together, formed a fmall 
 Synod, but not daring toinfift upontheir former accu-. 
 lations, ftart up a new Charge more like to take at 
 Court, ^iz. That he had Threatned to flop the Empe- 
 rors Fleet, that yearly Tranfported Corn from ^/ejf- 
 a^dria to Confia'/7tinopk ; which was as true and as 
 probable a Story as any of the refl:; but they toJd 
 this with fuch confidence, and urged the ill confe- 
 quences of it fo home upon the Emperor, that they 
 prevailed with him to banifh Athamfms to Triers in- 
 Germany. If this (hort ftory does not make our Au- 
 thor blufti, he is pofTelTcd with the true Spirit of the 
 Tyrian Fathers. But to proceed, 
 
 *^ He was alfb condemned in his own life time by ^ 
 ^' S\% Councils, as an Heretick, and Seditious Perfon; ^^^^' 
 
^.'O ^ Vindication of the Do&rine of the 
 
 ^' of thefe Councils, that at M/^^ confifted of Three 
 '' Hundred Bidiops, and thatof ^r/w/;?//7z?ofFive Hun- 
 '' dred and fifty, the greateft Convention of Bifhops,. 
 *' that ever was. This confent of the Churches of 
 '^ God againft him and his Do£trine, occafioned that 
 '^famous Proverb, Ath^nafms agx'mji all the Worlds 
 *' and all the World again [l Athanafius* 
 
 .Af^fwer. This is all Sham. I grant, Athanafius was con- 
 demned by (evcral Arian Conventicles (which he pro- 
 phanely calls the Churches of God) in his own life 
 time, but I deny, that he was condemned as a Here- 
 tick, or that he was condemned for his Faith. We 
 have feen the account of his condemnation by the 
 Council of Tyre already, and for what pretended 
 Crimes he was condemned, without the leaft menti- 
 on of his Herefie ; for if this Author underftood any 
 thing of the ftory of thofe times, he muft know, that 
 though the Arian caufe was vigoroufly and furioufly 
 promoted, yet it was done more covertly, fince that 
 fatal blow which was given it by the Council of Nice^ 
 whole Authority was too facred to be eafily born 
 down, and therefore they did not pretend to unfettle 
 the Nicene Faith, nay pretended to own it, though 
 they did not like the word Homo-ouftos^ and there- 
 fore formed various Creeds, as they pretended to the 
 lame fenfe without that litigious word : Which (hews 
 that it was not time of day for them to accufe Atha- 
 mfius of Herefie, but of fuch other Crimes, as 
 might condemn and depofe him , and remove hini 
 out of the way, that he might not hinder their 
 Defigns. 
 
 Thus in the Council at A^itioch^ in the Reign of 
 Conjlantinsy 541. the old Calumnies are revived a- 
 
 gainft 
 
Holy and Ever (Blejfed T (1^1 N I Tt 41 
 
 gainft Athanajius^ and he depoftd again, after he had 
 been reftored by Conflantitie the younger, and George 
 the Capfadocian^ a Man of mean Birth, bafe Educa- 
 tion, and worfe Temper (for they could find no bet- 
 ter Man, that would accept it ) was advanced to the 
 Patriarchal Chair 5 but all this while he was charged 
 with no Herefie in Faith : But that his return to A- 
 kxandria had occafioned great trouble and (brrow 
 there, and the efFufion of much Blood, that being ^ 
 condemned by a Synod, and not reftored again by 
 the Authority of a Synod, he re-aflumed his Chair 
 again, contrary to the Canons, d^c. 
 
 Upon this Athanafim fled to Rome^ where in a Sy- 
 nod of Weflern Bifhops, he was abfolved, and refto- 
 red to Communion, contrary to the earneft (blicita- 
 tions of the Council of Antioch. Anno 547, a Coun- 
 cil of Eajiern and Weftern Biftiops was called at Sar^ 
 dica 5 where the Eajiern Bifhops, ( who were moft 
 of them Arians^ or Favourers of that Party ) refufed 
 to joyn with them of the Wefi^ and afted in a feparate 
 Aflembly, and had brought with them Count Mnfo- 
 niAntis^ and Hefychius an Officer of the Imperial Pa- 
 lace, to countenance and promote their proceedings 5 
 and having befpattered Athmafius with all the ill 
 things they had formerly charged him with, and tri- 
 ed in vain to delay the Sentence of the Wejiern Bi- 
 ftiops, they proceeded Synodically to condemn and 
 depofc him, together with feveral other principal Bi- 
 ftiops of the Catholick Party ; of all which they pub- 
 liftiedan Encyclical ov Decretal Epiftle, wherein they 
 gave a large account of their whole proceeding. The 
 Wejiern Biftiops in the mean time, after a large and 
 particular Examination of Athanajius\ Cafe, and all 
 Matters of Fadt relating to him, acquitted and refto- 
 
 G red 
 
41 A Vindication of the DoHrine of the 
 
 red him 5 and having heard the Complaints made to 
 the Synod from all Parts concerning the Grievances 
 they lay under from the Arian Faftion 5 they parti- 
 cularly condemned and depofed the chief Heads of 
 that Party, and banifhed them from the Commu- 
 nion of the Faithful, publiftiing an account of what 
 they had done in feveral Synodical Letters : Thus far 
 it was pretty well with Athanafim^ for all the Churches 
 of God did not condemn him 5 if he were con- 
 demned by the fi^em- Biftiops in a Schifmatical Con- 
 venticle, he was abfolved by the Wejiern Council 3 if 
 he was condemned by the Arians^ he was abfolved by 
 the Catholicks 3 but (till his Faith was no matter of 
 the Difpute. 
 
 But now the Zeal of Conflantius reduced Athana- 
 fius to greater extremity 5 for he lying at Arks in 
 France^ Anno 353, a Synod was held there , where 
 all Arts were ufed to procure the condemnation of A- 
 thanajius , at leaft by refufing to hold Communion 
 with him 5 to which moft of the Bifliops yielded, and 
 Vincentim of Ca^ua himfelf, the Pope's chief Legate, 
 fubfcribed the Condemnation^ Vaulinus of Triers for 
 his honeft Courage and Conftancy in refufing it, be- 
 ing driven into Banifhment. 
 
 Not contented with this , as if poor Athanafius 
 could never be often enough condemned. Anno 355, 
 Conflantius going to Milan^ another Synod was cal- 
 led there, and the Catholick Bifhops were ftriftly re- 
 quired to fubfcribe the Condemnation oi Athanafius 3 
 and the Emperor himfelf being prefent in the Synod, 
 drew his Sword , and fiercely told them. That it 
 muft be fo, that he himfelf accufed Athanafius^ and 
 that his Teftimony ought to be believed : And for 
 refufing to comply , Eujehius Vercellenfis , Lucifer 
 
 Ca- 
 
Holy and Ever (Blejjed Tf^ IN 2 TY. 43 
 
 Carohtanpis^ and feveral others were fent into Banifti- 
 ment. This is the Council, which as our Author tells 
 us, confided of Three hundred Biftiops, but the Em- 
 peror was more than all the reft, and it was he, that 
 extorted the Condemnation of Athanajim 5 and let 
 him make his beft of this. 
 
 The hke Violence was u(ed in other Synods, as in 
 that of Syrmium^ Anno 557, where a Confeffion of 
 Faith was drawn up, which Hojius of Corduba was 
 forced to (libfcribe, and as fome fay, to condemn A- 
 thanafius. Anno 359, was his other great Council 
 at Ariminum^ of Five hundred and fifty Bi(hops,where 
 they were fo managed by the fub:iilty and importu- 
 nity of fome few Arian Biftiops, and fo wearied out 
 by Taurus the Prefeft, and that by the Command of 
 the Emperor, that they generally yielded, feveral of 
 them being even ftarved into compliance ; And this 
 is the time of which St.Jerom {peaks, that the whole 
 World wondered to fee it felf Arian : By fuch Coun- 
 cils, and by fuch Arts as thefe Athanajius was con- 
 demned, though he was never accufed nor condenm- 
 ed for his Faith , and that Veneration the whole Chri- 
 ftian World has had ever fince for the Name of Atha- 
 najius^ is a fufficient Vindication of his Perfon and 
 Faith, notwithftanding the ill ufage he met with un- 
 der an Arian Emperor. 
 
 As for his next Paragraph, wherein he appeals to 
 the late Arian Hiftorian , Chr. Smdim^ I (hall only 
 refer the Reader to Dr. Bulh Anfwer, and I think I 
 am more than even with him , and whoever will 
 read and confider what that learned Man has irrefra- 
 gably proved, that thofe Fathers, who lived before 
 the Council of JVi^e, were yet of the fame Faith with 
 the Nicene Fathers as to the Doftrine of the Holy 
 
 G 2 Trinity, 
 
44 ^ Vindication of the DoHrine of the 
 
 Trinity, will fee, that a very modeft Man may call 
 this the Catholick. Faith, even in his fenfe of the word 
 Catholkkj, as it fignifies the common Faith of Chri- 
 ftiansin all Ages, fince the Preaching of the Gofpel 
 in the World : And that it requires both Forehead and 
 Forgery to deny it. And if in that Age Athanafit^ 
 were the only Man who durft openly and boldly de- 
 fend the Catholick Faith, againft a prevailing Fafti- 
 on, fupported by a Court Intereft, and grown for- 
 midable by Lyes and Calumnies, and the moft barba- 
 rous Cruelties , it is for his immortal Honour, and 
 will always be thought fo by the Churches of Chrift. 
 
 And now I come to anfwer his terrible Objeftions 
 againft the feveral Articles of this Creed, which he has 
 endeavoured to ridicule 3 and when I have done (b, I 
 hope he will think it time to confider, what it is to 
 ridicule the Chriftian Faith : A modeft Man would 
 not affront the general Faith of Chriftians, at leaft of 
 that Church in which he lives 5 and a cautious Man, 
 whatever his private Opinion were, would not ri- 
 . dicule fo venerable a Myftery, left it Ihould prove 
 true 5 which is the fame Argument we ufe to make 
 Atheifts modeft, not to laugh at the Notion of a God, 
 left he ftiould find the God, whom he has fo impu- 
 dently affronted , when he comes into the other 
 World. 
 
 Sect. 
 
Holy and Ever^mjfei T^IKlTl. 45 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 l^he Catholick^ DoSrine of a. Trinity in Unity ^ andTJ- 
 nity in Trinity explained^ and vindicated from all 
 pretended Abfnrdities and Contradict ions. 
 
 THE Catholic\ Faith k thk^ that we wor/hip One Creed. 
 God in Trinity^ and Trinity in Unity. 
 
 " He means here, that we muft fo worfhip theiVi?/e/,. 
 " One true God, as to remember he is Three Per- 
 " fons 5 and fo worlhip the Three Perfons, as to bear 
 " in mind, they are but OneSubftance, or Godhead, 
 " or God : So the Author explains himfelf in the 
 " Three next Articles, which are thefe ; 
 
 ^either confounding the Per fons ^ nor dividing the 
 Sfihjiance : For there is One Perfon of the Father^ ano^ 
 ther of the Son^ another of the Holy Ghoji : But the 
 Godhead of the Father^ of the Son^ and of the Holy 
 Ghoji^ is all One, "Therefore all theft Articles 
 " make indeed but One Article, which is this : The 
 " One true God is Three diftinS Perfons^ and Three 
 " diftinft Perfons ( Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft ) are 
 " the One true God* 
 
 Thus far I agree with this Author 5 and indeed this is Anfaer. 
 the whole of the Creed,as far as relates to the Doftrine 
 of the Trinity, that there are Three Perfons and One God^ 
 all the reft being only a more particular explication 
 of this 5 and therefore I would defire the Reader to 
 obferve, for the underftanding this Creed, what be- 
 longs to the Perfons, and what to the One Eternal un- 
 divided Subftance or Godhead, which will anfwer all 
 
 the 
 
4.6 A Vindication of the DoB^rine of the 
 
 the feeming Contradiftions which are charged on this 
 Doftrine* But he proceeds : 
 
 Notes. ''■ Plainly as if a Man fhould fay, Peter ^ James ^ 
 
 ^^ and John , being Three Perfons, are One Man 5 
 "^ and One Man is thefe Three Perfons, Peter^ James^ 
 " and John. Is it not now a ridiculous Attempt, as 
 ^*^ well as a barbarous Indignity, to go about thus to 
 " rpake Afles of all Mankind, under a pretence of 
 ^^ teaching them a Creed, and Things Divine, to de- 
 " fpoil them of their Reafon, the Imaeje of God, and 
 " the Character of our Nature ? But let us in two 
 " words, examine the Parts of this n:K>nftrous Propo- 
 '^ fition, as 'tis laid down in the Creed it felf. 
 
 Neither confounding the Perfons^ nor dividing the 
 
 Suhjlance. 
 
 " But how can we not but confound the Perfons, 
 ^^ that have ( fay they ) but One numerical Subjiance 5 
 " and how can we but divide the Subftance, which 
 " we find in Three dijlin^i divided Perfons. 
 
 Anfwer. Our Author (hould have kept to Athanafius\ 
 Creed, which he undertook to expoft, and then we 
 had not heard of this Objeftion : For the Creed does 
 not fay, that thiere are Three Perfons in One numeric 
 cal Suh^lance^ but in One undivided Subftance 5 nor 
 does it fay, that there are Three divided Perfons in 
 this One undivided Subftance 5 but Three Perfons^ 
 which may be 7/jree, and yet not divided, but inti- 
 mately united to each other in One undivided Sub- 
 ftance : Now tho' weftiould grant it unconceivable, 
 how Three diftinft Perfons ftiould have One numeri- 
 cal 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T(^lKlTr. 47 
 
 cal Effence, that the Eflence of the Father, of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghoft fhould be numerically 
 the (ame, and yet their Perfons diftindt, for it 
 is not eafie to dillinguifh the Eflence or Subftance 
 from the Perfon, and therefore not eafie to tell, how 
 there (hould be but One Subftance and Three Perfons, 
 yet it is no Abfurdity or Contradiftion to fay, that 
 Three real fubftantial Perfons (hould fubfift in One 
 undivided Subftance, and then there is no neceffity 
 either to confound the Perfons^ or divide the Sub fiance. 
 We muft allow the Divine Perfons to be real fubftan- 
 tial Beings, if we allow each Perfon to be God, un- 
 lefs we will call any thing a God, which has no real 
 Being, as that has not, which has not a real Nature 
 and Eflence, whereas all Men grant there are no Ac- 
 cidents, or Qualities, or Modes in God, but a pure 
 and fimple Eflence, or pure Ad 5 arid therefore the 
 Three Divine Perfons are fubftantially diftind,though 
 in One undivided Subftance : Which (hews, that to 
 fay, That the One true God is Three diflinii Perfon f^ 
 and Three diJiinS Perfons are the One true God^ is not 
 plainly ^ as if a Man fh mid fay ^ That Petcv^ James- 
 and ]ohn^ being Three Perfons are One Man^ and One 
 Man is Three difiinS Perfons^ Peter, James, and John ; 
 Becaufe Peter^ James^ and John^ are not only diftind, 
 but divided and feparate Perfons, which have Three 
 divided and feparate Subftances, which therefore can- 
 not be One Man, as Three diftinft Perfons in One 
 undivided Subftance are One God. 
 
 This is fufficient to vindicate the Athanafian Creed, 
 which only aflerts Three diftinft Perfons in One un- 
 divided Subftance, which has nothing abfurd or con- 
 tradiftious in it ^ but becaufe this Author founds his 
 Objeftion uponO//e numerical Sttbftance^Xtx^y^^hn^'^i'^ 
 
 confider 
 
48 ^ Vindkatm of the DoSlr'me of the 
 
 confider that too 5 for the Divine Eflence or Sub- 
 ftance is certainly miimricaUy One^ as there is but One 
 God, and the difBcuhy is, how Three diftin6t fub- 
 ftantial Perfons can fubfift in One numerical ElFence : 
 I will not pretend, to fathom fuch a Myftery as this, 
 but only (hew, that there is nothing abfurdin it, and 
 take down the confidence of this vain Pretender to 
 Reafon and Demonftration. 
 
 Let us then enquire, what it is, that makes 
 any Subftance numerically One, that if there 
 be any Abfurdity in this, we may find our where it 
 lies. 
 
 Now in unorganized Matter it is nothing elle but 
 the union of Parts, which hang all together, that 
 makes fuch a Body One 3 whether it be fimple or 
 compounded of different kinds of Matter, that is 
 One numerical Body, whofe Parts hang all together. 
 In Organical Bodies, the Union of all Parts, which 
 conftitute fuch an organized Body, makes it One en- 
 tire numerical Body, though the Parts have very dif- 
 ferent Natures and Offices 5 but this is of no ufe to 
 explain the numerical Onenefs of the Divine Ef- 
 fence, becaufe the Divine Subftance has no Extenfion, 
 and ho Parts, and therefore cannot be One by an 
 Union of Parts. 
 
 In finite created Spirits, which have no Parts and 
 no Extenfion neither, that we know of, no more 
 than a Thought, or an Idea, or a PafTion, have Ex- 
 tenfion or Parts, their numerical Onenefs can be no- 
 thing elfe, but every Spirit's Unity with it felf, and 
 diftinft and feparate fubfiftence from all other created 
 Spirits. Now this Self-unity of the Spirit, which has 
 no Parts to be united, can be nothing elfe but Self- 
 confcioufnefs : That it is confcious to its own 
 
 Thoughts, 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^^INITY. 4^ 
 
 Thoughts, Reafonings, Paffions, which no other fi- 
 nite Spirit is confcious to bat it felf : This makes a fi- 
 nite Spirit numerically One, and feparates it from all 
 other Spirits, that every Spirit fte's only its own 
 Thoughts and Paffions 5 but is not confcious to the 
 Thoughts and Paffions of any other Spirit : And there- 
 fore if there were Three created Spirits lo united as 
 to be confcious to each others Thoughts and Paffions, 
 as they are to their own, I cannot fee any reafon, 
 why we might not fay , that Three fach Perfons 
 v/ere numerically One , for they are as much One 
 with each other, as every Spirit is Ont with it felf; 
 unlefs we can find fome other Unity for a Spirit than 
 Self confcioufnefs ; and, I think, this does help us to 
 underftand in fome meafure this great and venerable 
 Myftery of ^ Trinity in Unity, 
 
 For God being prefent every-where without Parts, 
 and without Excenfion, we muft ftrip our Minds of 
 all material Images and Figures, when we contem- 
 plate the Unity of the Divine Nature. Thou^^h we 
 fhould fuppofebut One Perfon in the God-head, as 
 well as One God, ( as this Author does ) yet we 
 muft confider his Unity, not as the Unity of an infi- 
 nite Body, but an infinite Mind, which has no diuind 
 Parts to be united ; and let any Man, who can give 
 me any other Notion of the numerical Onenefs of an 
 infinite Mind but Self-confcioufncfs, that though pre- 
 fent every-where, it is ftill intimate with it felt : and 
 in the very fame way, and for the very fame reafbn. 
 Three Divine Perfons, who are as intimate to each 
 other, and if I may fo fpeak, as mutually confcious 
 to each other, as any One Perfon can be to it (elf, are 
 truly and properly numerically One. 
 
 H This, 
 
gQ A yindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 This, I fuppofe, is what (evcral Ancient Fathers 
 caVed ^j^^^p/iois^ or Circuminceffion , which I 
 confefs is an ill word, and apt to raife very mate- 
 rial Imaginations in us, as if the Divine Perfbns 
 were united inOneSubftancc, as three Bodies would 
 be, could they touch in every Point ; whereas we 
 know not, what the Subftance of an infinite Mind is 
 nor how fuch Subftances as have no Parts or Excenfi- 
 on can touch each other, or be thus externally uni- 
 ted; but we know the Unity of a Mind or Spirit 
 reaches as far as its Self-confcioufnefs does, for that is 
 One Spirit, which knows and feels it felf, and its own 
 thoughts and motions, and if w^e mean this by Cir- 
 ciiminceflion, Three Perfons thus intimate to each 
 other are numerically One: And therefore St. Au^ 
 fim reprefents this much better by that Self-confci* 
 oufnefs which is between thofe diftin£b Faculties in us 
 of Memory, Underftanding, and Will, which know 
 and feel whatever is in each other: We remember 
 what we underfband and will, we underftand, what 
 jugj'b. contra wc remember and will, and what we will, we remem- 
 serrn. Arrian, \)tY s.nd underliaud ^ and therefore thefe Three Fa- 
 ^* '^' culties, which are thus intimate to each other, make 
 
 one Man, and if we can fuppofe Three Infinite Minds 
 and Perfons, thus confcious of whatever is in each o- 
 f/ ther, as they are of themfelves, they can be but One 
 numerical God, 
 
 But that this may not be thought a meer arbitrary 
 and groundleft conjefture, I fnall fliewyou, that this 
 is the true Scripture Notion of the Unity of the God- 
 head, or of Three Perfons and One God. 
 
 That the Three Divine Perfons, Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghoft, are Three Infinite Minds , really di- 
 ftincl from each other, that the Father is not the Son, 
 
 nor 
 
 4 
 
Holy and Ever mjjed T^^INITl 5 v 
 
 nor the Holy Ghoft either the Father, or the Son, is 
 fo very plain in 6'cripture , that I fhall not fpend 
 time to prove it, efpecially fince it is fuppofed in this 
 Controverfie -, for v^hen we enquire, how thefe 
 Three Infinite Minds or Perfons are One God, it fup- 
 pofes, that they are diftinft ; and if there were any 
 Difpute about it, Vv'hat I fliall fay in explaining their 
 Unity, will prove their Diitinftion, that they are 
 Tliree diftin£l infinite minds. 
 
 I. Let us then confider, what the Unity is be- 
 tv/een the Father and the Son : for lb our Saviour 
 tells us, I and the Father are One^ 10 John ^o. And 
 how they are One, we learn from feveral places ia 
 this Gofpel, which as the Ancients tell us, was wrote 
 on purpofe in oppofition to the Herefie of Cerinthus^ 
 to prove, that Chrift was not meer Man, but the 
 Eternal Son of God, and One with his Father; Now 
 1 John I. the Evangelift calls him the ao^©., orthe 
 Word of God, the Eternal Wifdom and Reafon of 
 God, and therefore as intimate to God as his own 
 Eternal Word and Wifdom ; as intimate as a Man^s 
 own Wifdom and Reafon is to him ; and therefore he 
 adds, that this Word which was in the beginning, 
 was TTtPs T (^elv with God^ as WQ tranflate it, which 
 cannot fignifie a local prefence, but an efTential uni- 
 on, or a being in God, as Chrift tells us, The Father^ 
 is in me^ and 1 in him^ 10 John 58. for before place 
 was made, or any thing to fill it, to be with God 
 could fignifie nothing elfe but to fubfift in him, and 
 therefore, ^. 18. the Apoftle expounds this being 
 with God^ by being in the hofome of the Father ; 
 which cannot fignifie an External Union, becaufe 
 God has no External Bofbm 5 but Bofom fignifies the 
 very EfTence of God, and if we could diftinguifh 
 
 H 2 Parts 
 
5 1 A Findication of the DoElrim of the 
 
 Parts in God, the mod: inward and fecret Recefles of 
 the Divine Nature : Now this intimate Union and 
 In-being, when we fpeak of an efTential Union of 
 , pure and infinite Minds is a mutual con(cioufne(s, and 
 if I may fo fpeak, an inward fenfation of each other, 
 to know and feel each other, as they know an;i feel 
 themfelves. 
 
 To reprelent this plainly and intelligibly, if it be 
 poflible, to the meaneft underftanding, I Ihall conQ- 
 der, wherein the moll perfefl: Union of created Spi- 
 rits confift, which are diftinCl and feparate Beings 
 from each other, wherein the Union of the Divine 
 Perfbns in the Ever Bleffed Trinity anfwer this, and 
 wherein it excels it. 
 
 Now created Spirits, as Angels and Humane Souls, 
 are then moft perfectly united to each other, when 
 they moft perfedly know one another, and know all, 
 that each other knows, and perfectly agree in all they 
 know, which is an Union in Knowledge: when they 
 perfeftly love one another, have the fame will, the 
 fame affeftions, the fame interefts and defigns ; when 
 they are a kind of Unifbns, which move and a£l: alike, 
 as if one Soul animated them both : This is that per- 
 fc£t Unity, which is fb frequently and earneftly re- 
 commended to Chriftians both by Chrift and his A- 
 poftles ; as we may fee every- where in Scripture. 
 
 And the very lame Union with this, there is be- 
 p tween the Perfons of the Ever Bleffed Trinity ; an 
 Union in knowledge, in love, in will, in works. 
 
 The Son perfeftly knows the Father, and therefore 
 knows all that the Father knows ; this St. John means 
 when he tells us, that he is in the Bofom of the Fa- 
 ther; I 'John 1 8. A^o man hath fee n God at any time : 
 that is, no Man ever had a perfeQ: knowledge of God, 
 
 which 
 
 «t 
 
Holy and E\^er mjfcd T^2 Nl TI. 5 j 
 
 which is here called yJe/;^^, becaufe fight gives us che 
 moft diftinfl and perfect knowledge of things : The 
 
 only begotten Son, which if tn the bofom of the Father ^ 
 he hAth declared him : Where it is plain, to be in the 
 bofom of the Father^ is put tofignifiethe moft perfedt 
 and intimate knowledge of him ; as in ordinary fpeech 
 to take any Man into our bofom, fignities to impart 
 all our Secrets to him : but our Saviour tells us this 
 in plain words, that the Father perfedlly knows the 
 Son, and the Son the Father, 10 John i y. As the Fa- 
 ther kno.veth me, fo know 1 the Father, Thus the Fa- 
 ther loveth the So/$^ 1 Joh. 2 5. 5 Joh. 20. And the Son 
 loveth the Father, 1 4 John j i . Thus the Son has no 
 will but his Fathers, 5 John 20. Icanofmyownfelf 
 do nothings as I hear^ I j^idge, And my judgment is 
 jujl ; becaufe I fttk not mine own will^ but the anil of 
 the Father^ which hath fent me, 6 John j8. For I 
 came not to do my own nnil^ hut the will of him that 
 fent me, 4 John 34. Aly m^.at is to do the will of. 
 him that fnt ?ne^ and to finifo his work : Thus what- 
 ever Chrift did or fpake, it was in conformity to his 
 Father, what he faw, and heard, and learnt of him. 
 5 John 19. The Son can do nothing ofhimjelfy but what 
 he feeth the Father do 5 for whatfoever things he doth^ 
 thefe alfo doth the Son likewife, 12 John 49. I have 
 not fpoken of my f If h^t the Father that Jent me, he 
 gave me a commandment, what I fiould fay^ and what 
 I fhouldfpeak. This is as perfect an Union, as Uni- 
 on fignifies agreement and concord, as can poffibly be 
 between two minds and fpirits. 
 
 The like may be faid of the Holy Ghoft : He per- 
 fe£lly knows the Father, and his moft fecret Counfels: 
 For the fpirit fearcheth all things^ yea^ the deep things 
 ofQod, iCor.2. 10. He is the Spirit of Wifdom and 
 
 Re- 
 
-^ 4 A Vindication of the DoHr'ine of the 
 
 Revelation, who infpired the Prophets and Apoftles, 
 to declare God and his will to the World, and there- 
 fore is moft intimately acquainted with it himfelf : 
 Thus our Saviour comforts his Apoftles, when he 
 was to leave them himfelf, with the Promife of the 
 Spirit, who fhall guide them into all truth. i6 Job. 
 1^1,14,15. Howbeit when be the [fir it of truth is 
 corne^ he (Jjall guide yon into all truth ; for he jfjall 
 not fpeak of himfelf^ hut whAtfoever he fiall hear, that 
 fhall he fptak^ and he will (hew you things to come. 
 He Jhall glorifie me, for he fhxll receive of ?nine, and 
 fhall fhew it unto you : All things that the Father hath 
 are mine^ therefore faid 1, that he fhall take of mine^ 
 and fhall fbew it unto you- Of which words more 
 hereafter; at prefent I only obferve, how intimately 
 the Holy Spirit is acquainted with all the Secrets both 
 of Father and Son, whatever things the Father knows, 
 that the Son knows, and what the Son knows, that the 
 Holy Spirit knows 5 that is, whatever the Father 
 knows, which is firft faid to be the Father's, then the 
 Son's, and then the Holy Spirit's, according to the 
 Order of Perfbns in the adorable Trinity. 
 
 Thus the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Love , which 
 infpires us with the love of God, and gives us the re- 
 ciprocal Teflimonies of God's love to us: For the 
 love of God is fljtd abroad in our hearts by the Holy 
 QhoH^ which is given unto us^ 5 Rom. 5. Arid as 
 feme of the Anaents reprelent it , he is that love, 
 wherewith the Father and the Son love each other ; 
 and therefore there is no queftion, but that he who 
 unites Father and Son, and unites God to us , and 
 us to God, by love, is united to Father and Son by 
 love himfelf 
 
 He 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed 7(^7 KlTj. 5 5- 
 
 He is that Holy Spirit, who renews and fanfli- 
 fies us, and fubdues our wills into a conformity and 
 fubje£tion to the will of God, and therefore no 
 doubt, but he has the fame will with Father and 
 Son. 
 
 Thus Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, are mofl In* 
 timately united in knowledge, will, and affeftion, 
 but after all, this is no more, than what we call a 
 Moral Union ; fuch as may be between created Spi- 
 rits, which remain feparate Beings ftill, and though 
 they are moraliy, are not effentially One; and there- 
 fore fuch an Union as t his cannot make Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghoft One God, but Three agreeing and 
 confenting Gods, zsPeter^ James^ 2ind Jo h^, though 
 they fhould in the moftperfed manner be united, in 
 the fame Faith, and mutual love and affection, drc. 
 yet would be Three Men ftill: And therefore I 
 muft now fbew, that what is meerly a Moral Uni- 
 on between Creatures, is an effential Union between 
 the Perfbns of the EverBleffed Trinity, 
 
 And this I have already (hewn in part. The Three 
 Divine Perfons of the Ever Blefled Trinity, are united 
 in knowledge, in will, in love, but are not united as 
 Creatures are by an external likenefs, conformity, a- 
 greement, confent, in knowledge, will, and affe- 
 Qion, but are fo united to each other, as every 
 Man is to himfelf, not as one Man is to ano- 
 ther. 
 
 As for inftance: Every Man by an inward fenfati- 
 on fecUs his own knowledge, will, and affeflions, but 
 he does not know any other Man's thoughts, or will, 
 or paffions, by feeling them in himfelf, as he does his 
 own, but by an external communication of thoughts ; 
 and therefore though they may be morally One by an 
 
 exad 
 
k6 a Vindication of the DoSinne of the 
 
 exaft agreement and harmony of thoughts and pafli- 
 ons, as far as by external communication they can 
 know what each others thoughts and pailions are, 
 yet they are effentially diltinft and feparate : But 
 Father, Son^ and Holy Ghoft, are One not by an 
 external agreement or confent, bat by an internal 
 confcioufnefs, as every Man is One with himfelf : If 
 I may fo fpeak, becaufe we want proper words to ex- 
 prefs it, they feel each other in themlelves, know the 
 fame thing by feeling each others knowledge, and will, 
 and love a-like, by feeling what each other wills and 
 loves, jaft as every Man feels his own thoughts, 
 knowledge, will, and padions ; that is, are as intimate 
 to each other, and as eflentially One, by a mu- 
 tual Self-confcioufnefs, as QVQry Man is One with 
 himfelf. 
 
 And the phrafes and expreffions of Scripture, where- 
 by the Unity or Onenft of Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghofl: are expreffed, require this fenfe. Thus I ob- 
 ferved before, that the Son is the eternal word and 
 wifdom of the Father, and therefore as intirateto 
 him, as every Mans Reafon is to himfelf, and knows 
 the Father, not by external Revelation, but as every 
 Man knows himfelf. 
 
 But the moft frequent expreflion, whereby Chrifl: 
 reprefents thisclofe and intimate and cffential Union 
 between his Father and him, is, / am in the Fnther^ 
 and the Father in ?ne ; which he repeats fevei:l rimes 
 in St. "Johns Golpel. Now if we will allow dus to 
 be a proper, not a metaphorical expreflion , ic can 
 fignifie no other Union, than uhat a have n'v.',v de- 
 fcribed : That it is a proper, and not a metaphorical 
 expreflion. appears from this, that there is no fi'ch 
 Union in Nature between any two other Beings, as 
 
 this 
 
Holy and Ever Slejfed T(limiTY. ■ 57 
 
 this, to be in O^e another^ and a Metaphor is trandated 
 from fomething, that is real and natural, upon ac^ 
 count of fortie likenefs and fimilitude, and therefore 
 that which is like to nothing elfe, which has no Pat- 
 tern and Example, can be no Metaphor, becaufe it al- 
 ludes to nothing : Now if we fpeak of a fubftantial 
 Union , or a Union of Subftances, what two Sub- 
 ftances can there be in the World, which can mutually 
 be in each other, or can mutually comprehend each 
 other, which is indeed a palpable contradiction, as 
 fignifying at the fame time to be greater and to be lefs 
 than each other , for in fubftantial Unions, that which 
 comprehends is greater than that which is compre- 
 hended, that which is within any thing elfe is lefs 
 than that which contains it 5 and therefore for two 
 Beings mutually to comprehend, and to be compre- 
 hended by each other, is to be greater and lefs than 
 each other, greater as they comprehend each other, 
 and lefs as they are comprehended. 
 
 So that this Onenefs between the Father and the 
 Son, is fuch an Union as there is nothing in Nature 
 like it, and we cannot long doubt, what kind of Uni- 
 on this is, if we confider, that there is but one pofG- 
 ble way to be thus united, and that is by this mutual 
 Confcioufnefs, which I have now defcribed. If the 
 Son be confcious in himfelf of all that the Father is, 
 as confcious to the knowledge, to the will, to the love 
 of the Father, as he is to his own, by an internal 
 fenfation, then the whole Father is in the Son 5 if the 
 Father be thus confcious to all that the Son is, then 
 the whole Son is in the Father 5 if the Holy Ghoft be 
 thus confcious to all that is in the Father and in the 
 Son, then the Father and the Son are in the Holy 
 Ghoft, and the Holy Ghoft in the Father and the 
 
 I Son, 
 
58 A J^indication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 Son, by this mutual Confcioufnefi to each other. 
 This is very plain and intelligible^ and makes them as 
 much One, as every Man is One with himfelf, by 
 Self-conrcioufnels. 
 
 And this is a plain demonftration, that all Three 
 Divine Perfons are coeffential and coequal with each 
 other : We know nothing of God, but that he is an 
 infinite Mind ^ that is, infinite Knowledge, Wifdom, 
 Power, Goodnefs ; And if theft Three Divine Per- 
 fons are all internally confcious of all thefe Perfefti- 
 ons, which are in each other, they muft all have the 
 fame Perfeftions, the iame Knowledge, Wifdom, Pow- 
 er, Goodnefs, that is the fame Nature, unlefs that 
 Knowledge, Wifdom, Goodnefs, vvhich we are inter- 
 nally confcious of, and feel within our felves, be not 
 the Perfections of our Nature 5 whereas we may ex- 
 ternally know thofe Perfeftions, which are not ours, 
 but what we feel in our felves is our own : and there- 
 fore this mutual Confcioufnefs, makes all that is the 
 Father's, the Son*s, and all that is the Son's, the Holy 
 Spirit's, as our Saviour fpeaks : A// things that the 
 Father hath are mine : therefore [aid /, that he ( the 
 Spirit ) yZ?^// take ofmine^ and Jkall JIkw it twto yoHy 
 \6 John 15. And if thefe Three Perfons be thus mu- 
 tually in each other , as you have already heard, 
 they muft be all equal : for if the Father be in the 
 Son, how can the Son be lefs than the Father, if he 
 comprehends the Father, and all his infinite Perfedi- 
 ons ? If Son and Holy Ghoft are in the Father, and 
 Father and Holy Ghoft in the Son, and Father and 
 Son in the Holy Ghoft, imagine what inequality you 
 can between them 3 if Son and Holy Ghoft are con- 
 fcious to all the infinite Perfeftions, which are in the 
 Father, and have all the Perfeftions, they are confci- 
 ous 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T^lNl TY. 5 9 
 
 oils to, how can Son and Holy Ghoft be Itfs perfed 
 than the Father, or than each other ; I am fare our 
 Saviour attributes all his Wifdom^and KnowledgCjand 
 Power to his intimate confcious Knowledge of his Fa- 
 ther, which he cd\\sfeeh;g him^ which is fuch a know- 
 ledge as Creatures cannot haveof Godj^i?^// 5. 19,20. 
 Venlj/y verily^ I fay unto yon^ the Son can do nothing 
 of himfelf^ but what he feet h the Father do ^^ for what- 
 foever things he doth^ thofe alfa doth the Son lil^er^ifc. 
 For the Father loveth the Son^ and fjeweth him all 
 things^ that himfelf doeth^ and he will fid ew him greater 
 vporkj than thefe^ that ye may marvel. By this per- 
 fect confcious knowledge, which the Son has of the 
 Father, he has all thofe Perfedions in himfelf, which 
 are in the Father, he can do whatever he fees the Fa- 
 ther do, and he fees whatever the Father does, but 
 can do nothing of himfelf, but what he feeth the Fa- 
 ther do ^ He has all the Perfeftions which are in the 
 Father, and therefore can do whatever he fees the Fa- 
 ther do ^ but there is no Knowledge, no Perfection, 
 no Power in the Son, which is not in the Father, and 
 which he does not receive from the Father^ and there- 
 fore he can do nothing of himfelf, but what he fees the 
 Father do 5 which (ignifies the moft perfect equality 
 between the Father and the Son, founded on the Son's 
 feeing the Father, and whatever he doth, or his inti- 
 mate Confeioufnefs of all that the Father is. And this 
 is the true Notion of the Son's being the Image of his 
 Father ; The hrightnefs of his Father s glory ^ and the 
 exprefs image of his perfon^ i Heb. 2. For as a dead 
 Image and Pifture reprefents the external Lineaments 
 and Features of the Perfon, whofe Pifture or Image 
 it is, that we can fee the Perfon in his Pifture^ fo a 
 living eflential Image, is the living eflential Perfefti- 
 
 I 2 ons 
 
Jl^miicatm of the T>oBrine of the 
 
 onsofthe Father, and with a confdous knowledge 
 fees the Father in hinifelf. 
 
 For this reafon the Son is faid to hearefhk Father^ 
 to fee what his Father doth^ and to do the [ame^ to re- 
 ceive commandrntnt from hk Father^ to do the will of 
 his Father^ and the works of hk Father^ to finijh the 
 worl{s^ which hk Father gave him to do^ to glorijie hk 
 Father^ &c. Which muft not be expounded after 
 the manner of Men, (^diSxhtSocinians expound fuch 
 expreffions, and thence conclude the great inferiority, 
 inequality, fubjeftion of the Son to the Father, fuch 
 as there is between a Prince, and the Minifters he 
 employs, and that therefore the Son cannot be the 
 Supreme God, for the Supreme Godcannt be com- 
 manded, taught, fent onMefTages to fulfil the Will 
 and Pleafureof another, and do nothing but what he 
 fees done, and receives Commiflion to do 3 I (ay, we 
 muft not put fuch a mean and fervile fenfe on thefc 
 cxpreffions ) but we muft expound them only to fig- 
 nifie that the Son receives all from the Father, Life, 
 Knowledge, Will, Power , by Eternal Generation, 
 and whatever he does, he does with a Confcioufnefs 
 of hisFather^s Will, andWifdom, as it were, feeling 
 the Will, and Wifdom, and Power of his Father in 
 himfelf 5 and this he calls hearing and feeing the 
 Works of the Father, receiving Commands, and do- 
 ing the Works of the Father, becaufe his Nature is 
 that to him, which external Teachings, and verbal 
 Commands are to Men : He hears, he fees, he does 
 the Works, and Will and Commands of his Father, 
 by being the perfeft, living, felf-confcious Image of 
 his Fathei's Will and Knowledge and infinite Per- 
 fections. 
 
 But 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^IKITZ 6\ 
 
 But there is one place more I muft take notice of, 
 by which the Socinians think to overthrow all that I 
 have nowfaid^ that the Union between the Father 
 and Son is not fuch an elTential Uhity, as we fpeak of, 
 but a meer moral Union, oraperfeft agreement and 
 confent in Knowledge, Will, and AfFeftion, fuch as is, 
 or ought to be among Chriftians , and that our ^a- 
 viour himfelf has thus expounded it, 17 "john 20, bi. 
 Neither prdy I for thefe alone ^ bnt for them alfo which 
 fljall believe on me thrcitgh their word : That they all 
 may he One^ as thou Father art in me^ and I in thee^ 
 that they alfo may he One in us : Which is the very 
 expreffion I have fo much infifted on, to prove this 
 eflential Union, and Self-confcioufnefs between the 
 Father and the Son, As thou Father art in me^ and I 
 in thee : Which, it feems, fignifies no other kind of 
 Union, than what our Saviour prays for among Chri- 
 ftians, That they alfo may be One^ as thou Father art 
 in me^ and I in thee : Now the Union of Chriftians is 
 only an Union in Faith and Love, and One Commu- 
 nion, and therefore thus the Father and the Son are 
 One alfo by a confent and agreement in Knowledge, 
 Will, and Love. 
 
 Now this I readily grant, as I obferved before, that 
 Father and Son are One by a moft perfeft agreement 
 in Knowledge, Will, and Love, which we call a Mo- 
 ral Union between Men 5 and it is this Unity or One- 
 nefs for which our Saviour prays, that his Difciples 
 may be O'dt^ as the Father and He are One 5 that they 
 may perfectly agree in the fame Faith and Love, that 
 they may fpeak the fame things, and mind the fame 
 things: But then thisperfeft Harmony and Confent 
 between the Father and the Son refults from an eflen- 
 tial Umty, from their being in one another, which is 
 
 fuch 
 
g X ^ f^indication of the t>oHrine of the 
 
 fuch an Union as it is impoffible there fhould be be- 
 tween Chriftians 5 but this Moral Union in the fame 
 Faith, and mutual Love, is called being One, as the 
 Father and Son are One, becaufe it is the neareft re- 
 femblance of this eflential Unity, that can be between 
 Creatures 5 and that is the only meaning of ^4/, That 
 they may he One^ As thou Father art in me^ and I in 
 Thee : Not that they may be One in the very fame 
 manner, but with fuch a kind of Unity, as doesmoft 
 nearly refemble the Unity between the Father and the 
 Son J that is, which produces the like Confent and 
 Harmony in Will and AfFeftions. 
 
 For we muft obferve, that As very often fignifies 
 only fome likenefs and refemblance, not a famenefs 
 for kind or degree 5 and thus it muftof neceflity fig- 
 nifie in all Comparifons between God and Creatures 5 
 for though there is fomething in Creatures like to 
 what isin God, fome faint Shadows and Images of it, 
 yet nothing in Creatures is the'fame, that is in God : 
 St. Veter exhorts Chriftians, As he which hath called 
 yoH is holy J fo be ye holy in all manner of Converfation^ 
 I Peter i. 15. And Chrift commands us to be per- 
 fe& ^ as our Father which is in Heaven is perfeSf^ 
 Matth. 5. 48. But can any Creature be holy and 
 perfeft as God is ? Will you hence conclude, that 
 Holinefs is not the immutable Nature of God, but 
 the free choice of his Will 5 not his Nature, which is 
 One pure fimple Ad, but an Habit of Vertue, becauft 
 fo it is in us 5 and yet we muft be holy and perfeft 
 as God is, which cannot be, (according to this way 
 of Reafoning ) unlefs holinefs in God be the fame ho- 
 linefs, which is in Creatures , and indeed we may as 
 •well conclude this, as that the Onenefs between the 
 Father and the Son is only a Moral Union in Will and 
 
 AfFe- 
 
Holy and Ever ^Jfed TRINITY. 65 
 
 AfFeftion, becaufe there can be no other Union be- 
 tween Chriftians , and yet Chrift prays, That they 
 may be One, as He and his Father are One : Since 
 this Phrafe, As thon Father art in me^ and I in thee^ 
 does evidently fignifie a great deal more, than fuch 
 a Moral Union of Will and AfFedions, why fhould 
 they not as well conclude, that Chriit prays for fuch 
 an eflential OneneiS between Chriftians, as there is 
 between him and his Father, as that the Father and the 
 Son are One in no higher and more perfeft fenfe, 
 than what is applicable to the Unity of Chriftians 
 with each other? There may be fach a likeneis and 
 refemblance between natural and moral Unions, be- 
 tween the Ads and Perfeftions of Nature, and the 
 Vertues of the Will and Choice, as may be a juft 
 foundatioafor a comparifon 5 but he is a very abfurd 
 Reafoner, who from fuch a comparifon will conclude, 
 they are the fame. We are required to love our 
 NeighboHr as our felves 5 but will any Man hence 
 conclude, that the love of our felves, and the love 
 of our Neighbour, are of the fame kind? Which is 
 manifeftly falfe : Self love being a natural and necei^ 
 firyPaffion, the love of our Neighbour a Chriftian 
 Vertue^ the firft the efFedof Nature, thefecond of 
 Grace 5 but the efFeds fo hkeeach other, that they 
 may well be compared, and the natural principle, 
 which ads moft equally and neceflarily and perfedly, 
 may be made the Rule and Meafure of Brotherly 
 Love : Thus this effential Unity between the Father 
 and the Son, produces themoft perfed Harmony and 
 Union of Will and Aftedions, and therefore is the 
 moft perfed Pattern of that Moral Union, which 
 ought to be among Chriftians. 
 
 For 
 
 iW'tT'lii 
 
($4 ^ Vindication of the DoEtrtne of the 
 
 For we may obferve, that this Onenefs between 
 the Father and the Son, is not the only natural and ef- 
 fential Unity, which is made the Pattern of Unity a- 
 ^ mong Chi irtians : the Unity of the natural Body, and 
 the vital fympathy and fellow-feeling, which all the 
 Members of the fame natural Body have for each o- 
 ther, is propofed as a Pattern alfo of that mutual Love 
 and AfFeftion between Chriftians, i Cor. 12. 12. — 27. 
 And yet no Man will be fo abfurd as to fay : That 
 either Chriftians are as naturally and vitally united 
 to each other, as the Members of a natural Body 
 are-, or that the Members of the natural Body are 
 united only by mutual Love and AfTeftion, as Chrifti- 
 ans are. 
 
 This is fufEcient to (hew, how Father and Son are 
 One, by a mutual Confcioufnefs, whereby they are 
 as intimate to each other, as every Man is to himfelf, 
 who knows all that is in himfelf, and feels all the mo- 
 tions and workings of his own Mind 5 and we need 
 not doubt, but the Holy Spirit is in the fame manner 
 One with Father and Son : But I muft notexped, 
 that the Adverfaries I have to deal with, will grant 
 any thing , which is not proved , and therefore I 
 {hall not ftand to their Courtefie, but briefly prove 
 this alfo. 
 
 St. Paul tells us, I Cor. 2. 10. That the Spirit 
 fearcheth all things , yea the deep things of God : So 
 that the Holy Spirit knows all that is in God, even 
 his moft deep and fecret Counfels, which is an ar^u- 
 raent, that he is very intimate with him 3 but this is 
 not all, it is the manner of knowing, whichj muft 
 prove this Conicioufnefs, of which I fpeak^ and that 
 the Apoftle addsin the next Verfe, that the Spirit of 
 God knows all that is in God, juft as the Spirit of a 
 
 Man 
 
Holy and Ever (Blejfed T(^miTY. ^ 65 
 
 Man knows all that is in Man ; that is, not by exter- 
 nal revelation or communication of this knowledge, 
 but by Self-confcioufnefs, by an internal Senfation, 
 which is owing to an^flential Unity; 'i/. 11, For 
 ivhat man knorveth the things of a. man^ fave the fpirit 
 of a mxn which" is in him ; even fo the things of God 
 kno'VPth no m^.n^ but the Spirit of God. So that the 
 Spirit of God is as much within God, and as intimate 
 to him, as the Spirit af Man is in Man; that is, by 
 an eflential Onenefs, and Self confcioafnefs. And as 
 the Spirit knoweth the deep things of God, fo God 
 who fear cheth the hearts, l{noweth the mind of the f pi- 
 rit too, 8 Rom. 27. So that the Father and the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft are mutually confcious to each other, as a 
 Man and his own Spirit are ; and then we need not 
 doubt but the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of the 
 Son, as well as of the Father, is as intimate to the 
 Son al(b : and therefore Chrift tells us of the Spirit: 
 He (hallglorifie me, for he Jha/l receive of mine, and 
 jhall fhew it unto yoti^ all things that the Father hatb 
 are mine, therefore faid /, he Jhall take oj ?nine^ and 
 fhall fhew it unto you, 16 John 14. 15. So that the 
 Holy Spirit receives the things of Chrift; But how 
 does he receive them ? Juft as Chrift receives them 
 of the Father: the fame things and the fame way; 
 not by an external communication, but by an elTen- 
 tial Onenefs and Confcioufnels of all that is in the Fa^ 
 therandinthe Son. 
 
 This feems to me to be the true Scripture-account 
 of the numerical Unity of the Divine Effence, and to 
 make a Trinity in Unity as intelligible as the Notion 
 of One God is; but becaufe all that I have to lay, 
 turns upon this, I fhall more particular explain this 
 Notion : i. By fbewing that this contains the true 
 
 K Ortho- 
 
S^ A Vindication of the T>oBrine of the 
 
 Orthodox Faith of the Holy Trinity. 2. That it 
 gives a plain and intelligible Solution of all the Diffi- 
 culties and feeming Contradidions in the Doftrine of 
 the Trinity. ^ 
 
 • 
 
 I. This contains the true Orthodox Faith of the 
 Holy Trinity, or a Trinity in Unity ; for fb the J- 
 thanafian Creed teaches us, To wor(ljip One God, in 
 Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the 
 Terfons, nor dividing the Snbflance^ for there is One 
 Perfon of the father^ another of the Son^ another of 
 the Holy Ghoft^ but the Godhead of the Father^ and of 
 the Son^ and of the Holy Ghofi ts all Ont^ the Glory e- 
 fif//.i/, the Majejly CO- eternal. 
 
 There are two things then, which an Orthodox 
 Chriftian mufl take care of, neither to confound the 
 Perfons, nor to divide the Subftance ; that is, to ac- 
 knowledge Three diftinO: Perfons, and yet but One 
 God ; and nothing can be more apparent than both 
 thefe, in that account which I have given of the E- 
 ver Bleffed Trinity. 
 
 I . It is plain the Perfons are perfeftly diftinft, for 
 thev are Three diftind and infinite Minds, and there- 
 fore Three diflinO: Perfons ; for a Perfon is an intel- 
 ligent Being, and to fay, they are Three Divine Per- 
 fons, and not Three diflinCi: infinite Minds, is both 
 Hercfie and Nonfenfe : The Scripture, I'm fiire, re- 
 prefents Father, Son and Holy Ghoft, as Three intel- 
 ligent Beings, not as Three Powers or Faculties of 
 the Fdme Being, which is down-right Sabellianifrn\ 
 for Faculties are not Perfons, no more than Memory, 
 Will, and Underftanding, are Three Perfons in One 
 Man : When we prove the Holy Ghoft to be a Per- 
 fon, againft the Socimans^ who make him only a Di- 
 vine 
 
Holy and Ever mjjed T(^JNIT}: 6/ 
 
 vine Povver, we prove that all the Properties of a 
 Perlbn belong to him, fuch as Underftanding, Will, 
 Affeftions, and A£tions ; which fhews what our 
 Norion.of a Perfon is, fuch a Being as has Underftan- 
 ding, and Will, and Power of Adtion, and it would 
 be verv ftrange, that we fhould own Three Perfons, 
 each of which Perfbns is truly and properly God, 
 and not own Three infinite Minds; as if any thing 
 could be a God, but an infinite Mind. 
 
 And the diftinclion between thefe Three Infinite 
 Minds is plain according to this Notion; for they 
 are diftinguithed, juft as Three finite, and created 
 Minds are, by Self confcioufiiefs : They are united 
 indeed into One ( as I have already difcourfed ) by 
 a mutual Confcioufnefs to each other, which no crea- 
 ted Spirits have, which are confcious only to the 
 aflings of their own Minds, not to each others, and 
 therefore thefe Three Divine Perfbns are not feparate 
 Minds, as created Spirits ^ are, but only diftinct: 
 each Divine Perfon has a Self-confcioufhefs of its 
 own, and knows and feels it felf (if I may fb fpeak) 
 as diftinCt from the other Divine Perfbns ; the Father 
 hasa Self-confcioufnefs of his own, U'hereby he knows 
 and feels himfelf to be the Father, and not the Son, 
 nor the Holy Ghoft ; and tlie Son in like manner 
 feels himfelf to be the Son, and not the Father, nor 
 the Holy Ghoft; and the Holy Ghoft feels himfelf to 
 be the Holy Ghoft, and not the Father, nor the Son ; 
 as Jar/2es feels himfelf to be James and not Peter, nor 
 Job;^ ; which proves them to be diftin£t Perfbns : 
 Which is a very plain account, how thefe Three Di- 
 vine Perfons are diftinfl, that there is One F,xther, 
 not Three Fathers, One Son^ not Ihree Sons: One Holy 
 Ghofl^ not Three Holy Ghojis. Here is no confounding 
 ofPerfotis. K 2 2. Nor 
 
68 A Vindication of the DoSirine of the 
 
 2. Nor do we divide the Subftance, but unite 
 - thcfe Three Perfons, in One numerical EfTence .- for 
 we know nothing of the unity of the Mind but felf- 
 confcioufnefs, as I fhewed before ; and therefore as 
 the felf-conlcioufnefs of every Perfon to it felf makes 
 them diflinft Perfons, fb the mutual confcioufnefs of 
 all Three Divine Perfons to each other makes them 
 all but One infinite God: as far as confcioufnefs 
 reaches, fb far the unity of a Spirit extends, for we 
 know no other unity of a Mind or Spirit, but con- 
 fcioufnefs: In a created Spirit this confcioufnefs ex- 
 tends only to it felf, and therefore felf-confcioufnefs 
 makes it One with it felf, and divides and feparates it 
 from all other Spirits ; but could this confcioufnefs 
 extend to other Spirits, as it docs to it felf, all thefe 
 Spirits, which were mutually confcious to each o- 
 ther, as they are to themfelves, though they were 
 diftinft Perfons, would be effentially One : And this 
 is that effential unity, which is between Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghofi:, who are effentially united by a mu- 
 tual confcioufnefs to whatever is in each other, and 
 do by an internal fenfation (I want other words to 
 cxprefs it by) feel each other, as they dothemfelves 5 
 and therefore are as effentially One, as a Mind and Spi- 
 rit is One with it felf, 
 
 2. This is a very plain and intelligble account of 
 this great and venerable Myftery, as plain and intel- 
 ligible as the Notion of One God, or of One Perfon in 
 the Godhead, 
 
 The great difficulty of conceiving a Trinity of 
 Perfons in One infinite and undivided Efi'ence or Sub- 
 ftance arifes from thofe grofs and material Idea's we 
 have of Effence and Subftance, when we fpeak of 
 the Effcnce or Subflancc of God, or created Spirits : 
 
 We 
 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed TRINITY. 6^ 
 
 We can frame no Idea of Subftance, but what we 
 have from Matter ; that it is fomething extended in 
 a tripple dimenfion :> in length, and breath, and 
 depth, which is the lubjeO: of thofe Qualities, which 
 inhere and fubfifl: in it : And therefore as Matter is 
 the f'jbjeft of all fenfible Qualities, fb we conceive 
 fome fuch Subftance of a Mind and Spirit, which is 
 the fubjefl: of Will and Underftanding, of Thoughts 
 and Paffions : And then we find itimpoffible to con- 
 ceive, how there fhould be Three Divine Perfbns, 
 which are all infinite, without Three diftinft infinite 
 Subftances, each diftinfb infinite Perfbn having a di- 
 ftindt infinite Subftance of his own ; and if we grant 
 this, it feems a plain contradiftion to fay, That thefe 
 Three diftind infinite Subftances, are but One nume- 
 rical infinite Subftance ; which is to fay, that Three 
 Infinites are but One Infinite^ and that Three Perfbns 
 are but One Perfbn ; for a Perfbn and an intelligent 
 Subftance are reciprocal Terms, and therefore Three 
 diftinCt Perfbns are Three diftinft numerical Subftan- 
 ces, and One numerical intelligent Subftance is but 
 One numerical Perfbn, 
 
 But this is all carnal Reafon in a ftrid and proper 
 fenfe, which conceives of an infinite Mind after the 
 manner' of a Body, and diftinguiflies between the 
 Matter or Subftance, and the Powers and Vertues 
 of the Divine Eflence, as it does between Matter an#^ 
 Qualities and Accidents in Bodies. We know nothr .^ 
 of the Divine Efience, but that God is an iii^ j | 
 Mind ; and if we feek for any other Effencs "q^ gnK. 
 ftance in God, but an infinite Mind , that » ^ infini'-e 
 Wifdom, Power, and Goodnefs, ^he E^^^^^J^ ^ q^ j 
 though confidered but as One ^^^^r^^" ^i pg^fon is as 
 perfeaiy unintelligible to us, as t^ ,e' One num'erical 
 
 EfTence 
 
 / 
 
 ?v . 
 
70 A Vindication of the DoElrine of the 
 
 Effence or Subftance of Three Divine Perfbns in the 
 Ever Bleffed Trinity. 
 
 It is this grofs and material imagination about the 
 Effence or Subftance of the Deity, wh'xh occafioj3s 
 all the Difficulties about the Notion of One God, as 
 well as of a Trinity in Unity : For we cannot ima- 
 gine how any Subftance fhould be without a begin- 
 ning ; how it ftiould be prefent in all places without 
 Parts, and without Extenfion ; how Subftance, Ef- 
 fence, Exiftence, and all Divine Attributes and Pow- 
 ers, which are diftinft things in created Spirits, (hould 
 be all the fame, one fimple A£l in God, and yet Rea- 
 fbn tells us we muft allow of no Compofition, no 
 Qualities or Accidents in the Divine Nature, for a com- 
 pounded Being muft have Parts, and muft be made, 
 for that which has Parts muft have fbme Maker to 
 join the Parts together, and to endow it with fuch 
 Qualities and Powers. 
 
 But now if we confider God as Wifdom and Truth, 
 which is his true Nature and Effence, without con- 
 founding our Minds with fbme material conceptions 
 of his Subftance, thefe things are plain and eafie: 
 For it is demonftrable, that Truth is eternal, had no 
 beginning, no Maker ; for when we ipeak of original 
 and effential Truth and Wifdom, what was no't always 
 Truth and Wifdom, could never begin to be jR): And 
 if Truth be the only real thing, and neceffarily eter- 
 nal, there is an eternal Mind, which is nothing; elfe 
 but eternal Truth ; for he, who can imagine, Truth 
 and Wifdom to be eternal, without an eternal Mind, 
 ought not to pretend to either, unlefs he can tell us, 
 how Troth can fubfift without a Mind. Thus it fs 
 demonftrable, that Truth and Wifdom has no Parts 
 no Extenfion, no more than Thought has j Truth 
 
 and 
 
Holy aiid Ever mjfd T(^INlTl 7 1 
 
 and Wifciom is confined to no place, fills no (pace, 
 but is every-where the fame without Extenfion and 
 Parts, and therefore has a neceffary and effential 
 Omnipre fence r There is a faint refeoiblance of this 
 in finite and created Spirits ; even humane Wifdom 
 and Reafon, Thoughts, and Paffions, have no Exten- 
 fion nor Parts, vi^hich is a good argument that a cre- 
 ated Spirit has no Extenfion and Parts neither, for 
 nothing which has Extenfion nor Parts can be the 
 fubjeQ: of that which has none : All the Qualities of 
 Bodies are extended as Bodies are; for the Proper- 
 ties and Qualities of all Things mufl: conform to the 
 Nature of the Subjeftin which they are ; and there- 
 fore Faculties, Powers, and Operation-s. which have 
 no Extenfion or Parts, as the Will, the Underftand- 
 ing, the Memory, the Thoughts and Paffions have 
 none, muft be fcated, in a Subject which has no Parts 
 nor Extenfion neither. Thus Thought is confined to n 
 no place, but in a Minute furrounds the Earth, and I 
 afcends above the Heavens, and vifits all the empty 
 Capacities of infinite (pace ; which is an imperfe£b 
 imitation of the Omniprefence of an Infinite Mind. 
 
 Thus what can be a more pure and fimple A£l 
 than Wifdom and Truth? Now though we conceive 
 the Divine Attributes and Perfedions under different- 
 Notions and Charaders, fuch as Wifdom, Love, Ju- 
 ftice, Goodnefs, Power, they are indeed nothing elfe 
 but Infinite Truth and Wifdom, which receives feve- 
 ral Characters and Denominations from its different 
 effefts ; as the fame Sea or River does different Names 
 from the Countries by which it paffes : For what is 
 intelleftual Love, but the perfedt Idea's of Truth, or 
 the true knowledge and eftimation of Things? What 
 is Juftice and Goodoefs, but an equal diftribution of 
 
 Things, 
 
7 z A Fi7idicatm of the DoBr'me of the 
 
 Things, or a true and wife proportion of Rewards 
 and Punifhmenrs ? What is perfed Power, but per- 
 feft Truth and Wifdora, which can do, whatever it 
 knows ^ This laft will not be fo eafily underftood, 
 becaufe in Men we find Knowledge and Power to be 
 very different things, that Men may know a great 
 deal, which they cannot do ; And yet if we confider 
 this matter over again, we fhall find it a miftake : 
 For even among Men it is only Knowledge that is 
 Power. Humane Power, and humane Knowledge, 
 as that fignifies a Knowledge how to do any thing, 
 are commenfurate ; whatever humane Skill extends 
 to, humane Power can effeO: ; nay, every Man can 
 do, what he knows how to do, if he have proper In- 
 ftruments and Materials to do it with ; but what no 
 humane Power can do, no humane Knowledge knows 
 how to do ; We know not what the Subftance or EtV 
 fence of any thing is, nor can we make any Subfl-ance ; 
 we cannot create any thing of nothing, nor do we 
 know, how it is to be done ; which fhews, that 
 Knowledge and Power in Creatures are equal, and 
 that proves a very near relation between them, efpe- 
 eially when we add^ that Knowledge is not only the 
 Director of Power, but is that very Power which we 
 .call Force : For it is nothing but Thought which 
 moves our Bodies, and all the Members of them, 
 which are the immediate Inftruments of all humane 
 Force and Power, excepting mechanical motions, 
 which do not depend upon our Wills, fiich as the mo- 
 tion of the Heart, the circulation of the Bloody the 
 concoftion of our Meat, and the like: all voluntary 
 motions are not only directed, but caufed by Thought ; 
 and (o indeed it muft be, or there could be no moti- 
 on in the World j for Matter cannot move it felf, and 
 
 there- 
 
Holy and Ever (Blejfed T^lNITt 7 } 
 
 therefore fome Mind muft be the firft Mover 5 which 
 makes it very plain, that infinite Truth and Wifdom 
 is Infinite and Almighty Power. So that if we fet a- 
 fide all material Images of Eflence and Subftance. and 
 contemplate God as Eternal Truth and Wifdom, the 
 Notion of a God is very plain and eafie, as far as we 
 are concerned to know him in this ftate. 
 
 The fame caufe has confounded and perplext the 
 Notion of a Trinity in Unity, and given occafionto 
 fome vain and arrogant Pretenders to Reafon, pro- 
 fanely to deride and ridicule that moft Sacred and 
 Venerable Myftery. 
 
 They puzzle and confound themfelves with fome 
 grofs and corporeal Idea s of Efience and Subftance, 
 and how Three Divine Perfons can fubfift diftindi: in 
 the fame numerical Subftance, but would they but 
 confider the Three Divine Perfons, as Three Infinite 
 Minds, diftinguifhed from each other by a felf-con- f 
 fcioufneft of their own, and efi^entially united by a 
 mutual confcioufnefs to each other, which is the only 
 way of diftinguilhingand uniting Minds and Spirits, 
 and then a Trinity in Unity is a very plain and intel- 
 ligible Notion. 
 
 Now certainly this is much the moft reafonable 
 way : For what the EfTence and Subftance of a Spirit 
 is, when we diftinguifh it from Underftanding and 
 Will, which we call the Powers and Faculties of a 
 Spirit 5 for my part, I know not, no more than I do, 
 what the naked Eflence and Subftance of Matter is, 
 ftript of all its Qualities and Accidents : as I obferved 
 before, the naked Eflences of Things are not theOb- 
 jeftsof our Knowledge, and therefore it is ridiculous 
 to difpute about them, to fay peremptorily what is, 
 or what is not, in Matters, which we know nothing 
 
 L of; 
 
 ill 
 
74 A Vindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 of : And therefore as we frame the Notion of Bodies 
 from their external and fenfible Qualities, fo we muft 
 frame the Notion of a Spirit from its intelleftual 
 Powers, o£ Will, and Underftanding, d^c. And when 
 we difpute about the diftinftion or union of Spirits, 
 we muft not difpute how their Subftances, which we 
 know nothing of, can be diftinguifht or united, but 
 how two Minds confidered as intelleftual Beings, 
 are diftinguifhed and united, and then there will 
 appear no difficulty or abfurdity, in the eflential 
 union of Three Minds by a mutual confcioufnefs to 
 each other. 
 
 That the eflential unity of a Spirit confifts in felf- 
 confcioufnefs , every Man may feel in himfelf , for 
 it is nothing elfe which makes a Spirit One, and di- 
 ftinguifhes it from all other Spirits ^ and therefore 
 if Two Spirits were confcious to all that is in each 
 other, as they are to what they feel in themfelves, 
 they would be united to each other by the iame kind 
 of unity, which makes every individual Spirit One : 
 And why then fhould not this be thought an eflential 
 unity between the Divine Perfons of the EverBlefled 
 Trinity ? 
 
 And is there any difficulty in conceiving this, that 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft Ihould be thus intimate- 
 ly confcious to each other? The Scripture plainly 
 afltrts that it is fo, as I have already proved, and 
 there is no impoflibility in the thing 5 nay, if we will 
 allow Three infinite Minds, it is impofTible it fhould 
 be otherwife. 
 
 A finite created Spirit indeed is confcious only to 
 it felf, and not to any other created Spirits 5 but God, 
 who is an infinite Mind, is confcious to all created 
 Spirits, dwells within us, and fees all our Thoughts 
 
 and 
 
 M 
 
Holy and Ever !BleJfed TRINITY. 75 
 
 and Vlotions, and Paffions, as perfectly as we do our 
 own 5 how he does this we know not, that he does 
 fo, the Scripture allures us, and that there is nothing 
 impoffible in it, our Reafon will tell us 3 for certainly 
 that infinite Mind, which made all finite Spirits, can 
 fee them too 5 that is, fee all the Thoughts and Paffi- 
 ons of a Spirit, which is the only way of feeing a Spi- 
 rit 5 and that can be no infinite Mind which does not 5 
 for there is fomething, which it does not know, if it 
 does not know our Thoughts. 
 
 If then it be ellential to an infinite Mind to be con- 
 fcious to all Spirits, if we allow, that there are Three 
 infinite Minds, we muft grant, that they are mutual- 
 ly confcious to each other: though an infinite Mind 
 is confcious to all that is in created Spirits, yet there 
 is not a mutual confcioufnefs, and therefore no efien- 
 tial unity between them, for created Spirits are not 
 confcious to an infinite Mind, as it is impoflible they 
 fhduld, unleis they were infinite themfelves, for a 
 Mind which is confcious to an infinite Mind 5 that is, 
 a Mind which comprehends an infinite Mind, muft 
 be infinite ; But it is a contradiction to fay, there are 
 Three infinite Minds, unlefs they are mutually con- 
 fcious to each other 5 for if there be any thing in 
 one, which is not in the other, they cannot both be 
 infinite, unlefs one infinite can be greater than ano- 
 ther. 
 
 The truth is, we have no pofitive Notion of Infi- 
 nity, but only in a Mind, and it is impoffible to con- 
 ceive any Three Beings that are infinite, but only 
 Three infinite Minds 3 and Three Minds may be in- 
 finite, but then they muft be mutually felf-confcious, 
 or they cannot all be infinite. 
 
 L 2 When 
 
«^ 
 
 76 A Findication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 When we think of an infinite Being, we are pre- 
 fently confounded with the corporeal Images of an 
 infinite Subftance, or a Subftance infinitely extended 5 
 and this we can make nothing of 3 for indeed it is 
 demonftrable, that there can be no fuch thing. We 
 have an imagination of infinite fpace, which we can 
 fet no bounds to, but how far foever we extend our 
 thoughts, we can ftill imagine fomething beyond that 5 
 but then we have no Notion, that fpace is any thing, 
 but only a capacity to receive fomething , nay, it 
 feems to me, to be nothing elfe, but an imaginary 
 Idea of Extenfionfeparated from Body and Matter 5 
 as we conceive place to be diftind from the Body, 
 which fills the place, and therefore, that if the Body 
 were annihilated , place would remain ftill of the 
 fame dimenfions, which the Body had, that filled it 5 
 and this is the conception of an imaginary fpace infi- 
 nitely extended. But it is as plain as any demon- 
 ftration, that no real Being is infinitely extended ^ for 
 there is, and can be no aftual Extenfion infinite : 
 The Extenfion of a real Being mull really and aftual- 
 ly be, and yet there is not a more felf-evident Pro- 
 pofition than this, that there is no Extenfion fo great 
 but that it may be extended farther, and then there 
 can be no fuch thing in Being, as an infinite Extenfi- 
 on, fot if there were, there would be fuch an Exten- 
 fion, as could not be extended farther, unlefs we can 
 extend that, which is adtually infinite already. We 
 may eafily obfervc, what it is, that cheats us into the 
 Opinion of infinite Extenfion, as if there were fuch a 
 real thing : viz. That we cannot fee to the end of 
 all poflible Extenfion, we cannot extend our Thoughts 
 fo far, but we can imagine fomething farther, and 
 therefore we fancy, that there is fomething infinitely 
 
 ex- 
 
Holy and E)^er mjfed T^INITZ yy 
 
 extended, though we cannot comprehend it, or (ee 
 to the end of it, which would be a contradiftion, to 
 fee to the end of that which has none : But we (hould 
 obferve, that it is not the defeft of our Imagination, 
 that we cannot conceive an infinite Extenfion 5 but 
 Reafon tells us, that there neither is, nor can be, any 
 fuch Extenfion, but what may be extended farther 5 
 now what cannot be, cannot be a real thing, for 
 whatever is real, is. 
 
 It is exaftly the fame cafe in Numbers : There nei- 
 ther is, nor can be an infinite Number, becaufe there 
 is no Number fo great, nor can any Number be fo 
 great, but it may be made greater by adding to it 5 
 fo that Numbers , Extenfion, and the fame may be 
 faidofTime and Succeffion, are called infinite, not 
 that they have any real and pofitive infinity, but be- 
 caufe we can add to them without end 3 which is a 
 demonftration, that they neither are, nor can be in- 
 finite, for what is infinite, is capable of no additions^ 
 and there can be no Number, Extenfion, or fucceG 
 five Duration, but what is capable of infinite addi- 
 tions, and therefore is at an infinite diftance from be- 
 ing infinite. 
 
 ■ By this time, t fuppofe, every one is convinc'd, 
 that infinite Extenfion does not belong to the Idea 
 of a God, becaufe there is no fuch thing in Nature, 
 and if infinite Extenfion does not, no Extenfion can ^ 
 for nothing is God, but what is infinite. 
 
 Though the truth is, this very woxAh/jinite con- 
 founds our Notions of God, and makes the moft per- 
 ieft and excellent Being, the moft perfectly unknown 
 to us: For infinite is only a negative term, and figni- 
 fies that, which has no end, no bounds, no meafure, 
 and therefore no pofitive and determined Nature,and 
 
 therefore 
 
7 8 A y'mdication of the DoSirine of the 
 
 therefore is nothing 5 that au infinite Beings had not 
 ufe and cuftom reconciled us to that Expreffion, 
 would be thought Nonfenfe and Contradiftion 5 for 
 every real Being has a certain and determined Na- 
 ture 5 and therefore is not infinite in this fenfe, which 
 is fo far from being a perfeftion, that it fignifies no- 
 thing real. 
 
 But fince Cuftom has made it neceflary to u(e this 
 word, it is neceflary to explain what we mean by it : 
 That an infinite Being fignifies a Being abfblutely per- 
 feft, or which has all poffiblePerfeftions: which has 
 no other end of its Perfeftions, but Perfeftion it felf 5 
 that is a finite imperfeft Being, that wants any Per- 
 feftions 5 that is an infinite Being, not which has no 
 end of its Perfeftions, but which aftually has all Per- 
 feftions, and can be no more perfed than it is : For 
 there is a meafure of the moft abfolute, and in this 
 fenfe infinite Perfedions, before which no Being is ab- 
 folutely perfeft, and beyond which there are no new 
 degrees of Perfeftion 5 for if we do not grant this, 
 there can be no Being abfolutely perfeft. 
 
 As for inftance : Infinite Wifdom , Knowledge, 
 Goodnefi, Juftice, Power, have fixt and fet bounds 
 to their Perfeftions, beyond which they cannot go : 
 Infinite Knowledge and Wifdom knows all things,that 
 are knowable, and that are wife 5 infinite Goodnefs 
 can do all things which are Good , infinite Juftice is 
 perfeft Juftice, which obferves the exaft proportions 
 of Right and Wrong 5 infinite Power can do all things, 
 which can be done : To know, what is not to be 
 known, to do what is not to be done, to be good or 
 juft beyond the perfeft Meafures of Goodnefs and Ju- 
 ftice, is a contradiftion ^ for it is neither Wifdom, 
 nor Power, nor Goodnefs, nor Juftice : The Nature 
 
 of 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^IKITT. ^^ 
 
 of Wifdom, Power, Juftice, and Goodnefi, is fixt and 
 determined, and the utmoft bounds of them is abfb- 
 lute Perfection: The Divine Nature is the Original 
 Rule and Standard, and utmoft Bounds of them, and 
 therefore abfolutely perfeft. Thefe Perfeftions in- 
 deed may be called infinite in the Negative fenfe, with 
 refped to us, that we know not, what the utmoft ex- 
 tent of them are : We know not how far infinite 
 Wifdom, and Power, ancTGoodnefs reaches, but then 
 we certainly know, that they have their bounds, and 
 that the Divine Nature is the utmoft bounds of them 3 
 for nothing can be a Rule and Meafure ofabfclute 
 Perfections, but the Divine Nature it felf ; Now this 
 gives us a pofitive Notion and Idea of God, though 
 we cannot comprehend his abfolute Perfections 5 we 
 as certainly know, what God is, as we know, what 
 Wifdom, Knowledge, Power, Goodnefs, Juftice fig- 
 nifie^ but how Wife, how Good, how Powerful God 
 is, we know not, becaufe we do not know the utmoft 
 extent of thefe Perfections. 
 
 I muft now add, that there can be no abfolute Per- 
 fections, but thofe of aMind,fuch as I have fo often 
 mentioned, Wifdom, Power, Goodnefs : As for Mat- 
 ter, it is fo imperfeCl a Being it felf, that it cannot 
 be the fubjeCt of abfolute Perfections : Nothing which 
 belongs to Matter is a Perfection, confidered in it felf $ 
 Extenfion is no Perfection, no more than the dimen- 
 fions of a Body are, to be long, or broad, or deep, 
 to belittle or great, which may be Perfections or Im- 
 perfections, as it happens, with relation to the juft 
 meafures and proportions of different Bodies ^ for ei- 
 ther greatnefs or littlenefs may make different things 
 monflrous, and therefore neither of them are either 
 Beauties or Perfections themfelves ^ for what is in it 
 felf a Perfection is always fo. Ex- 
 
8o A Vindication of the DoElrine of the 
 
 Extenfion is of no ufe, but where there is a multi- 
 tude or diverfity of Parts, and fuch a compound Being 
 can never be abfolutely perfeft, becaufe it is made 
 of Parts, which are not abfolutely perfeft^as no Part 
 can be 3 and ten thoufand imperfeft Parts can never 
 make up an abfolutely perfeft Being : And if what is 
 infinitely perfeft can have no Parts, it needs no Ex- 
 tenfion, and can have none ^ for what is extended 
 has afiignable Parts, whether they can be divided or 
 
 not. 
 
 Omniprefetice is a great and unqueftionable Perfe- 
 ftion, but to be Omniprefent by infinite Extenfion, 
 ( if fuch a thing could be ) would be no Perfeftion at 
 all 5 for this would be to be prefent only by Parts 5 as 
 a Body might be, which is infinitely extended, and a 
 Body is as capable of infinite Extenfion, as any Man 
 can conceive a Spirit to be 5 and yet if a Spirit be 
 Omniprefent only by infinite Extenfion, the whole 
 Subftancc of that Spirit isnot prefent every where, 
 but part of it is in one place, and part in another, as 
 many Miles diftant from each other as the places arc, 
 where fuch partsof the Omniprefent Spirit are. This 
 all Men will confefs to be abfurd 5 and yet if the 
 whole Mind and Spirit be prefent every where, it is 
 certain, it is not prefent every where by way of Ex- 
 tenfion 5 for the whole Extenfion of an infinitely ex- 
 tended Spirit is not prefent every where : And if Om- 
 niprefence it felf cannot be owing to infinite Extenfi- 
 oUjUo Man can tell me, why an infinite Mind fhould be 
 extended at all ; for Extenfion it felf is no Perfeftion. 
 Much lefs do any other Vermes and Qualities of Bo- 
 dies deferve the Name of abfolute Perfeftions, and 
 therefore we mufl: feek for abfolute perfeftion only in 
 a Mind 5 perfed Wifdom, Knowledge, Power, Good- 
 
 nefs, 
 
Hdy and Ever ^Jfed T^I^IKITI 8 i 
 
 nefs, Juftice, make an abfblate perfeft Mind 5 there 
 are no other abfolute Perfeftions but thefe, and there- 
 fore there can be no other abfolutely perfed Being, 
 but an infinite Mind. 
 
 But befides this we may obferve, that all the(e ab- 
 folute Perfefiions, by a mutual Confcioufnefs, may 
 be entire and equal in three diflinfl: infinite Minds : 
 There is no contradiftion, that three infinite Minds 
 fliould be abfolutely perfcft in Wifdcm, Goodnefj, 
 Juftice, and Power ^ for thefe are Perfeftions, which. 
 may be in more than One , as Three Men may all 
 know the fime things, and be equally juft and good : 
 But Three fuch Minds cannot be abfolutely perfedt 
 v/ithout being mutually confcious to each other, as 
 they are to themfclves 5 for if they do not perfeftly 
 know each other, as they know themfelves, their WiP- 
 dom and Knowledge is not abfolutely perfecft^ for 
 they do not know all things, if they do not perfeftly 
 know one another, and there can be no fuch perfedt 
 Knowledge of each other, without a mutual Confci- 
 oufnefs. 
 
 This (hews not only the poffibility of this Notion, 
 that Three diftind infinite Minds (hould be mutually 
 Confcious to each other , but the neceflity of it, if 
 there be Three fuch infinitely perfed Minds , for they 
 cannot be infinitely perfeft, without being Confcious 
 to one another. 
 
 Thus to proceed : This Notion plainly reconciles 
 the perfedt equality of all Three Perfons, with the 
 Prerogative of the Father, and the Subordination of 
 the Son and Holy Spirit. That all Three Perfons 
 are perfeftly equal in Knowledge, Wifdom, Good*- 
 nefs, Juftice, Power, is evident from their mutual 
 Confcioufnefs, whereby they all know, love, and do 
 
 M the 
 
82 A Vindication of the DoSirine of the 
 
 the fime things, which is a perfeft equahty : But 
 this does not deftroy the natural Subordination of the 
 Son to the Father, of a derivative to an original 
 Light, as Chrift is called in the Nicene Creed, God of 
 God^ Light of Light : For though God has commu- 
 nicated his own Nature to him, and received him in- 
 to his Bofom, to an intimate confcioufnefs with him- 
 felf, which makes him the perfeft Image of his Father 3 
 yet he receives all this from his Father by eternal Ge- 
 neration, he is a Son dill, though equal to his Father 
 in all Divine Perfeftions, and therefore fubordinate 
 to him as a Son ; And the like may be (aid of the Ho- 
 ly Spirit. 
 
 This fhews alfo, how thefe Three diftinft Perfons 
 are each of them God, and yet are all but One God. 
 Each Perfon is God, for each Perfon has the whole 
 and entire Perfeftions of the Godhead, having by 
 this mutual confcioufnefs, the other Perfons in him- 
 felf, that each Perfon is in fome fenfe the whole Tri- 
 nity : The Son is in the Father, and the Father in 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit in Father and Son, and 
 Father and Son in the Holy Spirit 5 and therefore if 
 the whole Trinity be God, the Father is God, the Son 
 is God, and the Holy Ghoft God, they being all mu- 
 tually in each others and yet this is a plain demon- 
 ftration, that they are not Three Gods, but One 
 God 5 becaufe neither of them are the One Supreme 
 God, but as thus intimately united to all the reft 5 
 and then they can be all Three, but One Supreme 
 God : This gives an intelligible account of one of the 
 moft Difficult Problems in all School-Divinity, which 
 the Mafler of the Sentences borrowed from St. Auflin^ 
 as he has done moft of his other Diftinjftions 5 that the 
 whole Trinity is not greater, than any One Perfon 
 
 in 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed r(^lKirr. 83 
 
 in the Trinity. This founds very harfhly at firft 
 hearing, and yet if we confider it, we mufl: confefs it 
 to be true, unleis we will fay, that there is a greater 
 and lefs in God, or that the Three Perfons in the 
 Trinity make One God, as three parts make a whole, 
 each of which parts muft be lefs than the wholes and 
 yet I cannot fee any poffible way to underftand this 
 matter, but only this: That the whole Trinity by a 
 mutual confcioufnefs is in each Perfon, and therefore 
 no Perfon is lefs than the whole Trinity. 
 
 And this is the only poffible way of underftanding 
 the different Modi fabpflendj^ of which the Schools 
 fpeak: That the Three Divine Perfons have One nu- 
 merical Efience, and are One God, but are diftin- 
 guilhed from each other by a diftinft manner of Sub- 
 fiftence proper to each Perfon : It is plain, the School- 
 men were no SahelUans ^ they did not think the Three 
 Divine Perfons, to be only Three Names of the (ame 
 infinite Being; 5 but acknov/ledged each Perfon to be 
 really diftind from one another, and each of them to 
 have the fame numerical Eflence, and to be truly and 
 properly God, and not to be Three Modes of the 
 fame infinite God, which is little better than Three 
 Names of One God. 
 
 And what are thefe Modtfnhfi[ie7tdj^ by which the 
 Divine Perfons are diftinguifhed fi*om each other ? 
 Now they are no ether, than the proper and diftin- 
 guifhing Charadters of each Perfon 5 that the Father 
 isof himfelf, or without any caufe^ that the Son is 
 begotten of the Father 5 that the Holy Ghoft proceeds 
 from Father and Son : Which proves that by thefe 
 Modi fuhfijlendi^ they did not mean ( as fome miftake 
 them ) that the Three Divine Perfons are Three 
 Modes of the Deity, or only modally diftingui(hed, 
 
 M 2 for 
 
84 J ^Vindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 for there are no Modes, no more than there are 
 Qualities and Accidents , in the Deity , much lefs 
 can a Mode be a God : To be fure, all Men mup; 
 grant, that the Father is not a Mode of the Deity, 
 but eflentially God, and yet he has his Modus fihjfi- 
 JicTidj^ as well as the Son, and the Holy Ghoft 5 and 
 no Man can think, that the Father begat only a Mo^ 
 diis^ and called it his Son, whereas a Son fignifies a 
 real Perfon of the fame Nature, but diftind from his 
 Father. 
 
 All then that can poflibly be meant by theft Modes 
 of Subfiftence is this, that the fame numerical Efience 
 is whole and entire in each Divine Perfon, but in a 
 different manner 5 the Son and Holy Ghofl: are in the 
 Father, as the One is begotten, the other proceeds 
 from him, and yet both remain in him by an inti- 
 mate confcioufnefs, and thus you have often heard, 
 all Three Perfons are in each other, and therefore are 
 numerically One 5 the Father has the Son and Holy 
 Ghoft in himftlf as the Fountain of the Deity, the 
 Son begotten of the Father, the Holy Ghoft pro- 
 ceeding from Father and Son. That is, there are 
 Three infinite Minds, which are diftinguifhed from 
 each other by the relations of Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghofl, the Father begets, the Son is begotten, the 
 Holy Ghoft proceeds, which are their different Modes 
 offub(ifting5 but eachof ihefe infinite Minds has the 
 other Two in himfelf, by an intimate and mutual 
 Confcioufnefs, and that makes all Three Perfons nu- 
 merically One Divine EiTence, or One God 5 for 
 when the whole Trinity is in each diftinft Perfon, 
 each Perfon is the fame One numerical God, and all 
 of them but One God : If the Father, for inftance, 
 have his own perfonal Wifdom, and by an internal 
 
 con- 
 
Holy and Ever mffed Tl^IKlTr. 8j 
 
 confcioufnefs, all the Wifdom of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghoft 5 and the Son have his own perfonal 
 Wifdom, and by the fame Confcioufnefs, all the Wif- 
 dom of the Father, and the Holy Ghoft^ and in like 
 manner, the Holy Ghoft have his own perfonal Wif- 
 dom, and all the Wifdom of Father., and Son -^ this 
 iO'finiie Wifdom which is in Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft, is identically the fame: For from wjiich Per- 
 fon foever yon begin to reckon this Union, it is the 
 fame Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft ftill, which are 
 thus intimately united into One 3 and therefore ic is 
 the fame numerical and identical Wifdom, which is in 
 each of them, and the fame in all. 
 
 To add no more : This Notion gives a plain ac- 
 count too of that Maxim of the Schools, That all the 
 Operations of the Trinity, ad extra^ are common to 
 all Three Perfons ^ for it cannot pofTibly be otherwife, 
 when they are thus intimately united by a mutual 
 Ccn(cioufnefs 5 for they can no more aft, than they 
 can fubfift feparately 5 when the Wifdom, Goodnefs, 
 Jufcice, Power of the whole Trinity is entire in each 
 Peribn, and the fame in all, every Perfonof the Tri» 
 nity muft be equally concerned, faving the Natural 
 Order, and Subordination of Perfons, in all the ex- 
 ternal EfFefts and Operations of the Di\ine Wifdom^ 
 JufticC;, Goodnefs, and Power. 
 
 Thus I have endeavoured to explain this Great and 
 Venerable Myftery of a Trinity in Unity 5 and this 
 I may fay, that I have given not only a very pofGble 
 and a very intelligible Notion of it, but fuch alfo as is 
 very agreeable to the Phrafe and Expreffions of Scri- 
 pture, fuch as preferves the Majefty of the Article, 
 andfolves all the Difficulties of it 3 there may be a 
 
 great 
 
S 6 A Vindication of the VoBrine of the 
 
 great deal more in this Myftery, than we can fathom, 
 but thus much we can underftand of it, and that is 
 enough to reconcile us to this belief, and to Ihame 
 and filence the profane Scoffers at a Trinity in Uni- 
 ty 3 as I have in part (hewn aheady, and will do 
 now more fully, by proceeding to anfwer thofe 
 many Abfurdities and Contradictions charged on it 
 by the Brief Notes : To proceed then where I left off. 
 
 Creed. There is One Verfon of the Father^ another of the 
 
 Son^ another of the Holy Ghojt, 
 
 Notes. Then the Son is not the Father^ nor is the Father the 
 
 Son^ nor the Holy Ghoji either of then/. 
 
 Anfwer. I gi*ant it : Their Perfons are diflind, and there- 
 fore are not each other, but they are all eiientially 
 united by a mutual Confcioufnefs, whereby they are 
 mutually in each other, and can be no more fepara- 
 ted from each other , than every Man's own Mind 
 can be divided from it felf. 
 
 Anfwer. But if the Father is not the Son^ and yet is ( by con- 
 
 fijfion of all ) the One true God^ then the Son is not the 
 One true God^ hecaufe he is not the Father : The rea- 
 fon is felf evident^ for how can the Son he the One true 
 God^ if he be not fie, who is the One true God. After 
 the fame manner it may be proved^ that (on the Atha- 
 nafian Principles ) neither the Father^ nor Holy Spi- 
 rit,, are^ or can be God^ or the One true God 5 pr nei- 
 ther of them is the Son^ who is the One true God^ ac^ 
 cording to Athanafius, and all Trinitarians 5 for they 
 all fay ^ The Father is the One true God^ the Son is the 
 One true God^ and the Holy Ghoft the One true God 5 
 
 which 
 
 . >-^ 
 
Holy and Ever fBIeJfed Tl^lNlTr. 87 
 
 which k a, threefold ContradiBion^ becanfe there k hut 
 One true God^ and One ofthefe Ferfons is not the other. 
 hut if it be a Contradi&ion it is certainly falfe^ for 
 every ContradiciJon , being made up of Inconjiftencies^ 
 dejiroys it felf and is its ovpn Confutation. 
 
 « 
 
 This is meer trick and fallacy, or mifreprefentati- Anfrver. 
 on. To have made his Argument conclude, he (hould 
 have faid : The Father is not the Son, and yet the 
 Perfon of the Father confidered not only as diftin- 
 guifhed, but as divided and feparated from the Per- 
 fon of the Son, is the One true God, and then the 
 Son is not the One true God, becaufe he is not the 
 Father : And then indeed his reafon had been felf- 
 evident, that the Perfon of the Son, as feparated from 
 the Perfon of the Father, is not the One true God, 
 becaiife the Perfon of the Son is not the Perfon of the 
 Father, who is the One true God : But neither ^z^^- 
 nafii/s ^ nor any of the Trinitarians ever faid this. 
 That the Perfon of the Father, as feparated from the 
 Ferfons of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, is the One 
 true God o or that the Perfon of the Son as feparated 
 from the Perfons of the Father, and of the Holy Ghoft 
 is the One true God 5 or that the Perfon of the Holy 
 Ghoft as feparated from the Perfons of the Father,and 
 of the Son, is the One true God 5 for we conftantly 
 affirm, that Father, Son,and Holy Ghoft5by an intimate 
 and infeparable Union to each other, are but One 
 true God ; but as their Perfons can never be fepara- 
 ted, fo they muft never be confidered in a feparate 
 ftate, and if we will imagine fuch an impoflible abfur- 
 dicy as this, neither of them are the One true God 5 
 for whoever feparates them, deftroysthe Deity, and 
 leaves neither Father, Son, nor Holy Ghoflr^ 
 
 And 
 
8 8 A Vindication of the DoSirlne of the 
 
 And yet if we confider thefe Three Divine Perfbns, 
 as containing each other in themfelves, and eflential- 
 ly One by a mutual Confcioufnefi, this pretended 
 Contradiftion vanifhes : For then the Father is the 
 One true God, becaufe the Father has the Son, and the 
 Holy Spirit in himfelf , and the Son maybe called the 
 One true God (of which more prefently) becaufe the 
 Son has the Father, and the Holy Ghoft in himfelt, 
 and the Holy Ghoft the One true God, becaufe he 
 has the Father and the Son in himfelf, and yet all but 
 One true God, becaufe Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft 
 are united into One 5 and then though O/ie of thefe 
 Perfons k fjot the other^ yet each Perfon by an efien* 
 rial Unity contains both others in himfelf, and there- 
 fore if all Three Perfons are the One true God, each 
 Perfon is God. 
 
 And this is the true miCaning of the Atka?tafian 
 Creed, which this Author has corrupted by adding, 
 the One true God to every Perfon , that the Father is 
 the One true God^ the Son the One true God^ the Holy 
 Ghoji the One true God^ as if each Perfon as diftin- 
 guifhed and fcparated from the other, were the One 
 true God ^ and then it would indeed found pretty 
 lifee a Contradiftion to add, yet there is but One 
 true God : But the Athanafian Creed only fays, The 
 Father k God^ the Son God^ the Holy Ghoji God \ yet 
 Three are not Three Godr^ hut One God 5 which plainly 
 fhews, that it does not fpeak of thefe Three Divine ' 
 Perfons, as diftinguiftied and feparated from each o- 
 ther^ but as united into One God, not as Three parts 
 of the Deity, but as Three Perfons, who are eflenti- 
 ally One God, as mutually containing each others 
 that is, by a mutual felf-confcioufneft, as I have now 
 explained it, which is the eflential Unity of a Mind. 
 
 As 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T(Ii^miTl 89 
 
 As for this expredion, The One true God, it is ne- 
 ver attributed to Son, or Holy Ghoft, that 1 know of 
 either in Scripture, or in any Catholick Writer ;. tho' 
 it is to the Father, whom our Saviour himfelf calls, 
 The only true God ; for all Three Divine Peribns as ia 
 conjun6tion with each other, being the One only trm 
 God : This Title cannot fb properly be attributed to 
 any One Perfon but only the Father, who is the 
 Fountain of the Deity : for though all Three Perfbns 
 are' in each other by a mutual confcioufhefs, and 
 therefore each Perfon has all the Perfeftions of the 
 Godhead 5 yet the Son is in the Father, and the Holy 
 Spirit in the Father and the Son, in fuch a manner, 
 as the Father is not in the Son, nor the Father and 
 Son in the Holy Spirit, which the Schools call the 
 Modi Subfifiendi ; that is, the Son is in the Father by 
 eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit in Father and 
 Son by eternal proceffion; and this is the natural 
 Order of the Trinity; and therefore when this One 
 God is to be fignified by the Name of any One Per- 
 fon, it is proper to follow the Order of Nature, if I 
 may fo fpeak, and to fignifie the whole Sacred Tri- 
 nity by the Name of the Father, who is the eternal 
 Source and Fountain of it. 
 
 The Godhead of the father ^ and of the Son^ and of Creeds 
 the Holy Ghoft is all One^ the Glory equals the Majefiy 
 coeternal. 
 
 The meaning of the laji chufe is, that the Glory Azotes. 
 and Maje/ly of the Son and Holy Spirit is equal to the 
 Glory and Majejly of the Fat he r^ or the Son and Holy 
 Spirit are equally Glorious and Majefiical with God the 
 
 Father. 
 
 N Therefore 
 
QQ A Vindication of the Do^rlne of the 
 
 Therefore I askj whether the Ghry and Majefty 
 with which the Son and Spirit are Glorious and Maje- 
 fiicalf be the fame in number ( that isy the z>cry fame) 
 with which the Father is Glorious and Majtflicalf or 
 ^^nly the fame for kind or degree f If it be not the 
 fame in number^ then the Godhead of the Fath'tr^ and 
 &f the Son^ is not C as this Creed tHches) all Oney 
 and they are not One and the fame God : for Two infi- 
 nite and difiinci Glories and Majeflies ?nake Two Gpds^ 
 and Three make Three Gods ; as every One fees^ and 
 (^ to fay true^ the Trinitarians themfelves conftfs. It 
 remains therefore that they fay, that the Glory and 
 Majefty of the Son and Spirit is the fame in number^ 
 And not for kind and degree only^ with that of the Fa- 
 ther ; hut then it follows^ that the Glory and Majefiy 
 of thefe Perfons is neither equal ^ nor coeternaL Not 
 equal, for "^tis the fame^ which equals never are. Not 
 coeternaly for this ^alfo plainly inti?nates^ that they 
 are diftin^ ; For how coeternal, if not diftinS r* T)o 
 we fay a thing is coeternal, and cotemporary with 
 it felf ? Therefore this Article alfo doth impugn and 
 deflroy it ft If : Befides^ if the Glory and Majefiy of 
 the Three Perfons be numerically the fame^ then fo are 
 all their other Attributes : from whence it follows^ that 
 there is not any real difference bttween the Three Per- 
 fons, and they are onlyThree fever at Names of God, which 
 is the Here lie of the Sabellians, 
 
 Infwtr. What he fays, That if the Glory and Majefiy of the 
 
 Three Perfons be numerically the fame, fo are all their 
 other Attributes^ is certainly true^ lor their Glo- 
 ry and Majefty is nothing eHe, but the infinite Perfe- 
 flions of their Nature, And therefore to make (hort 
 work with this, I affirm, that the Glory and Maje* 
 
Holy and Ever mjjed T(IIINIT1 91 
 
 fty, andall the other Perfeftions of xhefe Three Di- 
 viae Perfbns are as diftinfl as their Perlbns are, and 
 therefore maybe coequal and coeteroal, becaufe they 
 are diftinft, and yet they are as numerically One and 
 the fame as the Godhead i^. They are Three infinite 
 Minds, and therefore diftindl: as Three Minds are, 
 but they are all mutually confcious to each other, 
 and therefore as Eflentially One, as the fame Mind 
 is One with it (elf by afelf confcioufnefs; this does 
 not deftroy the Diftinction of their Perfbns, nor con- 
 tequently of their Majefty and Glory, their Glory 
 and Majefty is as diftin£l as their Perfbns are, and 
 united as their Perfbns are^ into One effential and 
 numerical Glory of One Supr.eme God, a Trinity in 
 Unity. 
 
 But to expofe the ridiculous Sophiftry of this, in- 
 ftead of t^eir Glory equal^ their Majefty coeternal^ let 
 us put in their Perfons equal and coeternal, for the 
 equality of their Glory, and coeternity of their Majefty, 
 is nothing elfe, but the equality and coeternity of their 
 Perfons ; that the Godhead of the Father^ of the Son^ and, 
 of the Holy Ghofl is all One, their Perfons equal and coe- 
 ternal. And then our Note-makers Argument runs 
 thus : 
 
 " I ask, whether the Perfbns of the Son, and of 
 " the Holy Ghoft, which are equal and coeternal 
 " with the Perfon of the Father, be the flime in num- 
 " ber (that is, the very fame) with the Perfon of the 
 " Father, or onfy the fame for kind and degree .- If 
 " they be not the fame in number ( that is, if they 
 ''be diftind Perlbns, as the Creed affirms) then 
 *' the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, is not 
 ^' all One, and they are not One and the fame God; 
 
 N 2 '' for 
 
 ■* Flfa 
 
ni A Vindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 '' for Two infinite and diftind Perfbns make Two 
 ''Gods, and Three make Three God^. Ij not this 
 now, a felf-evident proof, that there cannot be One ■ 
 Godhead, if there be Three Perfons, becaufe Three 
 Perfbns make Three Gods /* ^fod erat de?non(lrmdum ; 
 that i% it cannot be, becaule it cannot be : But to pro- 
 ceed with his Argument. 
 
 " It remains therefore, that thefe Trinitarians {'2iy^ 
 " That the Perfbn of the Son and Spirit, is the fame 
 ^' in number, and not in kind or degree only, with 
 *' the Perfbn of the Father. That is, becaufe they 
 affirm thefe Divine Perfbns to be diftind, therefore 
 they muft fay, they are, numerically the fame; and 
 what then ? Why then they are neither equal, nor 
 coeternal, becaufe they are the fame without any re- 
 al diftinftion, and the fame thing is not equa>5 nor 
 coeternal with it felf : Right ! very right Sir ! a plain 
 demonftration ! And thus the poor Trimtarians are 
 eternally confounded ! They teach, that there are 
 Three diflinCk Perfbns, and One eternal and infinite 
 God 5 he plainly confutes this by faying, That if there 
 be One Godhead, there cannot be Three ciitinft Per-^ 
 Ions, for Three diftinft Perfbns are Three Gods; and 
 if he had proved it, as well as faid it, it had been a di- 
 rect confutation. They affirm, that thefe Three di- 
 ftinft Perfbns are coequal and coeternal ; he proves, 
 that they are not, becaufe they mufl fay, f though 
 •they fay the quite contrary) that they are not Three, 
 but One numerical Perfbn, and then they cannot be 
 coequal and coeternal : And thus they fhamefully 
 contradid.themfelves, and this Article is Felo de Je : 
 If this be the profound Reafbn of Hereticks, God de- 
 liver me from Herefie, if it were for no other Reafbn, 
 but to keep my Underftanding .• And yet as ridicu- 
 lous 
 
Holy and Ever mfd T^lNlTr, 9^ 
 
 lous as this looks, it is the whole of his Reafoniog ; 
 for if there be Three diftinfl: coequal and coeternal 
 Perfons, their Majefty and Glory muft be as dirtiniS, 
 coequal, coeternal, as their Perfoos are, and united 
 into One numerical effential Glory, as their Perfbns 
 are into One God ; and how Three infinite Minds, or 
 the Three Divine Perfons, or, which is the fame 
 thing, Thre.e Divine Glories and Majefties may be 
 really diftinft, and yet numerically One God, I have 
 already explained at large. 
 
 /^ the neM pUce this Creed teaches^ That , " The Creed. 
 '* Father is Incomprehenfible, Uncreate, Eternil, Al- 
 ^^ mighty ; the Holy Ghoft is Incomprehenfible, Un- 
 '^ create, Eternal, Almighty: Alfb, That each of 
 '^ thefe Perfbns is by himfelf God and Lord \ fo that 
 "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy 
 " Ghoft is God ; yet there are not Three Gods, or 
 *' Lords, nor Three Incomprehcnfibles, nor Three 
 *' Almighties, nor Three Eternals, nor Uncreated, 
 
 Now if in imitation of this^ .a Man Jldoald have a Notes, 
 mini to fay, " The Father is a Perfbn, the Son is a 
 *' Perfbn, and the Holy Ghoft is a Perfon : yet not 
 "Three Perfbns, but One Perfon, / ivould kmw^ 
 why this were not ^ good Grammar and Arithmetick^ 
 as )v hen Ath3.naCms fajSy The Father is God, the Son is 
 God^ and the Holy Ghofi is God^ yet not Three Gods, 
 hut One God ; or whtn he fays. The Father Vncreuted, 
 the Son Vncreated , the Holy Ghoft Uncreated \ yet 
 not Three Uncreated^ but One Uncreated. And fo of 
 the reft ^ 
 
 Doth not a Man contradici himfelf, when the Term 
 or Terms in his Negation^ are the fame with thoft in 
 
 his 
 
p4 ^ Vindication of the DoSlrine of the 
 
 his Affirm lit ion ? If not^ then it mny he true. That 
 '^ The Father is a Perlbn, the Son is a Perfbn^ the 
 " Holy Ghoft is a Perfon, yet there are not Three 
 *' Per fens, but One Perfon: For all the fault hire is 
 only this, that in the UH claufe the term Perfon is 
 denied to belong to more than Ont^ when in the fir ft it 
 had been affirmed of no f^wer than Three, For the 
 fame reafon it muftbe a C)ontradi9:ion to fay, " The 
 '' Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghoft is 
 *' God, yet there are not Three Gods, but One God : 
 For the Term God is at la(t denied to belong to more 
 than One ^ though in the fir ft claufe ^ it was affirmed of 
 Three : Will they fay^ that in thefe words there are 
 not Three Gods but One God, the term God ts not deni- 
 ed to belong to ?nore than One^ or is not appropriated 
 to One ? if fo then there are not Three Perfons, but 
 One Perfon ; and again, there are not Three Men, but 
 One Man ', then I fay, thefe Propofitions> do not deny 
 the terms Perfon and Men to belong to more than One, 
 or appropriate them to One only, which jet every Body con- 
 fejjes they do. 
 
 V 
 
 Jnfver, This Objedion founds very formidably too, but 
 proves nothing but the fhameful ignorance and impu- 
 dence of this Author, who undertakes to write 
 Notes upon Creeds, and to ridicule the Venerable 
 Myftcriesof the Chriftian Faith, before hennderftands 
 them 
 
 For let us begin with the Adjectives firft, fuch as 
 Uncreated, Incomprehenfible^ Eternal, Almighty ; and 
 we need take under confiderafion, but any One of 
 thefe, and that will explain all the reft, for there is 
 the fame account to be given of thera all 
 
 The 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T^^lKlTl pj 
 
 The Father then is Uncreated, the Son Uncreated, 
 the Holy Ghoft Uncreated, and yet there are not 
 Three Uncreated, but One Uncreated : Now to 
 make this a Contradiftion, that there are Three, Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft, Uncreated, and yet that 
 there are not Three Uncreated, but One Uncreated, 
 this term Vmreated muft be applied to the fame fub- 
 )e£t, and afSrmed and denied in the fame fenfe : 
 Now when Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, are (aid to 
 be Uncreated, this term V^createdis applied to the 
 Three Divine Perfbns 5 and if Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft, are Uncreated, ii; is certain, there are Three • 
 Divine Perfons V^^reated ; and had it been faid in 
 the Creed, that there are not Three Divine Perfbns 
 Uncreated, it had been as plain a Contradiftion, as 
 to fay, That the Father is a Ptrfon^ the Son a Perfo^y 
 and the Holyjjhojl a Perfon^ and yet there are not 
 Three Perfons^ but One Perfon : Thus far our Author 
 and I agree : But wherein then do we differ ? For is 
 it not cxprefly faid in the Creed, that though the Fa- 
 ther is Uncreated, the Son Uncreated, the Holy 
 Ghoft Uncreated, which are plainly Three Uncrea- 
 ted, if Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, are Three, yet 
 there are not Three Uncreated, but One Uncreated? 
 1 Grant it ; but if our Author had underftood any 
 Greek or Latin^ he fhould have made a litile ufe of it 
 here, and then he would have found, that the Creed 
 of Athanafiiis had not denied, that there were Three 
 Uncreated Perfons, and therefore did not concraditt, ^ 
 what it had before affirmed, that the Three Perfbns 
 of the Sacred Trinity are all Uncreated. For tp^h- 
 axTigviy and tres hcreati, cannot fignifie Three Un- 
 created Perfons, as it muft do to make it a Contra- 
 diftion ; for though there is no Subftandve expref- 
 
 (edy 
 
6 A Vrndkation of the DoBrim of the 
 
 fed, yet fome muft be underftood, and iV.T?^;, and 
 Increati will not agree with ir^^rMTm, or ^erfonx^ and 
 therefore r^ol, and D/i muft be underftood ; that is, 
 though there are Three Uncreated Perfbns, Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghoft^ yet there are not Three Un, 
 created Gods, but One Uncreated God, which is no 
 more a Contradiftion, than to fay, that though 
 there are Three Divine Perfbns, there are not Three, 
 but One God. • 
 
 And that this is the true meaning of the Article, 
 appears from the whole Icope and defign of it. I 
 , fhall inftance only in the conclufion, which contains 
 the Reafon of the whole, why though all Three Per- 
 fons are Uncreated, Incomprehenfible, Eternal, Al- 
 mighty, God, and Lord 5 yet w^e muft not fay, 
 that there are Three, but One Eternal, Incomprehen- 
 fible, Uncreated, Almighty, God, aijd Lord: For 
 like as IV e are compelled by the Chrifitan Verity ; to 
 acknowledge every Perfon by him[elf tobe God and Lord^ 
 and there is the fame Reafon for Eternal, UncreatCjC^r. 
 So are -ive forlndden by the Catholick Religion^ to fay^ 
 There are Three Gods^ or Three Lords^ Three Eternals, 
 Incomprehenfible, Uncreated, Almighties. Which 
 plainly proves, that when the Creed denies, that there 
 are Three Eternals, or Three Uncreated, it does not 
 deny, that there are Three Eternal and Uncreated 
 Perfbns, but that there are Three Eternal and Uncrea- 
 ted Gods ; which is not like faying, there are not 
 Three Perfbns, but One Perfbn; but thefe Three 
 Eternal Perfbns are not Three Eternal Gods, but One 
 Eternal God. 
 
 This is a fufEcient Anfwer with Relation to the 
 Adjeftives of Eternal, Uncreate, Incomprehenfible, 
 Almighty, 'that if you joyn them with Perfbn, there 
 
 are 
 
Holy and Ever (Blejfed T (?^7 NI TY. 97 
 
 are Three Eternal , Uncreated Perfons , but if you 
 join them with God, there are not Three Eternal, 
 Uncreated Gods, but One Eternal, Uncreated God 3 
 and this is no more a Contradiftion, than to (ay, there 
 are Three Perfons and but One God 5 but what fhall 
 we fay to the term God, which is afcribed to all 
 Three Perfons 5 and yet the Creed afErms,that though 
 there are Three Perfons, each of which is God, yet 
 there are not Three Gods, but One God ? That is, 
 the term God k affirmed of Three^ and yet dented to 
 belong to more than One 5 And is not this a Contradi- 
 ction ? I anfwer. No, unlefs this term God be attri- 
 buted to Three divided and feparated Perfons , for if 
 Three fiich feparated Perfons be each of them God, 
 they muft be Three Gods, and it would be a Contra- 
 diftion to fay, that Three Perfons which are divided 
 and feparated from each other, are each of them God, 
 and yet that there are not Three Gods, but One God : 
 But if thefe Three diftinft Perfons are not feparated, 
 but effentially united into One, each of them may 
 be God, and all Three but One God : For if thefe 
 Three Perfons, each of whom fj^gvoc^yt^s^ as it is in 
 the Creed, fingly by himfelf, not feparately from the 
 other Divine Perfons, is God and Lord, are eflenti- 
 ally united into One, there can be but One God and 
 One Lord, and how each of thefe Perfons is God, and 
 all of them but One God, by their mutual Confciouf- 
 nefs, I have already explained. 
 
 That Salvo he has found out for the Trinitarians^ 
 of this pretended Contradiftion of Three Gods, and 
 One God 5 that there are Three perfonal Gods^ and 
 but One ejfentid God^ is fo fenfelefs, and the Para- 
 graph fo long, that I (hall not give my felf the trouble 
 of tranfcribing it : for the Anfwer lies in a few words. 
 
 O We 
 
9 8 A Vindication of the VoBnne of the 
 
 We grant, there are Three Perfons, each of whom 
 is God, but we deny, that there are Three perfonal 
 Gods 5 becaufe though their Perfons are diftinft, they 
 never w^ere, and never can be divided and feparated^ 
 and therefore can be but One God, being elientially 
 united in One : By Three Gods all Mankind under- 
 ftand, Three diftinft and feparate Beings, indepen- 
 dent on One another, each of which is a Supreme and 
 Sovereign God, as Three feparate humane Perfons are 
 Three Men ^ but where the Perfons are not fepa* 
 rated, but eflentially united into One, there we muft 
 acknowledge but One God. 
 
 But you 11 fay : Though the Union of their Per- 
 fons will not allow us to fay, that there are Three fe- 
 parate perfonal Gods, yet if all Three Perfons are di- 
 ftinft, though not feparated from each other, and 
 each of them is God confidered fi^vcchytoos-y as diftinft^ 
 though not (eparate from the other Divine Perfons, 
 then at leaft the Godhead of each Perfon muft be as 
 diftind as their Perfons are, and we muft acknow- 
 ledge three diftinft, though not feparate Gods. I 
 anfwer, by no means. We muft allow each Perfon 
 to be a God, but each diftinft Perfon is not a di- 
 ftinft God 5 there is but One Godhead, which can 
 no more be diftinguifhed, than it can be divided 
 from it felf. There is but One God, and each Di- 
 . vine Perfon is this One numerical God, has the whole 
 entire Godhead in himfelf, and the fame One nu- 
 merical Godhead is in them all^ thus each Divine 
 Perfon is God, and all of them but the (ame One God s 
 as I explained it before. 
 
 This One Supreme God is Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft, a Trinity in Unity, Three Perfons, and One 
 God : Now Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, with all 
 
 their 
 
Boly and Ever ^lejfed r^lKlTr. p^ 
 
 their Divine Attributes and Perfeftions (excepting 
 their perfonal Properties, which the Schools call the 
 Modi fuhjiflendi , that One is the Father, the other 
 the Son, the other the Holy Ghoft, which cannot be 
 communicated to each other ) are whole and entire 
 in each Perfon by a mutual confcioufnefs, each Perfon 
 feels the other Perfons in himfelf, all their eflentiaj 
 Wifdom, Power, Goodnefs, Juftice, as he feels himfelf, 
 and this makes them eflentially One, as I have pro- 
 ved at large. Now if the whole Trinity be in each 
 Divine Perfon by fuch an intimate and eflential Uni- 
 on, we muft confefs each Perfon to be God, if the 
 whole Trinity be God, and yet there being but One 
 Trinity, One Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, who are 
 eflentially One by a mutual Confcioufnefs, it is cer- 
 tain all thefe Three Divine Perfons can be but One 
 God : For where ever you begin to reckon, there are 
 but Three, and thefe Three are One : If we confider 
 the Father and Holy Ghoft in the Son by this mutual 
 Confcioufnefs, we truly affirm the Son to be God, a^ 
 having all the Divine Perfeftions of the whole Trinity 
 in himfelf^ if we confider the Father and the Son in 
 the Holy Ghoft, for the fame reafon we affirm the 
 Holy Ghoft to be God 5 but the natural Order of the 
 Trinity is tq reckon from the Father as the Fountain 
 of the Deity, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft are 
 One God 5 for the Son and Holy Spirit are in the Fa- 
 ther, not only by a mutual Confcioufnefs, as the Father 
 and the Son are in the Holy Ghoft,but as in their Caufc, 
 ( if I may fo fpeak, and the Ancient Fathers were 
 not afraid to fpeak fo) as in their Root, their Origin, 
 their Fountain, from whence they receive the commu- 
 nications of the Divine Eflence, and Godhead , the 
 Son by Eternal Generaf:ion, being Qod of God, Light 
 
 O 2 of 
 
 * 
 
1 QO A f^indication of the VoElrim of the 
 
 of Light ^ the Holy Ghoftby Eternal Proceffion from 
 the Father and the Son. Thus all thefe Divine Per- 
 fons are naturally united in the Father, who is the 
 Fountain of the Deity, and all eflentially in each other 
 by a mutual Confcioufnefs, which makes each Perfoa 
 God, and all One and the fame God without any 
 (hew of Contradiction. 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 The Do&rwe of the Fathers^ and of the Schools^ concern^ 
 ing the Diflindlion of Per fons ^artd the Unity ofEjJence 
 in the Ever Bkjfed Trinity^ confidered and reconciled 
 to the foregoing Explication of it. 
 
 THis Notion of the Union of the Divine Perfbns 
 in One numerical Eflence, by a mutual Con- 
 fcioufnefs to each other, is fo very plain, and gives 
 fb eafie and intelligible an account both of the Phrafes 
 of Scripture, and all other Difficulties in the Doftrine 
 of the Trinity, that this alone is fufficient to recon- 
 cile any Man to it ; But I am very fenfible, how a- 
 fraid Men are ( and not without reafon ) of any new 
 Explications of fo Venerable a Myftery, and fuch a 
 Fundamental Doftrine of Chriftianity, as this is 5 
 and therefore I muft ward this blow, as well as I can, 
 and remove the prejudice of Novelty and Innovation. 
 Now if it appear, that I have advanced no new Pro- 
 pofition, but have confined my (elf to the received 
 Faith and Doftrine of the Catholick Church 5 if that 
 Explication I have given of it, contain nothing new, 
 but what is univerfally acknowledged, though po(- 
 fibly not in exprefs terms applied to that purpo(e I 
 nfe it for p if that Explication I have given be very 
 
Holy and E)?er mjfed T(^lKlTr. loi 
 
 confiftent with , nay , be the true interpretation of 
 that account the Ancients give of a Trinity in Unity, 
 I hope it will not be thought an unpardonable Novel- 
 ty, if I have exprefled the dime thing in other words, 
 which give us a more clear and diftinft apprehenfioa 
 of it : And to fatisfie all Men, that it is fo, 1 (hall com- 
 pare, what I have now faid concerning the Diftinftion 
 of Perfons, and the Unity of Eflence in the Ever Blef- 
 fed Trinity, with the Doftrine of the Fathers, and 
 the Schools. 
 
 I. To begin then with the diltindion of Perfons* 
 I have not indeed troubled my Readers with the dif- 
 ferent fignification of Effence, and Hypoftafis, Sub- 
 ftance, Subfiftence, Perfon, Exiftence, Nature, &c. 
 which are terms very differently ufed by Greeks and 
 Latin Fathers in this Difpute, and have very much 
 obfcured this Doftrine inftead of explaining it 5 but I 
 plainly alTert, That as the Father is an eternal and 
 infinite Mind , lO the Son is an eternal and infinite 
 Mind, diftinft from the Father, and the Holy Ghoft 
 is an eternal and infinite Mind, diftinft both from 
 Father and Son 5 which every Body can underftand 
 without any skill in Logick or Metaphyficks : And 
 this is no new Notion , but the conftant Doftrine 
 both of the Fathers and Schools. Three Perfons fig- 
 nifie Three, who are infinite in Knowledge and VVii- 
 dom, and all other Perfeftions, which belong to a 
 Mind : Now no Man who acknowledges a Trinity 
 of Perfons, ever denied that the Son and the Holy 
 Spirit, were intelligent Beings or Minds. 
 
 When they tell us , ( which is their common - 
 Language) that the Son is the fubftantial Word an4 
 Wifdomot theFather^ what is this elfe but to fay, 
 
 that 
 
1 ox A f^indication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 that he is an intelligent Being, or infinite Mind : Qreg. 
 
 Nyjjen calls the Son, or Word, vo^^v -n j^^k^, Mind, 
 
 or Intelleft. Athanafius obferves from our Saviour's 
 
 , ^ ,, . , „ , , , . words, I and my Father are Om*^ 
 
 %u «V d>^^'h^<rtv h kcr^M ^?<rvclJk ^hat are fignihes Two, or the di- 
 Tiheidv TTdfi^aiv iif -ni^ Ki^cuhl7fA> to ftiuftion of Perfons, ^s One fig- 
 o%y,ToJiaiaikcn;,(.cu^i. Athanaf Cone, nifics the Unity of Efleuce : tor 
 
 Arium Dilput. Tom 1. p. ii6. P^r^ 1627. ,1 r ^ ^ r^ % 
 
 he does not lay, land my Father 
 am^ but are One, And therefore if the Father be an 
 eternal Mind and Wifdom, the Son alfo is an eternal, 
 but begotten Mind and Wifdom 5 as the Nicene Creed 
 tells us, That he is God of God, Light of Light, very 
 God of very God. St. Aujiin in his Sixth Book of 
 the Trinity, takes notice of a common Argument ufed 
 by the Orthodox Fathers againft the Arians^ to prove 
 the coeternity of the Son with the Father, That if 
 
 the Son be the Wifdom and 
 Q^A ranocinatto ad id cogit, ut dka- Power ofGod,asSt.P^///teaches, 
 
 mw Deum Patrem non eife faptentem, mff ^ i ^ , n^xr^,. 
 
 habendo fapientiam qnam genuh, non exi. I f^^- I- ^nd Ood WaS Uever 
 ftendo per fe pater fapientia. Deinde fi ita withoUt his Wifdom and Pow. 
 
 ey?, films quoque ipfe ^'^'^./jl^^^^^ er, the Son muft be coeternal 
 
 Deo lumen de lumine, videndum ejt ntrnm . « , t-' i r • • i- 
 
 pojit fapientia de fapientia dici, fi non ejl With the t ather '-, lOT It IS dl- 
 
 Vem Pater ipfa fapientia, fed tantum Genu ftraftion tO fiy , that the Fa- 
 
 tor fatientiie. Quod fi tenemw, cur non Z^ , -^ . , ^ . . ^^j-r 
 
 magr^itudtnii fuT: ^ bonitatu, 6* ^ternita- ther was ever without his Wlf. 
 tu, p ommpotenti£ fu<t Generator fit', ut dom, or Power , was neither 
 «.«/;/ej7r/«.m.jnif«^^^^^^ ^Vife nor Powerful. But this 
 
 Cr fna <£termtas , ^ Jua omntpotentta y jed t-^ i i • /- i 
 
 ea magnitudine magnm fit, quam genuit, ^ acute t* ather dilcovered a great 
 ea bonitate bonwy &c. s. Aug. Tom. 9. inconvenience in this Argu- 
 
 that the Father is not Wife , but by that Wif- 
 dom which h€ begot, not being himfelf Wifdom 
 as the Father : And then we muft confider, whe- 
 ther the Son himfelf, as he is God of God , and 
 Light of Light, may be laid to be Wifdom of Wif- 
 dom, 
 
> Holy and Ever ^lejfed TRINITY. 105 
 
 dom, if God the Father be not Wifdom, but only be- 
 gets Wifdom and by the fame reafon we may fay, 
 that he begets his ownGreatnels, and Goodnefs, and 
 Eternity, and Omnipotency, and is not himfelf his 
 own Greatnefs, or Goodnefs, or Eternity^ or Omni- 
 potency, but is Great, and Good, Eternal and Omni- 
 potent, by the Greatnefs, Goodnefs, Eternity, Omni- 
 potency, which is born of him 5 as he is not his own 
 Wifdom, but is wife with that Wifdom, which he 
 begets. 
 
 The Mafter of the Sentences follows St. A^fiin 
 exaftly in this Point, and urges this unanfwera- 
 ble Argument for it, which he ^. , . ... ., 
 grounds upon St. Anfiins Prin- ,,/^ fjj', tZiTsapZ Z 
 
 Ciple, That in God, to be, and c^^^r Pater, alioqm non ipfa ab mo, fed U- 
 
 to be Wife is the fame thing, l,t % Jf ;/? ^y!;^% f ^''"r ' ^'"^ 
 
 , .^ . , , , xxT-r ^^"*^^^* ^^^J^ ^J^ ^"i ^^ Sapiens fit, etiam 
 
 and It It be, he cannot be Wile ut fn, ipfa m Caufa efi, quod fieri mn p9' 
 
 with the Wifdom he begets, for ^^A "^-^ ^'^"^"^^ ^«f » ^^^ fadendo, fed nee 
 
 1 1 t J . i5 D • genetricem nee conditricem Patrii uUo mo- 
 
 then he would receive his Being do quifquam dixerit Sapientiam ', quid e- 
 
 from this begotten Wifdom, not f^i^ ^ft infaniw, Ub. i. Dift. 32, cap. 
 Wifdom from him : For if the ^''''''''' 
 Wifdom he begets be the Caufeof his being Wife, it 
 is the Caufe alfo, that he is 5 which muft be either by 
 begetting or by making him ^ but no Man will fay, 
 that Wifdom is any way the Begetter or Maker of 
 the Father ? which is the heigh th of madnefi. And 
 in the next Chapter he teaches. That the Father is un* 
 begotten , the Son begotten Wifdom 3 fo that ac- 
 cording to St. Anflin and the Mafter of the Sentences, 
 who is the Oracle of the Schools, the Father is Eter- 
 nal Wifdom, or an Eternal Mind, and the Son Eter- 
 nal Wifdom and Mind, though both are united into 
 One Eternal Wifdom : And if we confefs this of Fa- 
 ther and Son, there can be no Difpute about the Ho- 
 
104 ^ Vindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 ly Ghoft, who is Eternal Mind and Wifdom, diftinft, 
 both from Father and Son. 
 
 Nothing is more familiar with the ancient Fathers, 
 than to reprefent Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, to 
 be Three as diftin6t Perfons, as Peter^ James^ and 
 John are, as every one knows, who is at all verfed in 
 this Controverfie s and this is charged on them by 
 fome Men, as little better than Polytheifm, or a Tri- 
 nity of Gods, as Pe^er, James^ and John are a Tri- 
 nity of Men 5 but this rauft be true with reference to 
 diftinftion of Perfons, if we will acknowledge a real 
 diftindion between them 5 for if the diftindion be 
 real, and not meerly nominal (which was the Herefie of 
 Sabellius) their Perfons muft be as diftinft, as three 
 human Perfons, or three Men are : The Father is no 
 more the Son , or the Holy Ghoft , than Feter is 
 James ox John: But then they are not feparated or 
 divided from each other, as Peter^ James and John 
 are ^ for that indeed would make them three Gods, 
 as Peter^ James and John are three Men. 
 
 There is no Example in Nature of fuch a diftinfti- 
 on and unity, as is between the Three Perfons in the 
 Godhead, and therefore the ancient Fathers made ufe 
 of feveral Comparifons to different purpofes, which 
 muft carefully be confined to what they applied them, 
 for if we extend them farther, we make Nonftnfe or 
 Herefie of them. There are three things to be con- 
 fidered in the ever blefled Trinity 5 the diftinftion 
 of Perfons, the 6^8ai0T7^$ or Samenefs of Nature, and 
 their eflential Unity 5 and the Fathers make uft of 
 different Comparifons to reprelent each of thefe by, 
 becaufe no One can reprefent them all 5 but inconfi- 
 dering Perfons feek for all in One, and becaufe they 
 cannot find it, they rejeft them all, as impertinent, 
 
 dan- 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^^INITY. 105 
 
 dangerous, or heretical, and reproach the Fathers, 
 fbmetimes as ignorant of this great Myftery, fbme- 
 times as bordering upon Herefie, which I am fure does 
 little lervice to the Doftrine it felf, and gives great 
 countenance to faife and corrupt Notions of it; when 
 the Fathers themfelvcs, even thofe who were the 
 moft zealous Oppofers of Arianifin, are thought 
 Favourers of fuch Opinions. I fhall have occafion 
 to take notice of feveral Inftances of this, as T go on, 
 at prefent I fhall confine my ftlf to the Diftinftion 
 of Perfbns which cannot be more truly and aptly re- 
 prefented than by the diftindion between three men ; 
 for Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft areas really diilinft 
 Perfbns, as Peter , James and Jofj/^ ; but whoever 
 fhall hence conclude, Thar thefe Fathers thought , 
 that Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft are no otherwife 
 One alfb, than Peter, James and Joh/^ are, greatly a- 
 bufe them without any colourable pretence for it, 
 as will appear more prelently ; but this Comparifbn 
 of theirs fhows what their fenfe was, that thele Three 
 Divine Perfbns are Three Eternal and Infinite Minds, 
 as really diftinft from each other, as Three Men are ; 
 though effentially united into One Infinite and Eter- 
 nal Mind, or One God. But I need not infift on this, 
 for the real diftinciion of Perfbns is fo plainly taught 
 by the ancient Fathers, efpecially after the rife of the 
 SabellUn HereGe, that there is more difficulty to un- 
 derftand, how they unite them into One God, than 
 that they make them diftinQ: Perfons, and what they 
 &y about the Unity of the Godhead, abundantly proves 
 this difiinclion of Perfbns. 
 
 Secondly^ Let us therefore in the fecond place con- 
 fider, how they explain this great Myftery of a 
 
 P Trini- 
 
io6 A Vindication of the Vo^irine of the 
 
 Trinity in Unity ; they all agree, thaj: there are 
 Three diftindt Perfons, and that thefe Three Perfons 
 are but One God ; and they feem to me to agree ve- 
 ry well in that account they give of it ; though fbme 
 • late Writers are very free, and I think very unjuft, 
 in their Cenfures of fome of them as fcarcely Or- 
 thodox in this Point : I fhall only remind you, that 
 this being fo great a Myftery, of which we have no 
 Example ia Nature, it is no wonder, if it cannot be 
 explained by any one kind of Natural Union ; and 
 therefore it was neceffary to ufe leveral Examples , 
 and to allude to feveral kinds of Union, to form an 
 adequate Notion of the Unity of the Godhead, and 
 we muft carefully apply what they fay to thofe Ends 
 . and Purpofes for which they faid it, and not extend 
 it beyond their Intention, as I obferved before ; and 
 there are feveral Steps they take towards the Expli- 
 cation of this great Myftery , which I fhall repre- 
 fent in fhort, and fhow, that taking them altogether, 
 they give a plain and intelligible Notion of this U- 
 nity in Trinity, and indeed no other than what I 
 have already given of it. 
 
 I. The firft thing then to be confidered is the 
 OjuignTi'^THi or Co-effentiality of the Divine Perfons.That 
 all Three Perfons in the Godhead have the fame 
 Nature, which they fignified by the word 6^8^©.: 
 now whereas the fame Nature may fignifie the fame 
 petaviusdt Numerical, or the fame Specifick Nature, Pttavius^ 
 Trin.i.4.C5. and after him Dr. Cudworth^ have abundantly proved, 
 
 ^infeTclluai ^^^^ ^^^ Ntctm Fathers did not underftand this word 
 
 5/^ew,p.6o5.of a Numerical, but Specifick Samenefs of Nature: 
 
 ^^' or the agreement of things, numerically differing 
 
 from one another in the fame common Nature. As 
 
 Maximus 
 
Holy and. Ever mjjed T<I(^ / N / T 2. 1 07 
 
 Muximus very _ plainly tells us, -Ofwi^m sjrV, 5 * a't-rS? ^A';(«.!) \p- 
 
 that that is laid to be ijngaTiov, y-v ■f Mai- ^, Av^fwr®- iv'^fiin ijif 
 
 which has the fame Notion or ^^^'f^' '^if t^f^T^ ^''V ''1^'^ 
 
 Dehnition or us Eilence, as a «v«y j^ 0sar05« a/sV c/>c«^*-c^, ^ ©sa? 
 
 Man differs nothing: from a Man, '^^^'- MaximiDiai. i. dc Trinic. infer o- 
 
 i^ ' XA A 1 pera Achanafii. Vol. 2. p. 168. Edit. F^r/^. 
 
 as he IS a Man, nor an Angel ^ ^ 
 
 from an Angel, as he is an Angel : And therefore this 
 Word did equally overthrow the Sabellim and the An- 
 an Herefie; as it affirms both a Diftinftionof Perfbns, 
 and the Samenefi of Nature, as St. Ambroft and others 
 obferve ; for nothing is o/^^a/jiot/ to itfelf, but to fbme- Ambrof.i:^dc 
 thing elle, diftinft from it felf, but of the fame com- ^^^^' ^' '^' ' 
 mon Nature : and therefore fome, who owned the 5^8- 
 aiov-i rejected thQ fj^vo8cnov2ind a- wj^jiou "dnd'Tzx.vT^aiou as 
 favouring of SahelUamfm^ and implying fuch a Nume- 
 rical Unity of Effence in the Godhead, as deftroyed 
 all diftinftion of Perfons ; for which reafbn the o^^8- 
 (jiov it felf was rejefted by fbme,as abufed by the Sabel- 
 liansy till the (ignification of that word was fixt and 
 declared by the Fathers at Ntce^ as Petavmsoh&rvQS. 
 This is One thing wherein the Fathers place the 
 Unity of the Godhead ; that all Three Perfons have 
 the fame Nature ; and to be fure this is abfolutely 
 neceffary to make Three Perfbns One God ; for it 
 is impoffible they ihould be One God, if they have 
 not the fame Nature, unlefs Three diftinft and fepa- 
 rate Beings of divers Natures can be One God ; that 
 is, unlefs the Divine Nature be not One pure and 
 fimple Acl, bat a compound Being, and that of dif- 
 ferent Natures too. . But fome of the Fathers went 
 farther than this, and placed the EfTential Unity of 
 the Divine Nature in the Samenefs of Effence; that 
 there is but One God, becaufe all the Three Divine 
 Perfbns have the fame Nature. And it will be ne- 
 
 P 2 ceffary 
 
1 o8 A Findicatton of the DoFirine of the 
 
 cefTary briefly to examine what they meant by it, to 
 vindicate thefe Fathers from the Mif reprefemations, 
 and hard Cenffures of Petai/ms and Dr, Cudrvorthy 
 who (as I hope to make appear) have greatly mi- 
 ftaken their Senfe. The Charge is, that they make 
 the Three Divine Perfons, Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft, to be One God only upon account of the 
 fame Specifical Divine Nature common to them all 5 
 juft as Three men are One, by having the fame com- 
 mon Nature, or the fame Humanity: and being 
 asked, why they may not then be called Three 
 Gods, as v/ell as we fay, Peter, Jamesy and Joh^y 
 are Three Men 5 they anfwer, That this is owing to 
 an ill Cuflom, for they ought not to be called 
 Three men neither , which is like faying, there arc 
 Three Human Natures; and though in inferiour 
 Matters we may bear with the abufe of Words, and 
 improper Forms of Speech, yet this is of dangerous 
 Confeqiience, when we fpeak of God ; and there- 
 fore though there is no great hurt in faying , ' there 
 are Three Men, though there is but one Humani- 
 ty common to them all ^ yet we mufl: not fay there 
 are three Gods, fince there is but one Divine Na- 
 ture and Effence common to all Three Perfons : 
 ;fetav,dc This, Petaviu^ fays, is to deny the true and real Unity 
 Tr!n.i.4.c.9. ^f ^ {^^ Divine Subftance and Effence, and to make God 
 only colledively One ; as a multitude of men are faid 
 to be One People, and a multitude of Believers One 
 Church ; which was the Error of Abbot Joachim, for 
 ~^ which he was Condemned in the Council of Later an. 
 Mbi fupra. Dr. CurJworth reprefents it thus : Thefe Theologersfuf^ 
 fofed the Three Perfons of their Trinity to have real- 
 ly no other than a Specif ck Unity and Identity, and 
 hecaufe it feems plainly to follow from hence y that there^ 
 
 fore 
 
Hdy and Ever 'Blejfed Tl^lNlTl i o<^ 
 
 fore they mujt needs l>e as much Three Godsj as 
 Three men are Three mtn^ theft Teamed Fathers endea- 
 njotired with tht'tr Logick to prove ^ that Three men are 
 hut ahufively and imfroperly fo exiled Three , they be- 
 ing really and truly hut One , hecanfe there is bat 
 One and the fa?m Specijick Ejfe^^e or Sub flame of Hu- 
 man Nature in them alL He adds, It ftems 
 
 flain that this Trinity is no other than a kind ofTri- 
 theifm^ and that of Gods Independent and Co-ordinate too^ 
 This is a very high Charge, and yet thefe Theo- 
 logers are no lefs men than Gregory Nrffen, and Cy- 
 ril of Alexandria^ and Maximm, and Damafcen j 
 
 men of Note in their Generation, and never charg- 
 ed with Herefie before. But vi?hatever the meaning 
 of thefe Fathers was, it is plain, that Petavius and 
 Dr. Cudrvorth have miftaken their meaning. For 
 they did not think, that Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft were One God, only as Peter, James, and 
 John, are one man ; or that Peter, James, and John, 
 are One man, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft are 
 One God ; they neither dreamt of a Colledive nor 
 Specifick Unity of the Godhead^ but afferted a real 
 fubfifting numerical Unity of Effence, as is obvious 
 to every impartial Reader, and therefore if they had 
 not uaderftood, how they explained this, yet they 
 ought not to have put fuch a fenfe upon their 
 Words , as is direftly contrary to what they 
 affirm : I fhall not need to tranfcribe much out of 
 thefe Fathers to juftifie them in this Point, but will 
 only reprefent their Argument as plainly as I can, 
 and that will be their Juftification, whatever become 
 of their Argument. 
 
 They affirm then, That Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft^ are but One God, becaufe there is, and can 
 
I I o A J^indication of the DoBrme of the 
 
 be, but One numerical Divinity, or one Divine Na- 
 ture and Effence, though it fubfift in Three diftinfl 
 Perfons: Againft this it was objeflied , that Peter 
 
 ^. . > ..V V , '^ 0' Ti J'^^^h ^^^ J^^^» though they 
 
 ^vary^ei ^K^^i ^,p u^ ^ <pii<TiL, hvofj^o, ^ave the lame Human Nature, 
 '3rAH9ujuT/;ca? de^Sixei^ ei %v Uet r^m yet are Called Three Men • 
 
 j^J):.^v^awyMcL,^o <l7r^yp^Xcov ^n,'^, gj^J \^^^^ jg ^^ abfurdity in it' 
 
 ^'^ '(;b ^^iMv^mv JbffATm.^^ Tffi^ when there are mere than One, 
 •v^gr/W hf^hoyhn^, }y jij\jMdv w who have the fame Nature, to 
 
 ^«;^a.^Td^w.T/.ctTJ?o>w^,^^'J Ipeak ot them in the Plural 
 fi ^ '^oTTiTA T Uctla^, >b -^ m'«» ^ ^ ^y^ Number , to call Two Two 
 <^j'di>^j©-Ae;^.Ts^,7r«V|0s^?A4>«^ and Three Three; how then 
 
 ATOTjjPcJl/o;/T«. Greg. Nyff. Tom 2.P.448. • r \ -^ ,. . 
 
 Oiiodmnfinttiesviu comcs It to pals, that Religion 
 
 forbids this, that when we 
 acknowledge Three Perfons , who have the fame 
 Nature without any imaginable difference, we 
 muft in a manner contradict our felves, confefling 
 the Divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft 
 to be One and the fame, and denying that they are 
 Three Gods. 
 
 This Gregory A^yjfen anfwers at large, and I fhall 
 chiefly confine my felf to the Anfwers he gives, 
 which will abundantly fhow, how much thele two 
 learned Men have mif-reprcfenred his Senfe. 
 
 And firff, he takes notice of the common Form of 
 Speech, of calling]; Three, who partake of the fame 
 Human Nature, Three Men, which inclines us to call 
 the Three Fivine Perfons, Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghofl:, who have all the fame Divine Nature, Three 
 Gods, and that naturally betrays Men into the Opi- 
 nion of a Trinity of Gods, as well as of a Trinity 
 of Perfons, who are as much Three Gods, as Peter, 
 James^ and 'John^ are Three Men : And therefore he 
 tells us, that this is an improper way of fpeaking, 
 
 even 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed r(^lKrrr. 
 
 even when applied to men, to fay , that there are 
 Three men. For man is the name of Nature, not of 
 the Perfbn ; to fay that there is but One man^ is no 
 more than to fay, there is but One Humanity, and 
 to fay there are Three men, is to fay, there are 
 Three Humanities, or Three Human Natures ,' and 
 the Name of Nature eannot be a proper Name 
 of diftinftion, and therefore ought not to be multi- 
 plied 5 for that which is the fame in all, cannot di- 
 ftinguifli one Perfbn from another. This heobferves 
 all men are very fenfible of; for when they would 
 call any particular Perfbn out of a Crowd, they do 
 not call him by the name of Nature, that is, they 
 do not fay, you ;;^^;^ come hither; for this being a 
 common Name, as the Nature is common, no man: 
 could tell, who was meant; but they call him by 
 the Name of his Perfon, Peter ^ or James ; for though 
 there are many, who partake of the fame Human 
 Nature, yet there is but One man, or One Humani- 
 ty in them all : Pei;fbns are diftinguiflhed and divi- 
 ded and multiplied by peculiar perfbnal properties, 
 and therefore may be numbered; but Nature is One, 
 united with it felf, a perfe£l indivifible Unity, which 
 neither increafes by Addition, nor is diminiOied by 
 Subflraftion, but though it be in a Multitude of Indivi- 
 duals, is whole, entire, and undivided, in all. And 
 therefore as a People, an Army, a Church, are na- 
 med in the fingle number, t hough they confift of Multi- 
 tudes, fb in exaftnefs and propriety of Speech, man may 
 be faid to be One, though there are a Multitude 
 who partake of the fame Humane Nature. So that, 
 hitherto all that the Father hath faid, tendsonly to ju- 
 liifie this Form of Speech, as having nothing abfurd 
 or incongruous in it, to acknowledge, that the 
 
 Fa^ 
 
 1 1 I 
 
til A Vindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghoft God, 
 and yet that there is but One Uivinity or Godhead, 
 not Three Gods, for though this founds as harfh, 
 as to own, that Peter is a man, and Ja^^/es a man, 
 and jchn a man, and yet there are not Three men, but 
 One man, which cuftom has made very abf^^yd and 
 contradiQious to fay, f which is the Obiefction he 
 was toanfwer) yet he oblerves, that according to 
 ftrift propriety of fpeaking, this is nc abfurdity 
 to fay, there are not Three men, but One man ; nay, 
 that it is an abufe of Speech to fay otherwise, be- 
 caufe ^an is the name of Nature, not of a Perfbn, 
 and therefore there is but One man, as there is but 
 One Human Nature in all thofe, who partake of it, for 
 Human Nature is but One, whole, and indivifible in 
 all ; and therefore cannot diftinguifh One Perfbn from 
 another , and therefore not be a Name of Number. 
 But what makes St. Gregory difpute thus nicely a- 
 bout the ufe of words, and oppofe the common and 
 ordinary Forms of Speech? Did, he in good earneft 
 believe, that there is but One man in the World? 
 No! No ! he acknowledged as many men, as we do; 
 a great Multitude who had the fame Human Nature, 
 and that every one who had a Human Nature, was 
 an individual man diftinguifhed and divided from 
 all other Individuals of the fame Nature ; what makes 
 him fo zealous then againfl: faying, that Peter^ James^ 
 and jofm^ are three men? only this; that he fays 
 Ma» is the Name of Nature, and therefore to fay 
 there are Three men is the fame as to fay, there arc 
 Three Human Natures, of a different kind ; for if 
 there are Three Human Natures, they muft differ 
 from each other, or they can't be Three 5 and fo you 
 cdeny, Peter j James ^ and Jchn^ to be b^moi^ or of the 
 
 fame 
 
my and Ever !Blejfccl T(^lKlTt "115 
 
 fame Nature 5 and for the fame reafon, we muft (ay, 
 that though the feather be God, the Son God, and the 
 HolyGhoft God, yet there are not Three Gods, but 
 fjuoL 08^77?$, One Godhead and Divinity, left we de- 
 ftroy their Homooufiotes, or the Samenefs of their 
 Nature, and introduce Three Gods of a different Na- 
 ture, like the Pagan Polytherfm : which is the firft 
 reafon he give?, why we do not , ,^,,. ^ , ^ . * 
 
 fay there are Three Gods^to a- ^^^,^^:,r^JcB^/^^^ye<u,^ tn ^JJ'y^^ 
 void the fufpicion oi Polytheifm^ \6y©r 'hKK^)viK^]i ^ohvbiioiT otu>io- 
 in numbring and multiplying -^rct,^ ^f., ^^^..M^A^ei^^^^^^ 
 
 Gods, as the Heathens did, yMvoTh^y e^ yri f^mj'imi a^ka ^?y)Swj' 
 which he lays is a fufficient An- -^'^^ ^ -^^^ ">^ ae^V-^ro 7^ ^c^ok 
 fwer for ignorant and unskilful ^ * ^ '^''^^' 
 People. But to fay this in grofs, will not fatisfie more 
 inquifiiive Men, and therefore he affigns this reafon 
 for it, that Individuals in ftrift propriety of Speech 
 ought not to be numbred by the Name of their Na- 
 ture, becaufe thatargues adiverfityin their Natures, 
 to fay Three Men, is to fay, there are Three different 
 Humanities, whereas Humanity is One and the fame 
 in all 3 and as Men are not diftinguifhed, fo they ought 
 not to be numbred by the Name of Nature 5 and that 
 this is all his meaning, appears from the reafon he 
 gives, why this improper way of fpeaking may be to- 
 lerated without any inconvenience, when we fpeak 
 of Men, that we may fay, there are Three Men, but it 
 is \ery dangerous to apply this to the Divinity, and A/AT«7DctV 
 fay there are Three Gods 5 becaufe there is no danger, ^I^.T^^^q'^. 
 by this Form of Speech, that there are Three or more nx^i^^ hojua,- 
 
 fficoi ovof/^' To'j (^ioi tpopUu ^^iTv^-t^;j^-<i<; y^ r Ivniov V^ce.yyi\\<l rj-mv^ Tkro 'St^ach- 
 ^aely.^. Ibid. p. 45^« 
 
 Q. Men, 
 
114 ^ Vindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 Men, that any one fhoiild be betrayed into that Con- 
 ceit, that we mean a Multitude of Humanities, or 
 many different Humane Natures 5 but there is dan- 
 ger, left our naming more Gods, or faying, that there 
 are Three Gods, Men (hould imagine, that there are 
 divers and different Natures in the Divinity 5 that 
 is, that the Three Perfonsin the Godhead are not all 
 of the fame Nature. 
 
 Here St. Gregory lays his Foundation, That we muft 
 not fay, there are Three Gods, becaufe there is but 
 One Divinity 5 Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, being 
 all G/L(98c-i2i, of the fame Nature, whereas God being 
 the Name of Nature, to fay there are Three Gods, is 
 to foy, there are Three different Divinities, or Divine 
 Natures, which deftroys the Homooufiotes of the 
 Godhead ^ which is the Summ of his Argument a- 
 gainft ufing the Name of Nature plurally, to fay, 
 there are Three Men, or Three Gods. - ' 
 
 There is nothing more plain than this in the Dia- 
 AthanafiiVoi logues oi MaxJmm^ who all along explains this fjucf. 
 I. Dial. I. de ^^^^ ^nd jujcl oLv^fMTTrnn^^ the One Divinity and the 
 One Humanity , by the ^ ofj^hoiov , or the Same- 
 nefs of Nature, and therefore there can be but One 
 Nature, though it fubfift in feveral Perfons, or Indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 Now indeed had they gone no farther in explain- 
 ing the Unity of the Godhead, than this Specifick 
 Unity and Identity of Nature, there had been fome 
 reafon to quarrel with them 5 but they do not ftop 
 here , but proceed to fhow , how this ofjLo^aLov or 
 Samenefs of Nature in all Three Perfons of the ever 
 blcffed Trinity, proves a true Numerical and Ellen- 
 tial Unity of the Godhead 5 which it does not, and 
 c;innot do in created Natures : without this it is evi- 
 dent. 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T%lKlTr. 1 1 j 
 
 dent, there can be no Effential Unity, iinlefs we will 
 allow of a Compoficion of different Natures in the 
 Godhead 3 where the Nature is the fame it may be 
 One, not only by a Logical^ but by a Real and Ef^ 
 fential Unity. 
 
 Gregory Njjfen has two ways of doing this. I. He 
 obferves , that the Name God^ and fo thofe other 
 Names which are<Jifcribed to the Divinity, do not 
 fo properly fignifie the Divine Nature, as declare 
 fbmething relating to it : For 
 the Divine Nature is aV^.T^t.'j'O- '0,il/^.7^7>i^<S'eiKvv^fAsaj^Thjjr^iH'ji^ 
 
 f^^u xj cc(pe^^v, hat which ci^^d 71 ^J- ^ c^JriJ^^a r^ ^c^^^^Z 
 has no Name , and which no yuco&i(i^, kai -a i^^a, Tmvrct xj^ r 
 words can exprefs and fisni- ^'7' ^^^ ^'^ '^ ipf^^^s^j r ^."^s- 
 
 fie, as the Scripture teaches, ^VW^-^^^^-^^'.^ ^j^«f^,«V>c6^ ^'^, 
 but the Names given to God y^p^ofrccin to ^S'iou jiMo-MyTct.ctvT^i^ --^ 
 
 only teach us, either what we N)fti/2.t'4ri/ ^'^'^' ^''^' 
 ought not to attribute to the 
 Divine Nature, or what we ought, but not what the 
 Divine Nature it felf is. 
 
 This is a fair Introduction, fuch as becomes a wife 
 Man, who confiders, how unknown the Eflences of 
 all Things are to us, much more the Subftance and 
 Effence of God, and how it confounds our Minds, 
 when we talk of the Numerical Unity of the God- 
 head, to have the leaft conception or thought about 
 the diftinftion and union of the Natures and Efiences 5 
 and therefore he tells us, that 0gc$ is rS^cc-rpis and €(po- 
 ^©., the Infpeftor and Governour of the World 3 
 that is, it is a Name of Energy, Operation, and Pow- 
 er 5 and if this Vertue, Energy, Operation be 
 the very fame in all the Perfons of the Trinity, Fa- 
 
 CL 2 ther^ 
 
\ \6 A Findication of the DoBrlne of the 
 
 ther, Sod, and Holy Ghoft, then they are bin One 
 
 God, but One Power and Ener- 
 
 "OT/tfV0piyTO/ 1i\ yj,v ^lA^ uiojv h)}' gy . and thus he proves it is, 
 
 Ir^-nruW^Q- i.}y^ Th ^cx«'Mo.;', ^"^ that not as It IS among, 
 iriv^aaiv^y cvTvi kcl^' kcwrlv hv^ytici Men, vvho have the fame Povv- 
 jes^i^-TfiT.vJhiy^UovTu^-— ^r and Skill, do the very dime 
 
 yjiv h pc Tol^ di'fjfcJTFoij, iireiJ^ J^idu- Thuigs, protels the lame Art, 
 xft^)^ » iv Toif duToif 6^'niJ'<dj'y-ctcnv are Pliilcfophers or Orators a- 
 
 tl'li!TbCpT5t"' ""'^^^ ''°^^''" ^'^^' and#?et are not all One 
 
 Philofopher, or One Oratory 
 
 becaufe though they do the fame thing, yet they 
 aft apart, every one by himfelf, and have no Com- 
 munion nor (hare in what each other do; but their 
 Operations are proper to themfelves alone 5 but in 
 the Divine Nature it is not fo, the Father does no- 
 thing by himfelf, nor the Son by himfelf, nor the 
 Holy Ghoft by himfelf 5 but the whole Energy and 
 Operation of the Deity relating to Creatures, begins 
 wiih the Father, palles to the Son, and from Father 
 and Son to the Holy Spirit ; The Holy Trinity does 
 not act any thing feparately, there are not Three 
 diftinct Operations, as there are Three Perfons, aAAcx 
 
 Ibid. p. 4-/, yj^ ^^ yiyi^^ dyt'^'d /2jAKt(^T©- KiVAJis otj ^cc.}{^(ryy/]ai9^ 
 
 ^'^* but one morion and difpofition of the good Will, 
 
 which paiies through the whole Trinity from Fa- 
 ther to Son, and to the Holy Ghoft 3 and this is 
 done cc^y^vcios >cj oL^ai<^.m^i without any diftance of 
 Time, or propagating the Motion from one to t'o- 
 ther, but by One thought, as it is in One numeri- 
 cal Mind and Spirit, and therefore though they are 
 Three Perfons, they are but one numerical Power 
 and Enero;v. 
 
 By this time I hope the Reader is fatisfied, That 
 !liis Father docs not make the Perfons of the Trinity 
 
 :: Three 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^lKlTt \ \j 
 
 Three Independent and Coordinate Gods, who are 
 no othervvife One than Three Men are by a Speci- 
 fick Unity and Identity of Nature, but has found out 
 fuch an Unity for them, as he confefles cannot be 
 between Three Men , even fuch an Unity as there 
 is in a Spirit, which is numerically One with it 
 felf, and confcious to all its own Motions 5 for I leave 
 any Man to judge, whether this fAou rnvms^-^XY^tji^- 
 T©-, this one fingle Motion of Will which is in the 
 fame inftant in Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, can 
 fignifie any thing elfe but a mutual confcioufnefs , 
 which makes them numerically One, and as intimate 
 to each other, as every Man is to himfelf, as I have 
 already explained it. Petavif^ was aware of this, 
 and therefore will not allow this to belong to the 
 fame Argument, but to be a new and diftinft Argu- 
 ment by it felf: Now fuppofe this, yet methinks he 
 fhould have fufpefted, he had miftaken the Fathers 
 Senfe, when he found him contradift, what he ap- 
 prehended to be his Senfe, within the compafs of 
 two Pages 5 but indeed the Miftake is his own, for 
 the Father purfues his intended Argument to prove, 
 that though the Father is God, and the Son God, and 
 the Holy Ghoft God, yet we ought not to fay, that 
 there are Three Gods, but One God. This he proves 
 firft, becaufe God is the Name of Nature, and the 
 Name of Nature muft not be exprefied in the Plural 
 Number, when the Nature is the fame without any 
 the leaft conceivable difference 5 for to fay, there are 
 Three Gods, is to fay, that there are Three different 
 Divine Natures, which introduces Poljtheifm^ as to 
 fay there are Three Men, is to fay, there are Three 
 different Humane Natures 5 for if they be the fame, 
 they are not Three 5 and therefore the Name of the 
 
 Na- 
 
 / 
 
1 1 8 A Vindication of the VoElr'me of the 
 
 Nature muft not be exprefled plurally, how many 
 Perfons foever there arc, who have the fame Na- 
 ture. This was to fecure the Homooufiotes of the 
 Divine Nature, and if he had ftopped here, fctavim 
 and Dr. Cudworth might have faid what they pleafed 
 of him \ but having fecured the Homooufiotes or 
 Samenefs of Nature, which was the great difpute of 
 thofe days between the Orthodox and the Arians.^ 
 he proceeds to (how, how this fame Nature in Three 
 diftinft Perfons is united into One numerical Eflence 
 and Godhead 5 and this he does firft by fhowing, that 
 God fignifies Power and Energy , and that all the 
 Three Perfons in the Trinity have but One numeri- 
 cal Energy and Operation, and therefore are but 
 One God 5 which is only the improvement of his 
 former Argument ^ for the Samenefs of Nature is 
 neceflary to the Samenefs of Operation 5 for Nature 
 is the Principle of Aftion, efpecially in God, whole 
 Nature is a pure and fimple Aft, and an unity and 
 Angularity of Energy and Operation is a demonftra- 
 tion of One numerical Effence^ for the fame fingle 
 individual Aft cannot be done by Two feparate Be- 
 ings, who muft aft feparately alfb. 
 
 Secondly^ As for thofe, who are not contented to 
 contemplate God as a pure and fimple Aft or Ener- 
 gy, which eafily folves this difficulty , how Three 
 Perfons are One God, they having but One nume- 
 rical Energy and Operation s I f^y 5 as for thofe 
 who not contented with this, inquire after the Unity 
 of the Divine Nature and Elience, he afferts that 
 this pcrfeft Homooufiotes or Samenefs of Nature, 
 v/ithout the leaft difference or alteration makes them 
 numerically One 3 and returns to what he had firft 
 
 faid, 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^^INITI. 119 
 
 faid. That the Name oF Nature fhould not be ex- 
 prefled Plarally, it being One entire undivided Uni- 
 ty, which is neither encreafed nor diaiinifhed by fub* 
 lifting in more or fewer Perfons, 
 
 I confeG, I do not underftand his reafoninginthis . 
 matter, he feems to deftroy all Principles of Indivi- 
 duation, whereby One thing is diftinguifhed from a- 
 nother, where there is no difference or diverfity of 
 Nature f) for Things, he fays, muft be diftinguifhed 'f^« 3 j«^ 
 by Magnitude, Place, Figure, Colour, or fome o-^'^f^^^r^^ 
 ther diverfity in Nature, before we can number them, ^pWct « Qeia 
 and call them Two or Three: and therefore fince'?^^^^"^ 
 the Divine fimple unalterable Nature, admits of no ^j^^rX^^V 
 Eflential diverfity, that it may be One, it will not (^^ h '^)i^- 
 admit of any number in it felf, but is but One God. f^w^~^'l 
 Whereas I confefs to my underftanding, if the fame ^^s^iTcu. 
 pure unmixt Nature, as fuppofe Humanity, fhould f^!"J§- Ny^- 
 fubfift in Twenty feveral Perfons, without the leaft^ ^ • P-45 ► 
 variation, I fhoald not doubt, notwithftanding the 
 Specifick Unity of Nature, to fay, there are Twen- 
 ty fubfifting Humane Natures 5 and Three Minds 
 and Spirits, which have no other difference, are yet 
 diftinguiftied by felf-confcioufnefs, and are Three di- 
 ftinft Spirits : And therefore to help this out, he 
 fometimes adds, that there is jl/Ate <pvaia)^ jjAtz ot^ep- 
 yeictA nvd hcc^oeJ'V c^ ^iirnTiy uo difference either of 
 Nature or Energy in the Deity 5 and at other times, 
 7) (deict (pvoi'; cL7rx[pcthAcc>iT(^ ii^ dhxipeT©^-, the Divine" 
 Nature is invariable, and undivided 5 which all the 
 ancient Fathers added to explain the Unity of the 
 Trinity, that infeparate Union of Nature, whic^is 
 between the Divine Perfons, that they are c^;}^^!^;, 
 iafeparable from each other, 
 
 Bnt 
 
120 A FinMcation of the VcSlrine of the 
 
 But however he might be miftaken in his Philofo- 
 phy, he was not in his Divinity : for he averts a 
 numerical Unity of the Divine Nature, not a meer 
 Specifick Unity, which is nothing but a Logical No- 
 tion, nor a CoUeftive Unity, which is nothing but 
 a Company, who are Naturally many 5 but a true 
 fubfifting numerical Unity of Nature, and if the 
 difficulty of explaining this, and his zeal to defend it, 
 forced him upon fome unintelligible Nicities, to prove 
 that the fame numerical Humane Nature too is but 
 one in all Men, it is hard to charge him with teach- 
 ing, that there are Three Independent and Coordi- 
 nate Gods, becaufe we think he has not proved, that 
 Peter ^ James, and Johr?^ are but one Man. This will 
 make very foul w^ork v/ith the Fathers, if we charge 
 them with all thofeErronious Conceits about the Tri- 
 nity, which we can fancy in their inconvenient ways 
 of explaining that venerable Myftery , efpecially 
 when they compare that myftcrious Unity with any 
 Natural Unions. 
 
 I am fure St.Grcgory was fo far from fufpefting 
 that he (hould be charged with Tr'theifm upon this 
 Account, that he fences againft another Charge of 
 mixing and confounding the Hypoftafes or Perfons, 
 by denying any difference or diverfity of Nature, 
 
 Ibid. p.4$p. ^^ ^"'^ tS yw//) Si')^(^ T- k^ (^v^iv hccl^o^v ^ fJJ^iv met 
 7^^ •i^zio^a^^v otj ccvctJaj)iAr,(7iv -^Ttio-x.djcc^oi'Tc:^^ vvhich 
 
 argues, that he thought he had fo fully aflerted the 
 Unity of the Divine Eflence, that fome might fu- 
 fpeft, he had left but One Perfon, as well as OneNa- 
 tujii in God. 
 
 But though the Homooufiotes or Coeflentiality of 
 the Divine Perfons is not fufficient alone to prove 
 this Unity of the Godhead, yet as I before obferved, 
 
 this 
 
Holy and Ever ^lefd T(^INI Tl mx 
 
 this IS necelTary to an effential Unity, for they mud 
 all have the fame Nature, or they cannot be One, 
 and therefore this was the firft thing to be confidered 
 in the Unity of the Godhead, 
 
 SexonMy^ To this Homo-ou-Jotes the Fathers added 
 a numerical Unity of the Divine Effence. This Pe- petaiHvoii. 
 tAvuis has proved at large by numerous Teftimonies, ^-4^- 13* i4» 
 even from thofe very Far hers, w horn he before accu- 
 fed for making God only coUeftively One, as Three 
 Menare One Nian ; fuch as Qreg(ry NjJJe;^^ St. Cp//^ 
 Maximris ^ Dd?n.ifo(n) which is a demonftration, 
 that however he might miftake their explication of 
 it, from the Unity of human Nature, they were far 
 enough from Tritherfm, or One colleftive God. 
 
 For we muftoblerve, though all the Fathers alTert, 
 the Angularity of the Godhead, or the numerical U- 
 nity of the Divine Effence, yet they do not affert 
 fuch a numerical Unity, as there is, where there is 
 but One Perfbn as well as One Eflence ; but fuch a 
 numerical Unity, as there is between Three, who 
 are 6^^8jto{, of the very fame nature, but are not 
 meerly united by a fpecifick Unity, but by an effen- 
 tial Union, and therefore are Three and One. This 
 as Maximus truly fays, is o^,'^^©- ^ ^ ^xifiJis -^ ^ 
 irwJTs, both a w^onderful diftinftion and union, but 
 though feveral Fathers attempt feveral ways of ex- 
 plaining it, they all agree in the thing ; that Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghoft, Three diftinQ: Divine Perfbns, 
 are united in one numerical Nature and Effence. 
 
 And I cannot but obftrve, that Petavius greatly 
 commends Boeth/u/s explication of this Myftery, 
 which is the very fame he had before condemned in 
 Gregory Nyjfen, and thofe other Fathers. That Fa- ^^^^-P'^s^^ 
 
 R ther, 
 
lit A jy"mdication of the VoElnne of the 
 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft are One God, not Three 
 
 Gods : Cujus con'ymciionis ratio ejl iyidi^drentL^ : The 
 reafoncr manner of which Union and Conjunction is 
 their indifference; that is, fuch a famenels of Nature, 
 «is admits of no difference or variety, or an exa£t 
 HomO'Oufiotes, as he explains it : Eos enlm differentia, 
 corn'itatur^ qui utl augtnt vel minmtnt^ tit Ariani qui 
 f^radibfu merit or am TrimtLittrnvf.riAntes dJftrah,"?7t. atq\ 
 in piiira/itatem deducunt : Thofe make a difference, 
 who augment and diminiQi, as the ^r/-;^;^/ do, whodi- 
 ftin^euilV; the Trinity into different Natures as well as 
 Perfbns, ofdinerent worth and excellency, and thiisdi^ 
 vide and multiply the Trinity into a plurality of Gods. 
 Frincipium emm pluralitatis alttritas eJl : Pr.tter dteri- 
 tatem enirn nee plur.ilitas q.vd fit inttlligi potefl : For 
 the beginning of plurality is akerity ; for we know 
 not w hat plurality is but alterity : That is, there mjjfl: 
 be feme difference in the Nature of Things to make 
 them Two or Three, but when the Nature is exa6lly 
 ' the fame, they are but One : which is exiQ:!/ the 
 
 fame account, which Gm^<9r; gave of it, as i have al- 
 ready fliewn ; and why this fhould be little better than 
 Herefie in him, and very good Divinity in Boet^ius, 
 is a little myflerious ; for after all, this numerical Q- 
 nity of EfTence is nothing elfe, but an ccTrccppdAMKt'^/ 
 '!,c(9«o-ioW, where there are no /-S^ott^t??, as Miiximus 
 (peaks, fuch an invariable famenefs of Nature, as has 
 no differences to diftinguifh it, and therefore muff be 
 One : Forthefe Fathers apprehended, that where there 
 was fuchan exa£t famenefs of Nature, they did mu- 
 tuairyexirt in each other, and were but One Power 
 and Energie, Will and Counfel , and therefore but 
 One Godhead and Monarchy : This Gregory Nyffen in- 
 llftson, as 1 fhewed before, and PeA^z/zV/j" has quoted' 
 
Holy and E\.er ^ejfed T(SJ NlTl 123 
 
 a remarkable Teftimony from Damafctn to this pur- 
 pofe; which (liews afo, that though they afTerted 
 but One Humanity, yet they were tar enough from Ibid.^435, 
 thinking, that the Three Divine Perfons are One God, 
 only as /'e/^r, ^^^e/, and 7^/;/#, are one Man; where 
 he tells us, That the diftinciion and feparation between 
 Peter and PahIxs real and vifible, their union and Gom- 
 munity of Nature on:f Notional : For we conceive in 
 ourMmds, that Per^r and Paul are of the fame kind, 
 and have but One common Nature: Thus common 
 Nature is difcerned by Reafon, but yet it fubfifts by 
 Parts, and feparately be it felf, and is diftinguirhed''Aur,;«;' xoah 
 from ic fe!f as it fubfuls in individuals by many thing? .^^'^'^.'^ ^^'* 
 lome pecuhar marks and properties: but eipecially ^^^^jj/^ j:^'^^' 
 that they do not fubfift in each other but feparately, v^^a^^^/f c^ 
 and therefore may by called Two or Three or many ^^'.'|^j^^'-^.' 
 Men ; (and Gref^orj Nyjfeji fays the fame, as Pewju/s yJ^g-A jyctvi 
 himfelfowns) but in the moft facred Trinity it is o Kp©"'''V«^^ 
 therwife ; for there the community of Nature is not yf^l^j^ ' 
 a Logical Notion, but is real ; from the fame Eter- '^rAfTsaTttj^/- 
 nity, Identity of Subftance, Aflion, Will, Agreement '^^^?''^'^\ 
 of Counfels, Identity of Authority, Power, Goodnefs; ^^V/j^o^ 
 I do not fay Likenefs, but Identity. -^jtaWq ;?«?- 
 
 T.nctdhKd TcwTOTtjTO'. Damafc. de fide Orchcd. 1. i.e. ii. ' 
 
 The numerical Unity then of the Divine EfTence 
 rcfolves it felf into thofe two Principles, the Unity and 
 Identity, of Power and Energie, and that which they 
 call the .^^%/;H>Wi$, or crrcuminceflion, orin being of 
 the Three Divine Perfons in each ocher, which pre- 
 ferves the diftinftion of Perfons, but makes the Di- 
 
 R 2 vine 
 
124 A Vindiccd'mi of the VoSirine of the 
 
 vine Eflence numerically One ; and indeed thefe 
 Two are but One, and both of them nothing more 
 than what I have explained, I think, a little more 
 intelligibly by a mutual confcioufnefs, whereby all 
 Three Divine Perfons are mutually in each other, and 
 and have but One Energy and Operation. 
 
 That the Fathers univerfally acknowledged, That 
 De Trinitatc, the Operation of the whole Trinity, ad extra, is but 
 1.4.0.15. One, Pttav^us h2ks proved beyond all contradidion; 
 and hence they conclude theUnity of the Divine Na- 
 ture and Eflence ; for every' Nature has a vertue and 
 energy of its own ; for Nature is a principle of AQ:i- 
 on, and if the Energy and Operation be but One, 
 there can be but One Nature ; and if there be Two 
 diftind and divided Operations, if either of them can 
 aci alone without the other, there muft be Two divi- 
 ded Natures. 
 
 This is certainly true, but yet it gives no account 
 how Three diftinft Perfons come to have but One 
 Will, One Energy, Power, and Operation ; and 
 there is no account to be given of it, that I know of, 
 but what I have now^ given, viz, mutual confciouf- 
 nefs 5 ^nd that is a very plain account of it : For if all 
 Three Perfons be confcious to each other, as every 
 Man is to himfelf, there can be but IV ^ ^oIvto '^ o3t/- 
 '^7?T(©>' rJ.vA;j{cf, T5 >tj 1^8Ayi/u^ , as Greoory Naz,ianzen 
 Ipeaks, but One and the fame Motion and Will of 
 the Deity ; they muft move and aft all together, ac- 
 cording to the order and fubordination of the Divine 
 Perfons*, and it is impoflible they fliould do fb with- 
 out this mutual confcioufnefs, as it is, that Three 
 Men, who are. not confcious to each other, fhould 
 have but One fingle motion of Will, in One fingle 
 and undivided Ad ; Tl?e Fathers then and I agree in 
 
 this 
 
Holy and Ever mjjed TRINITY. ^ i ^ 
 
 this, that the Unity of the Divine Nature and EfTence 
 confifts in the finguiarity of Operation ; I only add, 
 how this Energy and Operation is, and rauft be one, 
 by a mutual confcioufnefi, and if this be a realbnable 
 and intelligible account, I hope it is no fault. 
 
 And there is no other account to be given of that 
 mutual ln-beinp;of the Divine Perfons in each other, 
 which they call the ^cs^t^^f^ms, as Chrift tells us, r^'moflhi^/ 
 am tn the F^tthtr^ md the Father in me : The neceffi- o ^^"^-^ ^.5- 
 ty or this they law, from what our Saviour lays, and AwAa;r, ;9 «V«- 
 becaufe it is impoffible they flhould be One without ^■^'^^^'''^^' 
 fuch an infeparable and intimate Union and l^i^efence ^I^^^^^^l 
 and inhabitation in each other : and therefore Dama- p^^^ ^^5%- 
 fcen tells us, that they cannot go out of each other, ^•^•^' ^^"^* 
 nor be feparated ; but are united and mutually pene- '^"^' ^' 
 trate each other without confufion. 
 
 Such an Union as this they all agreed in, as Peta- DeTrin. 1.4. 
 W/^i largely Oiews, but how to explain it they know^*^^* 
 not ; fbmetimes they are thus intimately united by 
 the fameneft of Nature, but this might be the caule 
 of this Union, but not explain what this intimate 
 Union is ; fometimes they reprefent it by corporeal 
 fimilitudes, which raifegrols and material Images ia 
 the mind, unworthy of the pure and fimple EflFence 
 of God : As the mixture and union of the Light of fe- 
 veral Candles in the fame Room, and of the Colours 
 of the Rainbow, d^c. which is owing to a material 
 conception of the Divine Subftance, and the Union 
 of Subftances, which we know nothing of; but had 
 they contemplated God as a pure Mind, it had been 
 eafie to explain this Perichorefts^ or Ind welling of the 
 Divine Perlbns in each other: For there is. and can 
 be no other Union of Minds but confcioufnefs, and 
 by a mutual confciouFaefs they are as intimate to each 
 
 othej\ 
 
11 6 Ayindkattonof .the Vo^rine 0/ the 
 
 other, as they are to themfelves ; and are whatever 
 each other Is-, as I have explained it at large ; and I 
 hone, this is no fault neither, to give an inrelUgible 
 Exphcation of that, which all the Fathers taught, but 
 were not equally happy in their Exphcations of 
 
 ' But to do St. A//;^ right, though he do not 
 
 name this conicio'jfners, yet he explains this Trinity 
 
 in Unity by examples of nautual confcioufhefs : Ina- 
 
 Supra p. 50. ^^j ^^^^ ^j.- j^j^ Similitudes before, of the Unity of 
 
 our Underftanding, Memory, and Will, which are all 
 confcious to each other ; that we remember what we 
 underftand and will ; we under ftand what we remem- 
 ber and will ; and what we will, we remember and 
 underftand ; and therefore all thefe Three Faculties 
 do penetrate and comprehend each other. But his 
 Sc.Aug.T.2. Ninth Book, DeTrtmtate, is fpent wholly upon this 
 dcTrjn. 1 9. /\j«CTument. It is very familiar with the Ancient Fa- 
 thers to reprefent the Father as the infinite Original 
 Mind ; the Son the Wifdom of the Father, his Image, 
 or reflex knowledge of himfelf ; and tbe Floly Spirit 
 that Divine Love,wherewith Father and Son love each 
 
 other ; Sr. Atijl'm takes thi^ fimi- 
 igim ipfa mens, amr d^nothia ejus jit^de of a Mind Jts knowledge of 
 
 triaqu^dam funt & hs^c tna unum fmt, ; felf and 
 
 d^ cumperfe^afmt£quaUafimt. ItS ICir, ano !OVe OF US ICif, ana 
 
 Afens autem cum fe totam mvk, hoc eft, fl cw^s how thefe are Three and 
 terfeSie mvit, per totum ejus eft notitia CneAvhich he makcs a faintlmage 
 
 e]i4s-, & cum feperfe^eamat, tommjca- ^ , rpfemhlMnrp nf - TriniTv 
 
 L&per totam eft ^mor ejus.- ^omoao ot, and rclemb.ance ot a 1 rmity 
 
 autem ift^ tria non fmt e]u[dem fubftjr^tia m Unity. NoW the Mind. wheO It 
 ^onvideo^cimmenjirfafea^^^^^^^ knOWS itS \^ holc fclf, itS knOW- 
 
 ITtedalicti'^'rerum mens ^vel Tmatl ^ I7l IcdgC Comprehends ifS who^C fclf; 
 
 lot^l ftt. Vr.iM ergo e]i4fdemq', effentU and when it ptrfcQlv loves ittclf, 
 
 comprehends its whole felf ; and this proves them to 
 
 be 
 
Holy and Ever mjjed Tfs^lNITY. 127 
 
 be of the fame Subftance ; for the Mind knows it felf, 
 and loves it (elf, and Thefe are fo Three, that the 
 Mind is known and loved by nothing elfe, and there- 
 fore it is neceflary that thefe Three have One Nature 
 and E!]ence. 
 
 He proceeds to fhe^JV, that this Unity is without- 
 all manner of confafioji and mixture, as it is in the 
 Sacred Trinity, where the Perfbns are united, but di- 
 {[InQ: ; for mixture of Peribns ' , . . , . 
 
 in t -r^ • • J ri In alterms autsm ita fmt quia mens a- 
 
 deftroys the i nnity : and Ihews, ^^,, ^„ ^^,y, ,ft^ ^ ^r^ior in amamsm^ 
 
 how each of them are diliinft, nna, <i^mtumin mme ti^fcer.te. Singula 
 
 and then how they are alternate- Z ^'''\ ''^ ^'"'^ ^± ^t'ff ^;^ ^% ""'j 
 
 . , . J ^ u \/f' A tX iirnat^ in amir e (Zy notitia fua eji : qy 
 
 ly in eactl others lor the Mind anm amantis mentis, fefeq-, fcientis in 
 
 that loves i>in the love, and love "^^^^^ notitiaq-.ejus eft-, & notitia w.entis 
 
 II II I L T J^ fcientis (h amaniii in mente atq\ amove 
 
 m the knowledge Ot the Lover, ^j;^ e/, quia faentem fe amat, h aman^ 
 
 and knowledge in the knowing tem fe novit. Ac per hoc ^ bina in fin- 
 
 Minds and how each of them ^^'^^^^T-^'t^ rnens qu.-fe novit p: amat, 
 
 . . -' ^ cum fua not It t a eJi in amore, cr cum fuo 
 
 is in the other two ; tor the amore in notitia-, amor qmppe ipfe e^ no- 
 
 Mind, which knows and loves titia fmul funt in mente qu^ fe amat ^ 
 
 r \ c ' ' • 1 1 J novit, -Tota vero in totjs qnemadmodum 
 
 It leh, iS m Its own Knowledge yj,. -^amfupra oflendimus, ciimfe tota mens 
 
 and love • and the love of the amat, (^ toram novit, et totum amorem 
 Mind, which knows and loves it J^^^^rnnovit, tot amq-, amat notitiamfnm. 
 
 felf, is in its own knowledge*, and the knowledge of the 
 Mind which knows and loves it felf is in the Mind, and 
 in its love;*becaure i loves it felf knowing, and knows 
 it felf loving ; and chus alfb two are in each/or the Mind 
 which knows and loves it felf, with its knowledge is in 
 love, and w^ith its love is in knowledge ; for love and 
 knowledge are together in the Mind, which loves and 
 knows it felf: and the whole is in the whole ; for the 
 whole Mind loves it felf, and knows its whole felf, and 
 knows its whole love, and loves its whole knowledge. I 
 need not tell any Man, that this is the mutual confci- 
 oufnefs which 1 have defcribed, and by this St. Aufim 
 
 re- 
 
1 2 8 A Vmdication of the DoBrhie of the 
 
 reprefents the Trinity in Unity ; and I hope his Au- 
 thority will defend me from the charge of Innovati- 
 on ; and I am fure the reafon of the thing will defend 
 itfelf. 
 
 But for the better underftanding of this., we muft 
 further obferve, that the Fathers relblve the Unity 
 of the Godhead intothe Unity of Principle : that is, 
 though there be Three Divine Perfons in the God- 
 head, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, yet the Father 
 is the Original Fountain of the Deity, who begets 
 the Son of his own Subftance, and from whom, and 
 the Son, the Holy Ghoft eternally proceeds, of the 
 fame Subftance with Father and Son : So that there is 
 but One Principle and Fountain of the Deity , and 
 therefore but One God. 
 
 But this, as Petavlns wxll obferves, does not of 
 it felf prove the Unity of the Godhead, but only the 
 
 Ofji^HcnrmS'i or lamenefs of 
 Tct ;tT/^64<^fit J9 'uo^kfj^ct 'i^^j^v V ]sjature ; and therefore the Fa- 
 
 ->v«v©- m'^i, -iH. Athan. Nic. De- thcrs add, That God begets a 
 
 creep. i6i. Son not witliout but Within iiim- 
 
 KaJ *_^f,wi^i-)«fjf^. ir^'c. 79 f.» fgif por the Wifdom of God is 
 
 (pe^v^ii, p. 265. ^ / ^ ^ withm him, and mleparable 
 
 kai h'ojjT^^ VI) dJ'icifiTw^ — ump- from him: This theyilluftrated 
 
 tpUTOi. p. 20e. J 1 1 • r- 
 
 dour, whicn are coaeval and mle- 
 parable ; by the Fountain and its Streams ^ by a Tree 
 and its Branches, which are united in One ; which 
 Comparifbns muft not be drained farther than they 
 were^ intended, as if Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft 
 were One in the lame manner, as the Sun and its Lighr, 
 or the Tree and ics Branches, or the Fountain, River, 
 .and Streams, but only that there is fiich a natural 
 
 and 
 
Holy and Ever Slefed T^^IKITI 129 
 
 and efTential Union between the Divine Perfons, as 
 makes them One numerical God. 
 
 But there is fomething ftill to be added to this to 
 compleat this Notion, that as the Father is the Foun- 
 tain of the Deity, and the Son and Holy Gholt in- 
 feparably united to him, fo Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft are ellential to One God, as St. Aujiin calls 
 the Trinity, TJnam qitandam jummdm rem^ One Su- ^^^- ^- ^» pe 
 preraeThing : Andas all acknowledge, that the Three ^.^.J "^^^^^' 
 Perfons are One God, and finceGod is the moft ne- 
 ceilary Being, all Three Perfons are neceflary and 
 edential to One God : That there muft neceflarily be 
 Three Divine Perfons in the Unity of the Godhead, 
 and there can be no more. 
 
 For the explication of this I (hall proceed by thefe 
 fteps, which are all plain and univerfally acknow- 
 ledged. 
 
 I. That there are no Accidents, nor Qualities, nor 
 Faculties in God, as there are in created Spirits 5 but 
 whatever is in God is ^o-iweJ^^, Effence and Subftance, 
 a pure and fimple Aft. This is univerfally acknow- 
 ledged by all Chriftians 5 St. Auflin affirms , that 
 there are no Accidents in God : Athanafms^ That^iv^. deTrin. 
 there is no Compofition in God, as between Subftance ^* 5- c. 5^ 
 and Accident, (and it is much a-like, as to Mind 
 and its different Faculties and Powers,which is a Com- 
 pofition ) but that God is clir>Zv 77, a pure fimple 
 Ad : But there is no need of Teftimonies to prove Athcin. Syn. 
 that, which Natural Reafon proves, for nothing can ^*^*"^ ^^^^* 
 be Eternal and Self-originated, but a pure and fimple ^' ^ * 
 Aft, for what is compounded is made 3 for it wants 
 a Maker. 
 
 2. That 
 
 3 
 
! 5 o A yindwation of the DoSlrine of the ^ 
 
 2. That it is eflential to an eternal Mind to know 
 it felf, and to love it felf^ for this is eflential to a 
 Mind 5 no humane Mind can be without it, muchlefi 
 the moft perfeft and excellent Mind ; and therefore 
 God does know himfelf, and love himfelf and his own 
 Image. 
 
 3. That Original Mind and Wifdom, and the Know- 
 . ledge of it felf, and love of it felf, and its own Image, 
 
 are diftinft Ads, and never can be One fimple, indi- 
 vidual Aft. They are diftinft Powers and Faculties 
 in Men, Knowledge, Self-refledion, and Love, and 
 are fo diftinft , that they can never be the fame : 
 Knowledge is not Self-refleftion , nor Love either 
 Knowledge or Self-refleftion, though they are infepa- 
 bly united, they are diftinft. 
 
 4. Therefore thefe three Afts, which are fo diftinft, 
 that they can never be the fame, muft be three fub- 
 ftantial Afts in God 5 that is, three Divine fubfifting 
 Perfons 5 for there is nothing but Edence and Sub- 
 ftance in God 5 no Accident, or Faculties, as there are 
 in Creatures. 
 
 5. That thefe are the true and proper Charafters of 
 the diftinft Perfons in the ever blefled Trinity. The 
 Father is Original Mind and Wifdom5 the Son the 
 Word and Wifdomof the Father 5 that is, the reflex 
 Knowledge of himfelf, which is the perfeft Image of 
 his own Wifdom ^ the Holy Ghoft, that Divine Love 
 which Father and Son have for each other : It would 
 be very impertinent to confirm thjs by the Authority 
 of the ancient Fathers, becaufe all Men,who know any 
 thing of them,know that this is their conftant language. 
 
 I am fure this is very agreeable to the Language of 
 Scripture, and anfwers all thofe Charafters we find 
 there of the Son and Holy Ghoft. 
 
 The 
 
Holy and E\>er ^lejfed T^lK ITT. i j i 
 
 The Son is exprefly called the Word and the Wif- 
 dom of God. That Word, which was in the begin- 
 nings which was with God^ and was God^ i John i. 
 For God did certainly always know himfelf, and 
 therefore the Word was always with God, intimate- 
 ly prefent with him, not as our tranfient and va- 
 nifhing Reflections are, but as a permanent and fub- 
 ftantial Word, thefubfifting and living Image of his 
 Father*s Wifdom : As he is called the Brightnefs of 
 his Father s Glory ^ and the exprefs Image of his Perfon^ 
 I Heb.2» His Father's Glory and Perfon is Eternal 
 and Original Wifdom ^ He is his Father's begotten 
 Wifdom, or the bright Refleftion of his Wifdom ^ 
 which is as perfect and exadt, as the Father's Know- 
 ledge of himfelf. And therefore St. John might well 
 (ay, No man hath fe en God at any time^ the only begotten 
 Son^ who is in the bofom of the Father^ he hath declared 
 him^ I John i8. And our Saviour might well tell 
 us. As the Father kriovceth me^ even fo know I the Fa* 
 ther^ 10 John 15. that he feeth all that the Father 
 doth: That he receiveth all his Commands from the 
 Father, that he that feeth him, feeth the Father, and 
 many fuch like Expreffions he ufes to fignifie his per- 
 feft Knowledge of his Father 5 for he is that Wifdom 
 and Knowledge, wherewith his Father knov^s him- 
 felf 5 and if the Father perfeftly knows himfelf, he is 
 the perfed Image and Wifdom of the Father. 
 
 For this reafon he is called the Son^ becaufe he is 
 the perfeft Image of the Father, begotten of his own 
 Eternal Wifdom, by a reflex Aft upon himfelf: For 
 he begets his own Son in his own likenefs by knowing 
 himfelf 5 and therefore the Son muft be of the fame 
 Nature, the very Wifdom of the Father^- unlefs the 
 Father knows himfelf otherwife than he really is. 
 
 S 2 This 
 
1 5 i A Vindication of the DoSlrine of the 
 
 This is the Eternal Son and Word of God, where- 
 by he made the Worlds ^ for it is this reflex Know- 
 ledge and Wifdom, which makes all things : The E- 
 ternal Ideas of Truth and Wifdom in the Divine Mind 
 eiFeft nothing, no more than meer Speculation does 
 in us, till it is brought into Aft by refleftion^ for it 
 was this reflex Knowledge, which took the Patterns of 
 things for the new World, and gave being to them, 
 and therefore God made the World by his Son and be- 
 gotten Wifdom 5 who doth all things by feeing what 
 the Father doth, as the Father doth all things by fee- 
 ing himfelf in his reflex and begotten Wifdom '•) for 
 the Father and the Son are one fingle Energy and O- 
 peration. 
 
 This is that eternal Word and Reafon, that tn/e 
 
 I John 9. Light ^ which light eth every man that comet h into the 
 worlds which communicates the light of Reafon, and 
 the eternal Idea's of Truth to Mankind ; This is that 
 Son, who reveals the Father to us, and acquaints us 
 V. 18. with hisfecret Counfels for the Salvation of Sinners. 
 V. i4. This is that word, which became Fkfti and dwelt a- 
 raong us, who hath undertaken the Work of our Re- 
 demption, and is become the Wifdom of God, and 
 
 1 Cor. 1.24. the Power of God to Salvation to them that believe ; 
 For all the natural Communications of Wifdom and 
 Reafon 5 all the new Difcoveries of the Divine Wif- 
 dom 5 whatever the Divine Wifdom immediately 
 does, muft be done by this begotten Wifdom 5 that 
 is, by a reflex Wifdom , which is the Principle of 
 Aftion and Execution : And therefore as God made 
 the World by his Word, fo alfo he redeems the World 
 by his Incarnate Word 5 this being as immediate an 
 cffeft of the Divine Wifdom and Counfel, as his 
 Creation of the World. 
 
 As 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T(11IK iTt 135 
 
 As for the Holy Ghoft, whofe Nature is repreftn- 
 ted to be Love, I do not indeed find in Scripture, 
 that it is any where faid, that the Holy Ghoft is that 
 mutual Love, wherewith Father and Son love each o- 
 ther ; But this we know, that there is a mutual Love 
 between Father and Son: The Father loveth the Sof^^^ John 95. 
 a/^d hath given all things into hk hands. And the Fa^ 5 John ao. 
 thcr loveth the Son^ and jlKVPeth htm all things^ that 
 himfelfdoth. And our Saviour himfelf tells us, Hove j^ John 31, 
 the Father. And I (liewed before, that Love is a di- 
 ftinft Act, and therefore in Godmuft be a Perfon, 
 for there are no Accidents nor Faculties in God. And 
 that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Perfon is fufficiently 
 evident in Scripture : For he is the Spirit of God, who 1 Cor. 2. i r. 
 knows what is in God, as the Spirit of Man knows ^ ]°^"4'i^' 
 what is in Man, and he is the Spirit of Chrift, who 
 receiveth of the things of Chrift ; And his peculiar 
 Charafter in Scripture is Love 5 which ftiews us, what 
 he is in his ow^n Nature, as well as what he is in his 
 EfFefts and Operations, for Nature and Energy is the 
 fame in God. 
 
 It is by this Holy Spirit, that the Love of God is 
 fhed abroad in our Hearts, 5 Kom. 5. The love of G§d 
 is Jhed abroad in our hearts^ by the Holy Ghoji which 
 is given unto us. For this Spirit is the eftential Love 
 of God , and therefore both infpires us with the 
 Love of God, and gives us a feeling fenfe of God's 
 Love to us. 
 
 He is the Spirit of the Son , the Spirit of adoption^ 8 Rom. 15. 
 rvhereby we cry Abba Father^ and which cries in our 
 hearts Abba Father. The Spirit of the Son -^ that is, .cal.<5. 
 of the eternal and only begotten Son 5 that very Spi- 
 rit, whereby the eternal Son calls God Father, where- 
 by the Father owns the Son, and the Son the Father 5 
 
 that 
 
134 -^ Vindication of the VoBrine of the 
 
 that is, that eflential Love, which is between Father 
 . and Son ^ and therefore where-ever this Spirit of the 
 Son is, it will call God Father, will cry Abba Father '.^ 
 that is, is a Spirit of Adoption in us 5 for the eternal 
 Spirit of the Son, dwells only in Sons 5 by our Union 
 to Chrift, who is the eternal Son of God, we become 
 his adopted Sons, and as iuch the Spirit of the Son 
 dwells in us. 
 
 And therefore the Fruits and Operations of the Spi- 
 rit anfwer this Charafter. For the frnit of the Spirit 
 is love^ joj^ peace^ lorjg-fujfering , gentlenefs^ goodnefs^ 
 3 Gal. 22. meekriefs^ w^hich are the Communications of the Spirit 
 of Love. 
 
 This fhews the difference between Generation and 
 Proceffion, between being a Son, and the Spirit of 
 God : Generation, as I obferved before, is a reflex 
 Aft, whereby God begets his own Image and likencfs 5 
 it is God's Knowledge of himfelf, which to be fure is 
 his own perfeft Image 5 and the living eflential Image 
 of God is his Son : For to be a Son is to be begotten 
 •of his Father's Subfl:ance,in his own likenefs and Image : 
 But the Divine Spirit, or this Eternal Love proceeds 
 from God, is not a reflex but a direft Aft, as all 
 Thoughts and Paflions are faid to proceed out of the 
 Heart : A reflex Aft turns upon it felf, and begets its 
 own likenefs, but Love is a direft Aft, and comes 
 out of the Heart, and thus does this eternal Love 
 proceed from God : Befides, this eternal Love is not 
 the Image of God, but his eternal complacency in 
 himfelf and his own Image, and therefore is not a Son 
 begotten of him, but the eternal Spirit which pro- 
 ceeds from him. It is true this eternal fubfifting Love, 
 which is the Third Perfon of the Trinity, has all the 
 Perfcftions of Father and Son in himfelf j for Love 
 
 mufl: 
 
Holy and Ever (Blejjed T^^IKlTL i j 5 
 
 muft have the perfeft Idea of what it loves, and there- 
 fore this fubfifting Love muft have all thofe Per- 
 feftions in himfelf, which are the Eternal Objedt and 
 Caufe of this Eternal Love 5 but his eflential Chara- 
 fter is Love, and though Love has the whole Divine 
 Perfeftions in it felf, yet it has them not as a Son, not 
 as the Image of God. 
 
 This gives a plain Account alfo, how he is the Spi- 
 rit of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son, and ac- 
 cording to the Profeffion of the Latin Church , pro- 
 ceeds both from Father and Son ^ for this Divine 
 Love eternally proceeds from God's rellex Knowledge 
 of himfelf, or feeing himfelf in his own Image : He 
 loves himfelf in his Image, and therefore the Spirit 
 proceeds from Father and Son 5 that is, from the O- 
 riginal, and the Image, by One undivided Aft ; As 
 every Man loves himfelf in that Idea and Image he 
 has formed of himfelf in his own Mind. 
 
 And no Man will wonder, that the Creation of the 
 World is afcribed to the Holy Spirit, as well as to the 
 Father and Son, for it is Eternal Love which gives 
 Being to all Things, which is the Author and Giver 
 of Life, without which Infinite Wifdom and Power 
 produces no One EfFe6t : Original Wifdom contains 
 the Ideas of all things, and begotten Wifdom can 
 frame the Natures of Things according to the Origi- 
 nal Ideas of the Divine Mind, but it is Love which 
 gives Being to them. 
 
 6. From hence it is clear. That thefe Three Di- 
 vine Perfons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, are One 
 God, as thefe Three Powers, of Underftanding, Self- 
 refledion, and Self-love are One Mind ; For what are 
 meer Faculti^es and Powers in created Spirits, are 
 Perfons in the Godhead, really diftinft from each o- 
 
 ther. 
 
I ] 6 A ymdication of the DoSlrine of the 
 
 ther, but as infeparably united into One, as Three 
 different Powers are eilentially united in One Mind : 
 There is a vaft difference indeed between them, as 
 - there is between Cod and Creatures 5 the Mind is but 
 One, the Faculties and Powers more, but thefe being 
 only Faculties and Powers, neither of them is a whole 
 entire Mind: The Underftanding alone is not the 
 whole entire Mind, nor Reflexion, nor Love, but the 
 Mind is whole and entire by the Union of them all in 
 One : But thefe being Perfons in the Godhead, each 
 Perfon has the whole Divine Nature: The Son has 
 all that the Father has, being his perfeft and natural 
 Image, and the Holy Spirit, is all that Father and Son 
 is, comprehending all their infinite Perfeftions in E- 
 ternal Love : and they are all the fame, and all united 
 into One God, as the feveral Faculties and Powers 
 are in One Mind. 
 
 7. For this proves, that thefe Divine Perfons are 
 intimately confcious to each other, which, as I before 
 ihewed, makes them One numerical God : For as the 
 fame Mind is confcious to all its own Faculties and 
 Powers, and by that unites them into One 5 fo where 
 there are Divine and Infinite Perfons inftead of Fa- 
 culties and Powers, they mufl be mutually confcious 
 to each other, to make them all One God. 
 
 8. This proves alfo, that though there are Three 
 diflinft Perfons, there can be but One Energy and 
 Operation 5 Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft is the Ma- 
 ker and Governor of the World by One infeparable 
 and undivided Energy : neither of them do nor can 
 aft apart : as the feveralPowersof the Mind all con- 
 cur to the fame individual Adtion 5 Knowledge, Self- 
 refleftion, and Will, do the fame thing, which is the 
 Effeft of Knowledge brought into aft by Refieaion 
 
 and 
 
 ^ 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^l^miTY. 137 
 
 and Will : And yet the Effed may be afcribed to 
 Knowledge, and alcribed to Will, as the making of 
 the World is to the Father, and to the Son, and to the 
 Holy Ghoft; not feparately to either, but as they aft 
 in Conjunftion, and produce the fame EfFe£t by One 
 individual Energie and Power. 
 
 9. This proves alio, that Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft, muft be co-eternal, as thefeveral Powers and 
 Faculties muft be co-temporary, and co-exift in the 
 lame Mind. Underftanding cannot be without a 
 Power of Reflexion, nor that without Will and 
 Love. And I fuppofe, no Man will fay, that there 
 could be any imaginable inftant, wherein God did not 
 know and love himfelf. 
 
 This Account is very agreeable to what St. AuJ}w s.Aug.Tom.^ 
 has given us 3 who reprefents the Father to be Ori- '^^ ^'^^"* ^* 9- 
 ginal Mind, the Son his Knowledge of himfelf, and 
 the Holy Spirit Divine Love, as I have done ; and 
 gives the very fame Account of their Union. Cum 
 itaqiie fe mens novit & ama,t^ jungitur ei amore i/er- 
 bum ejiis^ c^ quomam amat notitiam^ ^ novit amo- 
 rem, C^ verbum in amore eft, c^ amor in verbo^ (^ 
 titrumque in amante & dicente. When the Mind 
 knows and loves it felf, its Word is united to it by 
 Love, and becaufe it loves its Knowledge, and knows 
 its Love ; its Word is in Love, and Love in its 
 Word, and both in the loving, and fpeaking or know- 
 ing Mind. This is the Eternal Generation of the 
 Son : Itaqiie mens ckm feip/am cognofcit^ fola parens 
 efi not it I d^ fide ^ ^ cogmtum enim d^ cognitor i^ft eji ; 
 When the Mind knows it felf, it is the fble Parent 
 of its ov/n Knowledge ; fot its felf is both the Know- 
 er and the Thing known ; that is, the Son is begot- 
 ten of the Father by a reflex Knowledge of himlelf 5 
 
 T and 
 
7 
 
 ^^ 3 A Vindication of the DoFtrine of the 
 
 and he gives us the fame Account of the Difference- 
 betweeo Generation and ProcefTion ; that One is a 
 new Produflion (if I may fo cxprels it) rfivmtnm^ 
 partiim, & repertiiw, that is the Produftion of its 
 own Image, of its own Wifdom and Knowledge by 
 Self refleftion ; the other comes out of the Mind, as 
 Love does, and therefore the Mind is the Principle of 
 it, but not its Parent. Cur itaque amando fe non ge- 
 nfiijfe dicatur amorem funm^ ficut cognofctndo fe gentiit 
 notitiam f'ur}v: In eo qiiidem manifelh ofltnditHr, hoc 
 amor is ejje j^rmcipium tin& procedit : Ab ipfa qindem 
 mente procedtt, qux fihi e(l amahilis ariteqmmfe amet : 
 atqtie ita prwcifium eji amoris fni^ quofe amiit \ fed idea 
 non reae dicitur gemttts ab ea^ ficut not it i a fm, qua fe 
 novity quia not it ia jam invent urn e/?, quod par turn vtlre- 
 fertnm dicitur^ quodfspe prjecedit inquifitio eofne oiuietura. 
 
 This I hope is fufficient both to explain and juftifie 
 this Doctrine (which is the great Fundamental of the 
 Chriftian Religion) of a Trinity in Unity, and Uni- 
 ty in Trinity, and that account I have given of it. 
 It muft be confeffed, that the ancient Fathers did not 
 exprefs their Senfe in the lame terms that 1 have 
 done, but I will leave any indifferent and impartial 
 Reader to judge, whether they do not leem to have 
 intended the very fame Explication, which I have 
 now given of this venerable Myftery. 
 
 As for the Schoolmen, they generally pretend to 
 follow the Fathers, and have no Authority, where 
 they leave them: Sometimes they leem to miftake 
 their Senfe, or to QJog it with fome peculiar niceties 
 and Diftinftions of their own. The truth is, that 
 which has confounded this Myftery, has been the vain 
 endeavour of reducing it to terms of Art : fuch as Na- 
 ture, Effence, Subftance Subfiftence, HypoftafiSj Per- 
 
 fbow 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^I NITY. 139 
 
 Ion, and the like, which fbme of the Fathers ufed in a 
 very different Senfe from each other; which fbmetimes 
 occafioned great Difputes among them ; not becaufe 
 they differed in the Faith, but becaufe they ufed words 
 fb differently, as not to underftand each others mean- 
 ing, as Petaviiis has fhown at large. The more pure 
 and fimple Age of the Church contented themlelves 
 to profeft the Divinity of Father, Son, and Holy . 
 Ghoft ; that there was but One God, and Three, who 
 were this One God ; which is all the Scripture teach- 
 es of it. But when Sabellius had turned this Myfte- 
 ry only into a Trinity of Names, they thought them- 
 felves concerned to fay, what thefe Three are, who 
 are One God : and then they nicely diftinguifhed be- 
 tween Perlbn and Hypoftafis, and Nature and Effence, 
 and Subftance, that they were Three Perfons, but 
 One Nature, Effence and Subftance 5 but then when 
 men curioufly examined the fignification of thefe 
 words, they found, that upon fbme account or other 
 they were very unapplicable to this Myftery : For 
 what is the Subftance and Nature of God ? How 
 can Three diftinft Perfons have but one Numerical 
 Subftance ? what is the diftindion between Effence, 
 and Perfbnality and Subfiftence ? the Deity is above 
 Nature, and above terms of Art, there is nothing 
 Jike this myfterious Diftinclion and Unity, and there- 
 fore no wonder, if we want proper words to exprels 
 it by, at leaft that fuch Names asfignifie the Diftin- 
 diion and Unity of Creatures, fhould not reach it. I 
 do not think it impoffible to give a tolerable Account 
 of the School-terms and diftindions, but that is a work 
 of greater difficulty than ufe, efpecially to ordinary 
 Chriftians, and I have drawn this Se&ion to too 
 great a length already to enter upon that now, 
 
 T 2 S E c T* 
 
140 J Vmdicution of the Doclrlne of th 
 
 Sect. VI 
 
 Comeyning Expounding Serif tur^ by Reafofj. 
 
 • 
 
 ^ J i' 'Q/? likt as jpe are ccmp tiled by the Chrifiian Ve-"^ 
 mP ^^fy to acknowledge every Ptrfon by himfelf to be 
 God and Lord. 
 
 So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion y to 
 fay^ there be Three Gods and Three Lords,. 
 
 By the Chriftian Verity I fuffofe is meant ^ the Sacred 
 
 Notes, Books which contain the Chrifiian Religion ^ that is^ the 
 Books of the Old and New Tefi anient. But do thefe Books ^ 
 and does this Verity compel us to the acknowledgment 
 of Three Perfons, each of which ^ is by himfilf Supreme 
 God J and Lord^ and yet all of them together but One 
 God f J^oth^ I jayy the Holy Scripture compel tis to 
 this contradictory acknowleelgment ? Is there any Text 
 alledged from Scripture ^ which all the IJnitarians^. 
 and fome or other of the mofi learned Trinitarians^ do 
 not easily interpret in fuch Senfe^ that the Unity of God 
 is prefervedy and no more than One Perfon ( even the 
 God and Father of our Lord 'Jefns Chrift ) aclinowledg" 
 ed to be God ? See the Hiflory of the Unitarians. But if 
 there is no Text of Scripture^ but what is in the Opinion 
 oj fome or other of their own Learned Men^ fairly capa- 
 ble of a Senfe contrary to the Faith delivered in this 
 Creedf then we are not compelled to acknowledge this^ 
 Faith.. And the truth is^ the Contefi between the V- 
 nitarians and Trinitarians is not, as is commonly 
 thought y a Clajh of Reafon with Scripture ; but it lay^ 
 tth here ^ whether ^ when the Holy Script nre may be 
 under flood as teaching only One God, or but One who is 
 
 Gody 
 
Holy and Ever Slefd T^INITI 1 4 f 
 
 God i T'^hich agrees >vi^fj th^ reft of ScriptHve^ and 
 with N<xturnd Reafon^ we miifi not wit branding pref^rr 
 dn Inter prt tat ion of it thxt ts abfird^ and contrary to 
 tt felf to rtafon^ and tothtrtji of Scripture^ fitch as the 
 TrimtdrtAns Interpretation ( t^^pr^fi in this Creed) 
 appears to be ! In a rvord^ the Q^tjlion only is^ Whe- 
 ther we ought to Interpret Holy Scripture , when it 
 /peaks of Gody according to Reafon^ or noty that is^ like 
 foolsy or like vp'fe Men* 
 
 There is nothing in this long Paragragh to trou- Jnfver. 
 ble an Anfwerers thoughts, but a great deal to exer- 
 cife his Patience, if he be apt to be provoked by Ar- 
 rogance and Folly. 
 
 His firft Argument to prove, that the Holy Scri- 
 ptures do not compel us to confefs each Perfon in the 
 ever bleffed Trinity to be God and Lord, and yet 
 that there is but One God, is becaufe it is a contra-- 
 diBory Acknowledgement : So he fays, and has endea- 
 voured to prove it, and how vainly and impertinent- 
 ly, I leave the Reader to judge ; but if a Trinity in 
 Unity imply no Contradiftion, as I am perfwaded^ 
 I have evidently proved ; then I hope the Scripture 
 may teach this Doftrine, and require the belief of it : 
 but this is an impudent Argument, which brings Pve- 
 velation down in fuch fublime Myfteries to the level 
 of our Underflandings, to fay, fuch a Dodrine can- 
 not be contained in Scripture, becaufe it implies a 
 Contradiflion; whereas a modefl: Man would firfl: in- 
 quire, whether it be in Scripture or not, and if it be 
 plainly contained there, he would conclude, how un- 
 intelligible foever it appeared to him, that yet there 
 is no Contradiction in it, becaufe it is taught by Scri- 
 ture: We muft not indeed expound Scripture con- 
 trary 
 
^A2 A Vindication of the VoBrine of the 
 
 trary to common Senfe, and to the common Reafon 
 of Mankind, in fuch Matters as every man knows, 
 and every man can judge of; but m Matters of pure 
 Revelation, which we have no natural fdea of, and 
 know nothing of but what is revealed, we muft not 
 pretend fome imaginary Contradiftions to rejeft the 
 plain and cxprefs Authority of a Revelation ; for it 
 is impoffible to know, what is a Contradiftion to the 
 Natures of Things, whole Natures we do not under- 
 ftand ; as I fhewlbd before. 
 
 His next Proof, that the Scripture does not com- 
 pel us to this Acknowledgment, is, that the Unita- 
 rians, and fome of the moft Learned Trinitarians ex- 
 pound thefe Texts of Scripture, which are alledged 
 for a Trinity in Unity to another Senfe, and eafily 
 reconcile them with the Belief and Acknowledgment 
 of One only, v/ho is God, as well a^ of One God; 
 and for this he refers us to that Learned Piece, the 
 Hiftory of the Unitarians. 
 
 As for examining particular Texts, which are alled- 
 ged on both fides in this Controverfie, it is too volumi- 
 nous a Work at prefent, and befides my prefent Under- 
 taking , which is only to vindicate the Atha^aftan 
 Greedy and the true Chriftian Doftrineof a Trinity in 
 Unity, from the pretended Abfurdities and Contra- 
 diftions charged on it in thefe Notes, and when that 
 is done, (and I hope I hive done it) I dare trufl: any 
 Man of competent Underftanding to judge which is 
 moft agreeable to the Scope and Language of Scripture. 
 
 But as for what he iays, that the Unitarians or 
 Socinians can eafily reconcile all the Texts of Scri- 
 pture alledged for the proof of a Trinity, to their 
 Norion of One God in oppofition to Three Divine 
 ■Perlbns in the Godhead, Me muft let him fay fb, be- 
 
 caufe 
 
Holy and Ever mjjcd T^^lKlTY. . v^^ 
 
 caufe he will fay it, as all other Hereticks pretend 
 Scripture to be on their fide ; but co lay, that they 
 ean e,^//;/ do this, is a httle impudent, when all Men, 
 who underftand this Conrroverfie, fee what Art they 
 u(e, and what forced and arbitrary Interpretations 
 thty put on Scripture to reconcile it Vj their Opini- 
 ons; efpecially when (bme of the mod learned &?;/- 
 ma^s ftick not to confefs, That they will expound 
 Scripture to any fence, rather than acknowledge fuch 
 Doftrines, as they think fb contradictory to the Rea- 
 fbn and Underftanding of Mankind ; which no mo- 
 defl: Man would own, were he not (enfibleof the harfh- 
 nefs and uncouthnefs of his own Expofitions ; for things 
 are come to a defperate pafs, when they fhallrefolve 
 upon any fenfe,or no fence, rather than that, which the 
 words moft aptly and properly fignifie, but lies crofs 
 to their Prejudices and pre^conceived Opinions : But 
 what thinks he of Socinus\ Expofition of that Text^. 
 where Chrift fays, That he came down from Heave;?; 
 which he could not do, if he had no being, before 
 he was born of the Virgin Mary ? Did Socims find i t 
 foeafie a thing to reconcile this Text to his darling 
 Opinion ; when he was fain to fafl: and to pray for 
 it, and to pretend Revelation, becaufe he wanted 
 Reafbn to fupport it? viz. That Chrift before he en. 
 tred on his Prophetick Office, was taken up into^ 
 Heaven to be inftru£led in the Gofpel , and then* 
 came down from Heaven again to publidi it to the 
 World : Whereas our Saviour plainly fpeaks of his 
 firft coming into the World, when he was born of the 
 Virgin, and the whole Hiftory of the Gofpel takes no 
 notice of his being taken up into Heaven before his 
 Refiirreftion from the dead;^ I think this was no ea- 
 Se E)cpofition ; but of this more prefently. 
 
 That: 
 
144 A Vindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 That there are no Texts of Scripture alledged for 
 the proof of a Trinity, but what are rejefted by one 
 or other of the moft learned TrinitAriam, is as true 
 as the other : There are many Texts , which all 
 hearty Tr/>/>./m;?j do, and muft agree in, and who- 
 ever rejeQs them, whatever name he goes by, can be 
 no better than a Socinian in difguife ; but however 
 there are no Texts alledged by learned Trimtarians^ 
 but are acknowledged by fbmc or other of his learn- 
 ed Trinitarians^ and thus it is as broad as long ; but it 
 is not the Authority of any modern Expofitors, 
 which we rely on, but their Reafbn ; and if a learned 
 Trinitarian fhould rejeft any Text without Reafbn or 
 Learning, it fignifies no more to us, than the Expo- 
 fitions of a learned Socinian : When we feek for Au- 
 thority we go higher, to the Primitive Fathers of the 
 Catholick Church, and there we find it. They not 
 only delivered to us the Traditionary Doctrines of a 
 Trinity, which had always been taught in the- Catho- 
 lick Church, but the Traditionary Expofition of thofe 
 Scriptures too, whereon this Doflrine is founded; 
 and they being fb near the Head and Fountain of Tra- 
 dition, the Apoftolick Age, their Authority is vene* 
 rable; and amodeft and prudent Man will not rejeft 
 any interpretation of Scripture, which relates to Ar- 
 ticles of Faith, and is unanimoufly delivered by the 
 Ancient Fathers, if the Words in any tolerable con* 
 flruftion will bear the fenfe : for though a Text 
 Oioulcl fairly bear two different interpretations, that 
 is moft likely to be true, which has been from the 
 beginning taught by the Catholick Church : And I 
 chal'enge this Author to name any Text, which is 
 alledged for the proof of a Trinity by learned 7>/- 
 mt^rimsj which has not been u(ed to the fame pur- 
 
 pofe 
 
Holy and Ever Slejfed J^^lKlTt 145 
 
 pofe by many, or moft, or all the ancient Fathers, 
 who have allcdged thofe Texts. 
 
 But his Conclufion from hence, that therefore the 
 Scripture does not compel us to acknowledge a Tri* 
 nity in Unity, becaule the Vnitarians^ and fome or 
 other of the moft Learned Trinitarians^ expound thefe 
 Texts to another Senfe, is very pleafant, and (hows 
 what a great Mafter of Reafon he is : For his Argu- 
 ment is this^ the Scripture does not compel us to be- 
 lieve any thing, while there are other Men, who ex- 
 pound the Scripture to a contrary Senft, and thus I 
 am fure the Scripture compels us to believe nothing 5 
 for it will be hard to name any Text, which concerns 
 any Article of Faiih, how plain and exprefs foever it 
 be, but what has been expounded to a contrary Senfe 
 by one Heretick or other. I would a^k this Author, 
 whether the Scripture compels him to believe but 
 One God^\n his Senfe of it 5 that is, hut One who is God^ 
 If it does not, why does he believe it, and mfift fb 
 peremptorily on it, in defiance of the whole Catho- 
 lick Church? And yet how can the Scripture compel 
 him to this, when the Catholick Church, and the Ca- 
 tholick Doftors in all Ages, have expounded Scrip- 
 ture to a contrary fenfe, that there are Three Divine 
 Perfons, who are this One God? At this rate, when 
 Men differ in their Expofitions of Scripture, the Scrip- 
 ture does not compel us to believe either, and thus 
 notwithftanding the Scripture, we may believe no- 
 thing- If the Scripture have a determined Senfe^ we 
 are bound to believe that Senfe, and muft anfwer it to 
 God, and to our Saviour, if we do not, whoever ex- 
 pounds it otherwife 3 and therefore when it is faid in 
 the Creed, that we are compelled (^dvcxXyts^^o^^ are un- 
 der a neceffity ) by the Chriftian Verity to acknowledge 
 
 V each 
 
 
\^6 A Findication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 each Perfon by himfelfto he God and Lord'^ the mean- 
 ing is, not that Men are under any force to believe or 
 acknowledge it , or to expound Scripture to this 
 fenfe 5 but thqt the true Senfe and Expofition of 
 Scripture does make this Acknowledgment neceila- 
 ry, if we will believe as the Scripture teaches 5 and 
 this may be true, whatever lY.tUmtarrans^ or any 
 Learned Trinitarians teach. 
 
 He adds 5 That the Contefi between the Unitarians 
 and Trinitarians, i^ not a claflj of Reafon with Scrip- 
 ture 5 but whether we ought to interpret Holy Scripture^ 
 when it fpeakj of God according to Reafon^ or not ;, 
 that ^, likf Fools^ or like wife Men. INow this is all 
 (ham, and fallacy : For to expound Scripture by Rea- 
 fon^ may fignifie two very different things, i. To 
 ufeour own Fveafon to find out the true Senfe and 
 Interpretation of Scripture. 2. To expound Scrip- 
 ture in Conformity to the Principles and Maxims of 
 Natural Reafon. In the firfi: Senfe he expounds 
 Scripture according to Reafon, who confiders the 
 life and Propriety of Words, the Scope and Defign 
 of the Place, what goes before, and what follows, and 
 how one place of Scripture isconfiftent with another, 
 juft i^ the fame way as we find out the Senfe of any 
 human Writing 5 and he who does not thus expound. 
 Scripture by Realon, expounds it.//^^ ^ F^^/ 5 that is, 
 if he put fuch a Senfe upon it, as the Words will not 
 bear, or the Scope and Defign of the Text will not 
 admit, and as no Man would think of, who were not 
 prepoflefled and prejudiced againft what appears to 
 be the plain and obvious Senfe of the Text, and whe- 
 ther they, or we, in thisSenie, expound Scripture ac- 
 cording, or contrary, to Reafon, like Fools^ or like wife 
 Men^ (hall be examined prefently. 
 
 As 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T (2^ / N / Tl. 1 47 
 
 As for the other Senfe of expounding Scripture 
 according to Reafon 5 that is, in Conformity to the 
 Principles and Maxims of Natural Reafon 3 we al- 
 low this too lb far, that we muft not expound Scrip* 
 ture to fuch a fenfe, as contradicts the plain and ex- 
 prefs Maxims of Natural Reafon 5 for though God 
 reveals fuch things to us, as Natural Reafon could not 
 difcover, and cannot comprehend , yet Revelation 
 cannot contradift plain Reafon 3 for Truth can never 
 contradift it felf 5 what is true in Revelation, c^^n ne- 
 ver be falfe in Reafon 5 and what is true by Natural 
 Reafon can never be falfe in Revelation ^ but then as 
 I obferved before, we muft be fure that there is fuch 
 aContradiftion^ it muft be evident andexprefi, and 
 not made out of uncertain Confequences, which ma- 
 ny times are not owing to the Nature of Things, 
 but to the Imperfeftion of our own Knowledge : As 
 to keep to the Matter of our prefent Difpute 5 
 
 Natural Reafon tells us. That there is, and can be, 
 but One Supreme God, the Sovereign Lord of the 
 World, and (hould any Man pretend to prove from 
 Scripture, that there are Three Gods, this would be 
 an exprefs Contradidion to the Natural Belief of 
 One God, and therefore we muft reject this Senfe of 
 Scripture, as contrary to Reafon: but to prove from 
 Scripture, that there is but One God, and that there 
 are Three, who are this One God, this is no Con- 
 tra diftion to Reafon, which teaches but One God 5 - 
 for Scripture teaches the fame, and all Trinitarians , 
 
 acknowledge the fame, and muft do fo, if they be- 
 lieve the Athanajian Creed 3 and therefore the belief 
 of the Trinity does not contradift the natural belief 
 of One God. Yes, you'll fay, that there fhould be 
 Three Perfbns, each of which is God, and yet but 
 
 V 2 One 
 
1^8 J vindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 One God, isaContradiftion ; But what Principle of 
 Natural Reafon does it contradift ? Reafon tells us, 
 that Three Gods cannot be One God,but does Reafon 
 tell us, that Three Divine Perfons cannot be One 
 God? If my Reafon be like other Mens, I am fure, 
 my Reafon fays nothing at all about it, does neither 
 affirm, nor deny it 5 and therefore when the Scrip- 
 ture aflures us, that there is but One God as Natu- 
 ral Reafon teaches, and that this One God is Three 
 Diviije Perfons , Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, this 
 contradi&s nothing which Reafon teaches, but adds 
 fomething, which "Natural Reafon could not diicover, 
 which is the proper ufe of Revelation. Scripture 
 teaches, that there is but One God, and that there are 
 Three Divine Perfons,who are this One God ; Reafon 
 teaches, that there is but One God, but does not teach 
 that there are Three Divine Perfons in the Unity of 
 the Godhead, nor does it teach that there are not 5 
 and therefore though the Scripture teaches more than 
 Natural Reafon does (which I fuppofe may be allow- 
 ed by thefe Adorers of Reafon) yet it teaches nothing 
 contrary to what Natural Reafon teaches 5 nay, thefe 
 Men cannot graft any Contradiftion upon it, without 
 perverting the Faith of the ever blefled Trinity, as it 
 is taught in' Scripture, and has always been taught 
 in the Catholick Church 5 that is, to find a Contra- 
 diftion, their bufinefs is to prove, that thefe Three 
 Divine Perfons, each of which is God, muft be Three 
 diftinft Gods, and then Three diftinft Gods cannot 
 be One God: This I grant, and their Argument is 
 unanfwerable to thofc, who own thefe Three Di- 
 vine Perfonsj to be Three diftinft Gods y but what 
 is that to us, who teach, that they are not Three di- 
 ftinct Gods, but One God, as the Scripture teaches, 
 
 and 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T(^IK I Tt 1 49 
 
 and the Catholick Church always taught, and as of 
 neceffity we muft teach, if we believe a Trinity in ll» 
 nity ? So that there is no Contradiftion in our Faith, 
 for that which they make a Contradidion is not our 
 Faith, but a Contradi&ion to our Faith, as well as 
 to common Senfe and Reafon. Well ! But if we be- 
 lieve Three diftinft Divine Perfons, each of which is 
 God, we muft believe Three diftinft Gods : I hope 
 not, when we profefs to believe but One God 5 yes, 
 whatever we profefs to believe. Three fuch diftinft 
 Perfons, muft be Three Gods 5 now this we deny, 
 and challenge them to produce any plain Principle 
 of Reafon to prove, that it muft befo. Natural Rea- 
 fon teaches nothing about the Perfonality of the God- 
 head 5 it teaches One God, but whether this One God, 
 be One or Three Perfons, it fays not, and therefore 
 it may be either, without contradifting the Natural 
 Notions we have of One God 5 and then here is free 
 fcope for Revelation 5 and if Revelation teaches, that 
 there is but One God, and that there are Three Di- 
 vine Perfons, each of which in Scripture have not 
 only the Title, but the Nature and Attributes of God 
 afcribed to them, then we muft of neceffity believe 
 a Trinity in Unity 5 Three Perfons and One God 5 
 for what the Scripture affirms, and Reafon does not 
 deny, is a proper Objeft of our Faith : and then their 
 Objection againft this Faith, that thefe Three Divine 
 Perfons, muft be Three diftinft Gods, if each of them 
 be God, isfenflefs and ridiculous 5 for itisdemonftra- 
 bkjthat if there be Three Perfons and One God, each 
 Perfon muft be God, and yet there cannot be Three 
 diftind Gods, but One. For if each Perfon be not 
 God, all Three cannot be God, unlefs the Godhead 
 have Perfons in it, which are not God ^ and if all 
 
 Three 
 
1 5 o A Vindication of the DoHrine of the 
 
 Three are but One God, they cannot be Three di- 
 I ftinft Gods : fo that whoever believes the Three Di- 
 
 vine Perfons to be Three diftinft Gods, does not be- 
 lieve a Trinity in Unity 5 and whoever believes a 
 ^ ' Trinity in Unity, cannot believe Three diftinft Gods, 
 
 and if there be a Trinity in Unity, each Perfon muft 
 beGod,and yet there cannot be Three Gods,but One 
 God 3 and now let him go look for his Contra diftion 
 in the belief of Three Perfons, and One God, and 
 when he has found it , let me hear from him a- 
 gain. 
 
 So that all his Abfurdities and Contradidlions are 
 vanifhedonly into Nicodemus\\\s Queftion, How can 
 thefe things be ? And if I could give him no other 
 Anfwer, I (hould think it a very good one^-to fay, 
 God k^noTPs. Muft we deny every thing that we can't 
 conceive and comprehend , thougli it be exprefly 
 taught by God himfelf ? Muft we deny what we read 
 in the Bible to be rhere, becaufe Reafon does not teach 
 it,and cannot frame an Adequate Idea of it ? 
 
 But I have not done with our Author thus, but 
 muft give him a little more about expounding Scrip- 
 ture according to Reafon : For I affirm, that Natural 
 Reafon is not the Rule and Meafure of expounding 
 Scripture, no more than it is of expounding any other 
 Writing. The true and only way to interpret any 
 Writing, even the Scriptures themfelves, is to exa- 
 mine the ufe and propriety of Words and Fhrafes, 
 the Connexion, Scope, and Defign of the Text, its 
 Allufionto ancient Cuftoras and Ufages, or Oifpntes^,- 
 &c. For there is no other good Reafon to be given 
 for any Expofition, but that the V^'ords fignificfo, and 
 the Circumftances of thePlace5and the apparent Scope 
 of the Writer requires it. 
 
 But 
 
Holy and Ever ^jfed T(^INITY. t j i 
 
 But our Author ( as many others do ) feems to 
 confound the Reafons of Believing any Doftrine, 
 with the Rules of Expounding a Writing. Wemuft 
 believe nothing that contradifts the plain and exprels 
 Di&ates of Natural Reafon, which all Mankind agree 
 in, whatever pretence of Revelation there be for it 5 
 well, fay they, then you muft expound Scripture fo 
 as tp make it agree with the neceiiary Principles and 
 Diftates of Reafon : No, lay I, that does not follow , 
 I muft expound Scripture according to the ufe and 
 fignification of the Words , and muft not force my 
 own Senfe on it, if it will not bear it. But fuppole 
 then, that the Natural Conftru6tion of the Words im- 
 port fuch a Senfe, as is contrary to fome evident 
 Principle of Reafon ? then I won t believe it. How ? 
 not believe Scripture ? No, no, I will believe so pre- 
 tended Revelation, which contradifts the plain Di- 
 ftates of Reafon, which all Mankind agree in, and 
 were I perfwaded, that thofe Books, which we call 
 the Holy Scriptures did fo, I would not believe them 5 
 and this is a fairer* and honefter way, than to force 
 them to fpeak, what they never intended, and what 
 every impartial Man, v/ho reads them , muft think 
 was never intended, that we may believe them : To 
 put our own fenfe on Scripture, without refpeftto 
 the u(e of Words, and to the Reafon and Scope of 
 the Text, is not to believe Scripture, but to make it 3 
 is not to learn from Scripture , but to teach it to 
 fpeak our Language 5 is nottofubmit to the Autho- 
 rity of Scripture, but to make Scripture fubm.it to 
 our Reafon, even in fuch Matters as are confededly 
 above Reafon, as the infinite Nature and EfTence of 
 God is. 
 
 Though 
 
152 ^ Vindication of the DoSlrine of the 
 
 Though I am never fo well airured of the Divine 
 Authority of any Book, yet I muft expound it, as I 
 do other Writings 5 for when God vouchfafes to 
 fpeak to us in our own Language, we maft undcr- 
 ftand his Words juft as we do, when they are (poke 
 by Men : Indeed when I am fure that it is an infpi- 
 red Writing, I lay it down for a Principle, that it 
 contains nothing abfurd and contradiftious, or repug- 
 nant to the received Principles of Natural Reafon 5 
 but this does not give me Authority to Expound the 
 Words of Scripture to any other fenfe, than what 
 they will naturally bear, to reconcile them with fuch 
 Notions, as I call Reafon 5 for if one Man has this 
 liberty, another may take it, and the Scripture will 
 be tuned to every Man's private Conceits ^ and there- 
 fore in cafe the plain fence of Scripture contradifts 
 thofe Notions I have of things, if it be poffible to be 
 true, 1 fubmit to the Authority of Scripture j^ if it 
 feems to include a Contradiftion and ImpoffibiHty, 
 if that Contradiftion be not plain and notorious, and 
 in fuch Matters, as I am fure, I perfeftly underftand, 
 there I fubmit again, and conclude it is no Contra- 
 diftion, though I cannot comprehend how it is 5 if I 
 can by no means reconcile it^ I will confefs, I do not 
 underftand it, and will not pretend to give any Senfe 
 of it, much lefs to give fuch a Senfe of it, as the Words 
 will not bear. 
 
 This (hows , that M^n may pretend to expound 
 Scripture according to Reafon, when the Difpute is 
 nothing elfe, but a Clafl) of Reafon with Scripture^ as 
 this Author phrafes it : 1: or fo it is, when the ufual 
 fignification of the Words, and the Scope and Cir- 
 cumftances of the Place require one Senfe, and Men 
 force another Senfe on it, upon pretence of expound- 
 ing 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T(^INITY. 153 
 
 ng Scripture by Reafon, that is, to reconcile Scrip- 
 icLire to their pre-conceived Notions and Opinions of 
 Things : for what the words fignifie, that is the Senfe 
 oFScripture ; and when they will not admit this Senfe, 
 becaule they apprehend it contrary to Reafon, though 
 mod agreeable to the Words and Scope of the Place, 
 that is nothing elfe but a Controverfie between Scrip- 
 ture and Reafon. 
 
 My prefent Undertaking does not oblige me to 
 examine all the Scriptures, which are alledged by the 
 Socw/a^s againfl: the DoStrine of the Trinity, or by 
 others for it; this is a voluminous Work, and has of- 
 ten been done by others, and if there were any jufi: 
 Occafion of doing it again, it deferves a Treatife by 
 it felf: but indeed it is the Doftrine it felf, which 
 the Socinims diflike, more than our Expofitions, 
 which they cannot deny to be reafonable enough , 
 were the Do£trine fo 5 but they muft not expound 
 Scripture contrary to Reafon, and therefore muft ne- 
 ver allow that the Scripture teaches fuch a Coflrine, 
 which they think eontradids the plain and felf evi- 
 dent Reafon of Mankind; reconcile men to the Do- 
 ftrine, and the Scripture is plain without any further 
 Comment ; this I have now endeavoured, and I be- 
 lieve our Adverfaries w^ill talk more fparingly of Ab* 
 furdities and Contradictions for the future, and then 
 they will lofe the bed Argument th;;y have againfl 
 the Orthodox ExpoHtions of Scripture : but yet I am 
 unwilling to diflnifs this Argument, without ibme few 
 Obfervations about the Senfe of Scripture. 
 
 This Author refers us to the Hi/tory of the Vni- 
 taria-4Sy which though it be but a little Book in all 
 Senfes, is too large to be particularly examined now ; 
 but however I fhall give feme tafte of it. In the firfl 
 
 . X Letter 
 
154 ^ VmdtcatiGn of the DoSlrine of the 
 
 Letter ttie Author marfhals thofe Texts, which he 
 thinks overthrow the DoCtriae of the Trinity, and 
 becaufe this may be oioft dangerous to unskilful Rea- 
 ders, I (hall more particularly examine that. He re- 
 duces the Scriptures under feveral Topicks, or Heads 
 of Arguments. 
 
 ijiflory ofVni- I • ^f ^'^^ Lord Qhrifl were him ft If Gody there 
 tarUns^^.^xyy co/dd be no Per fon greater than he^ none that might he 
 called his Head or God^ none that could in any refpe^ 
 cnm?nand him. Now this Argument is fallacious, for 
 though Chrift be God himfelf, yet if there be Three 
 Perfons in the Godhead, the equality and lamenefs of 
 Nature does not deftroy the Subordination of Per- 
 fons : a Son is equal to his Father by Nature, but in- 
 feriour to him as his Son : if the Father, as I have 
 explained it, be Original Mind and Wifdom, the Son 
 a perlbna!, fubfifUng, but reflex Image of Jiis Fathers 
 ^ Wifdom, though their Eternal Wifdom be equal 
 and the fame, yet the Original is fuperior to the I- 
 mage, the Father to the Son : and therefore though 
 14 John 28. I know fuch Texts as he alledges, My Father is 
 20 lohn\'7'. greater than I* The Head of Qhrift ts God, J afcend 
 to my leather and your Father^ to ?ny God and your God 5 
 are both by Ancient and Modern Expofitors applied 
 to Chrifl^s Human Nature ; yet I fee no Inconvenience 
 in owning this to be true with refpeft to his Divine 
 Perfbn, and his Relation to his Father : For the Fa- 
 ther is the Head and Fountain of the Deity, and the 
 Son is God of God, and therefore the Father may be 
 called his God. 
 J? fohn 49. As for Chrift s receiving Commands from theFa- 
 M-:^'- ther, though this relates to the Execution ofhis Me- 
 diatory Office, and (o concerns him as God Incarnate 
 
 as 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T(^I NiTl 155 
 
 as by the Difpenfation of the Golpel, he is the Mi- 
 nifter of God's Will and Pleafure, yet 1 grant even as 
 God, he receives Commands from his Father, but it 
 is no otherwife than as he receives his Nature from 
 him: By Nature he is the Word,the Wifdom,the Com- 
 mand of the Father ; his reflex Image , whereby he 
 produces all the Defigns of bis ovi^n Wifdom, and 
 Counfel into aft. Thus St. A^- 
 llm anfwered the Arrirm Obie- ^^^^'^^"^ Q«''^ aliii verbU Jujfent Pater 
 
 A* "TV. r^U ' IX U r" A' umcoveybo. Formant enim fib'i in ^hantaf- 
 
 CtlOn, 1 nat V^nrUt U''as out UOd S mate cordU fui, quafi duosaliquos, etfijux^ 
 
 Inftrument,and made the World fa invkewy m fuu tamen locii conflmtos^ 
 by God's Command. Let them T^!!lt^TTr' "^-'T '%TfT^ ^^'l 
 
 ■' • ; / inteliigunt jpjam ^ujjunem Patrti ut perent 
 
 CO^fiaer with \vhcLt other words omnia, non ejfe mfi vevbum PatrU, per quod 
 the Father commanded his only f^^^^^ni^omm. Aug. concr Serm. Arria- 
 
 Word, B/it they frame to thera- ' 
 
 felves An Imagination of tivo^ ,near one another^ hut fe- 
 -parated by their diftinct P laces y one commanding^ ano- 
 ther obeying. Nor do they under fl and ^ that the Fa- 
 thers Command it felfy that all things Jbould be made^ 
 u no other Word of the Father^ hut that by which all 
 things are made ; that is, the lubftantial Word and 
 Wifdom, and Command of the Father, his only be- 
 gotten Son. 
 
 2. If our Lord Chrifi were indeed God ^ it could not^ P3ge5. 
 without blafphemyy be (ahfolutely and without Re[iri&i- 
 on) affirmed of him^ that he is the Creature ^ the Pfff^ 
 fion, the Servant J and Subjecl of God. It is well he 
 addedjj abfoiutely and without refinciicn^ but he had 
 done better, if he had remembred it in his Proofs: 
 that Chrift is called a Creature, he proves, becaufe he 
 is the firft-bornof every Creature^ bat here he fhould 1C0I.1; 
 have remembred his afafalUtelp mm tS3ltIjaUt tC-- 
 ftCICtlOu^ for he is fo the firft-born of every 
 Creature, that he is the Image of the Invifihle God^ 
 
 X 2 and 
 
\^6 A f^indication of the DoBrine of the ^^ 
 
 and therefore no Creature; fo born before all Crea- 
 I Col. 17. tures, as ^poo^^xf^ ^lib fignifies, 17jat by him were 
 all things created^ th.it are in Heaven^ and that are 
 in Barth 'vifihk and invifible^ whether they be Thrones 
 or Dof/^inions^ or Principalities^ or Powers ; all things 
 were created by' hi?n and {or him ^ and he is before all 
 things^ (^which is the ExpHcation of ^u^j^iij-wx®^ ttvl 
 cvis TiTicrcoos^ begotten btfore the whole Creation, and 
 therefore no part of the Creation himfelf) andbyhim 
 
 all things con fi (I ^ tzL vniv^.oc-dp a/jnf o-twigt^-M^ all things 
 were not only made by him, but have their Sub(i- 
 flence in him ; as the Apoftle tells us, in God we iive^ 
 and move^ and have our beings that this does not re- 
 late to the new Creation, as the Socinians would have 
 it, is very plain: For i. in this fenfe Chrift (if he 
 were meer Man) Vw-as not the firfl: born of every new 
 Creature; for I hope there were a great many new 
 Creatures, that is, truly good and pious Men, before 
 Chrift was born of his Virgin Mother. 2. Nor in 
 this fence were all things in Heaven and Earth vifible 
 and invifible, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, 
 and Powers, that is, all the Orders of Angels crea- 
 .ted by him : For the greateft part of vifible things, 
 (^effoecially in the Apoftles days, when fb little part 
 of the World was converted to tlie Chriftian Faith) 
 were not new made by him 5 and none of the invifible 
 things were new made by him: Good Angels did not 
 need it, and he came not to convert fallen Aneels, 
 but to deftroy the vifible Kingdom of the Devil in 
 this World, and to judge them in the next. j. Nor 
 in this fence were all things made for him ; for he is a 
 Mediator for God, to reduce Mankind to their Obe- 
 dience and Subjedion to him ; and therefore when 
 he hasaccomplifhed his Work of Mediation, and de- 
 
 flroyed 
 
Holy and Ever mjjed T(^iniTr. \ 57 
 
 ftrfiyed all Enemies, in the final Judgment of the 
 World ; he fhall deliver up his Kingdom to his Father, 
 that God may be all in all ; of which more prefencly. 
 4. And therefore the Apoftle proceeds from his Crea- 
 tion of the Natural World, to his Mediatory King- 
 dom, which proves, that he did not fpeak of that be- 
 fore : A^d he is the Head of the Body the Churchy nho Vcrfe 14. 
 is the beginnings the jirji-horn from the dead^ that in 
 all things he might have the prehcminence : As the Ma- 
 ker of all things vifible and invifibie, he is laid to 
 be before al! things, begotten of his Father before the 
 Creation of the World ^ as Head of the Church, he is 
 c^o;:^^ alfo, the beginning, the firft who rofe from the 
 dead, that he might be the ru^^Td^jcrJv^ the firfl: upon 
 all accounts 5 before the Worlds, and the firft-born 
 from the dead. That he was God's Minifter and Ser- 
 vant, he proves by feveral Texts : As that he was 
 appointed or made (which has the lame fenfe) by God, Paged. 
 the Jpofiie and High-Priefi of our Profejjion : but here 
 is a reftriBwn to his being High Prieftj and therefore ^^^ * ^'^* 
 no danger of Blafphemy, though he be God : for we 
 may obferve, that though the Jewifh High Prieft 
 were bur a Man, yet he was a Type of a High- Prieft, 
 who is more than Man, even the Eternal Son and 
 Word of God, as fome of the Learned Jews acknow- 
 ledge ; for the Son of God is the oiily proper Media- 
 tor and Advocate with the Father-^ as Philo ^■id<ieus 
 often calls the A^^©- or Word , the 5 d^^^^jio&r, or 
 High-Prieft ; and fhows that the Garments of the 
 High-Prieft were Figures of Heaven and Earth, which 
 feems to fignifie, that the Eternal Word, which made 
 the World, is the true High-Prieft. And the Story 
 y^ye/^Ai^j- tells of ^/ejff^/^^er looks this way 5 that when 
 Jaddffs the High-Prieft went out to meet him, drefled 
 
 m 
 
1^8 A Vmdtccitton of the DoBrine of the 
 
 in all his Pontifical Attire, he approached him with 
 great Reverence and Veneration, and his Captains 
 
 ^ wondering at it, he told them, That that God, who 
 
 appeared to him, and fent him upon that Expedition, 
 and promifed him Viftory and Succefs, appeared to 
 him in that very Habit. I am fure the Apoftle di- 
 ftinguifhes Chrift from HighPnefts taken from a- 
 ?nong men ; and makes his Sonfhip the Foundation of 
 
 $ Hebr. i. his Priefthood. Chrift glorified ?wt hirnfelf to be made 
 an High'Priefi, (which fhows that it is no Servile 
 Miniftry^ hut he that faidimto him, Thou art my Son ^ 
 this day have 1 begotten Thee. As he faith alfb in a- 
 ^^ nother place, Thon art a Prieft for ever after the Or- 
 der c/' Melchizedec. And what the Myftery of this 
 Melchizedecian Priefthood was, he explains 7 He- 
 
 7 Hebr. 2 2. ^^-"^h that Mtkhizedec was fir ft by Interpretation KjnT 
 of Kiohteonfnefs^ and after that alfo^ K.i^g of Salem, 
 which is Kjng of Peace^ IVithout Father^ without Ma^ 
 ther^ without Defcent^ having neither beginning of days ^ 
 nor end of life ^ but made like unto the Son of God y which 
 is a. Priejt continually. 
 
 rcor.3.23. As for his next Quotation, that Chrift is Gods ^ I 
 know not what: he means by it ; for there is no doubt 
 but Chrift is God s Son, God's Chrifl:, Gods High- 
 Prieft» ferves the ends and defigns of Gods Glory 5 
 and what then? therefore he is not God? By no 
 means! he may conclude, that therefore he is not God 
 the Father, becaufe he a61:s fubordinately, not that 
 thereforq he is not God the Son. 
 
 His next Proof is, that God calls \\\mhis Servant 
 
 iiMacth. 17. by the Prophet Ifaiah ; but it is his Servant in whom 
 
 18. his Soul is wtll-pleafed, which is the peculiar Cba- 
 
 {ader of his Son j and is that very teftimony which 
 
 God 
 
Holy and E\m^ mjjed TRINITY. i y 9 
 
 God gave to Chrifl: at his Baptifm by a voice from 
 Heaven ; Thu is my beloved Son^ i^ whom I a?n we// ^Miuh.i'j, 
 pleaftd. 
 
 His next Proof i*^, that be humhkd hiimfdf^ and he- iPhil. 8.p. 
 came chedient^ Vv'hich is all he cites ; but what does he 
 prove from this P that Obedience is part of his Hu-- 
 miliation ? And what then ? therefore he is not God f 
 becaiife be voluntarily condefcends below the Digni- 
 ty of his Nature, does he forfeit the Dignity of his 
 Nature ? and yet this is the plain Cafe, as the Apoftle 
 tells us in that place: that He being in the form of 
 God J tboMght It mt robbery to be equal with God^ but 
 made himfe/f of no reputation^ and took upon him the 
 form of a Servant^ and was ?nade in the Itkentfs of ?nen^ 
 and being found in fajhion as a man^ he hutnb/ed him* 
 ftlf and becamv obedient unto death, even the death of 
 the Crofs, And this is a wonderful Proof, that he is 
 not God, becaufe being in the form of God, that is, be- 
 ing God, he voluntarily condefcended to the meaneft 
 and moft fervile ftate of Human Nature for the Sal- 
 vation of finners. But the fting of all is behind, that 
 for this fubmiffion and obedience he was rewarded 
 and exalted by God, and a God is nor capable of a 
 reward or exaltation, being Supreme himfelf, and yet 
 as it follow^s^ for this God hath highly exalted him^ mi 
 given him a Name above every Name, 
 
 Now it feems very ftrange to me, that Chrift's ad- 
 vancement to thefupreme Government of the World, 
 fhould be made an Argument againft his being God, 
 or the Eternal Son of God: for is it fitting and con- 
 gruous for God to make a meer Creature the Univer- 
 fal Lord and Sovereign of the World ? to advance a 
 meer man above the moft glorious Angels, to be the 
 Head of all Principalities and Powers, which would 
 
 be. 
 
\6o A P^mdication of the DoEinne of the 
 
 be an Indignity to the Angelical Nature? is ameer 
 Creature a fit Lieutenant or Reprefentative of God 
 in Perrjoal or Prerogative A£ts of Government and 
 Power? muft not every Being be reprefented by one 
 of his own Kind, a Man by a Man, an Angel by an 
 Angel, in fach Afts as are proper j:o their Natures ? 
 and muft not God then be reprcfented by One, who 
 is God ? is any Creature capable of the Government 
 of the world <" does not this rcq-ure infinite Wifdom 
 and infinite Power? and can God communicate infi- 
 nite Wifdom and infinite Power to a Creature, or a fi- 
 nite Nature? that is, can a Creature b: made a true 
 and effential God ? if our Adorers of Reafon can di- 
 geft fuch Contradiftions as thefe, I hope they will 
 never comp'ain of Abfurdities and Contradiflions 
 more. A God without infinite Perfeftions, is only a 
 Titular and Nominal God, and to fay, tliat Creatures 
 may have all the Perfections of God, is to fay, that 
 God can make an infinite Creature, which has a thou- 
 fand times greater Contradictions, than the mofi: ab- 
 furd Explication of the Trinity can be charged with; 
 for then a true and real God may be a Creature ; then 
 the Divine Nature is not eternal, but may be created ? 
 then the Divine Nature is not numerically One, but if 
 the firft God fo pleafed, he could make a world of 
 Gods, as well as of Angels, or Men. If then this King- 
 dom to which Chrift is advanced, cannot be admlni- 
 ftred without infinite Wifdom and Power, then he is 
 by Nature a God ; for otherwife all Power in Heaven 
 and Earth could not have been committed to him, be- 
 caufe he was not capable of it, could not adminiHer it : 
 and would God choofe a King, who could not admini. 
 fter the Government of the World, nor do any thing 
 towards it ? 
 
 And 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^^IKITY. lU 
 
 And yet the Difficulty remains; if he be by Na- 
 ture the Son of God, and the Natural Lord of the 
 World, how is he faid to be exalted by God, and 
 to receive a Kingdom from him as the Reward of his 
 SuflPerings ? when he was already poffeffed of it, ever 
 fince the Foundations of the World, being the Natu- 
 ral Lord of all Creatures; and therefore had no need 
 to receive that which was his own, or purchafe what 
 was his Natural Right, by fuch mean and vile Con- 
 defcenfions, as fuffering Death upon the Crofs. 
 
 And therefore rightly to nnderftand this, we muft 
 confider th€ Nature of Chrift's Kingdom ; that it is 
 not mecrly the Natural Government of the World, 
 but a Mediatory Kingdom. God is the Supreme and 
 Natural Lord of the World, King of Kings, and Lord 
 of Lords, and the only Ruler of Princes: And while 
 God governed the World only as its natural Lord, 
 the Son had no diftind Kingdom of his own, but in 
 Conjunftion with his Father. For though there al- 
 ways were Three Divine Perfbns in the Godhead, 
 y€t the Father being the Fountain of the Deity, the 
 Government of the World was adminiftred in his 
 Name. 
 
 But Mankind quickly apoftatized from God. for- 
 feited immortal Life, corrupted their Manners, and 
 defaced the Image of God upon their Souls ; and then 
 the Government of God confidered only as our Ma- 
 ker and Soveraign Lord could give no hope nor fe- 
 curity to guilty Sinners ; and this made a Media- 
 tory Kingdom neceffary, to reconcile God and Men, 
 and to reftore Man to the Integrity of his Nature : 
 and this Power and Dignity God beftowed upon his 
 own Son, who had the moft right to it, and was 
 beft qualified for it, being the begotten Word and 
 
 Y Wif- 
 
\6i A P^indication of the DoElrme of tfye 
 
 Wifdom of the Father: But he muftfirft become Man, 
 and publilh the Will of God to the World, and make 
 Expiation for Sin , and then he fhould rife again 
 from the dead, and fet down at the right hand of 
 God. 
 
 And therefore we may obferve, that all this Power 
 Chrift is inv^efieJ with, is as Head of the Church, 
 
 ^^'fi'"''^'^) -'i' Qod hctth fut ali things under his Fettj and gizfcn him 
 to be Head .over dll things to the Ckarch. v.htch is his 
 Body^ the fnlnefs of h;m^ ivhich fi/teth all iri all. That 
 is, he has made him the Governour of the whole 
 World, as Head of the Church. For the Salvation 
 of Mankind required the Government of the World 
 to be put into his Hands, that he might reftrainthe 
 Power and Malice of wicked Spirits, and deilroy 
 the Kingdom of Darknefs, and imp'oy good Angels 
 in the Service and Minifteries of bis Church, as the 
 
 ^ ^ ' ^^'' Apoftle tells us, Thty are miniftring Spirits^ fnt forth 
 to minifter for them^ jvho (I'jafl be Heirs of Salvation', 
 That the Government of this lower World might be 
 adminiflrcd by him with a peculiar regard and fub- 
 (erviency to the great ends of his Spiritual Kingdom. 
 For the Churcli of Rome is (o far in the right, that 
 the Supreme Head of tb€ Church muft be Supreme 
 in Temporals too in ordint ad fpiritnalia ; but their 
 fault is, they give this Power to a vicarious Head, 
 which is due only, and can be adminiftred only by 
 Chrift, who is the true Supreme Head of all things 
 to his Church. 
 
 The Government of Ifrael was a Type of this. 
 The Kingdom of Jfrael was originally a pure Theo- 
 cracy ; God was their King, and governed them al- 
 moft as vifibly by hi^ Priefts, his Oracles, his Judges, 
 whom he 'extraordinarily railed up, as a Temporal 
 
 King 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T%1 NlTY. i6^^ 
 
 King governs his Subjefts. But in time they grew 
 weary of the Government of God, and defired a Kin^ 
 like other Nations : upon which God tells Sam/^tl , 
 They hxvt not rejecled thee, hut rejelied me^ that /i Sam. 8.7. 
 fhonld mt reign over them. But yet he complies with 
 their Defires in giving them a King ; and their King 
 was peculiarly Gods Anointed, and God's King, who 
 ruled God's People and Inheritance by Gods peculiar 
 and delegated Authority : For the Government of 
 Ijrad did not ceafe to be a Theocracy, when they 
 had a King ; for they were God's People and Inheri- 
 tance ftili ; but now the King was between God and 
 the People, whereas God gov^erned them more im- 
 mediately before. And therefore as David was a 
 Type of Chrift, fo his Kingdom was typical of the 
 Kingdom of Chrift ; Tet have I ftt my Kjno upon my 2 Pfalm. 6. 
 holy Hill of Sion ; which feeTiS to have fbme afirefl: 
 on David-, though it received its juft AccomplHh- 
 raent in Chrift : and hence the Kingdom of the Mef- 
 fias is called the Throne of his Father David ; n t that i Luke 32. 
 Temporal Kingdom which David governed, for his ^ 8 John 36. 
 Kjngdvm mas not of this World; but that of which 
 David's Kingdom was a Type and Figure, the Go- 
 vernment of the Churchj who were God's People, of 
 whom the carnal 7/r.^^/was a Type, which he rules by 
 a vicarious, but a Sovereign Authority, for God, and 
 in his name and ftead. This gives a plain account, how 
 God may give this Kingdom to his Son. and that as 
 the Reward of his Sufferings. It miy be a Gift, be- 
 caufe it is not a Natural Right ; for it is no*: a Natural 
 Kingdom, buterefted by the Wifdom and Counfel of 
 God, for the Salvation of Sinners; and it muft be 
 the Reward of his Sufferings, becaufe it is a Sacerdotal 
 Kingdom, which is founded ia the Expiation of his 
 Blood. Y 2 And 
 

 •564 J Vindication of the Doclrine of tlk . 
 
 And though Chrift be the Ecernal Son of Gad, and' 
 the Natural Lord and Heir of all things , yet G^i- 
 hath in this highly exalted hi?n^ ani given him a riAme 
 which is above every namey that at ( or in iv ) the 
 name ofjefns every knte_ JJja/l bow^ of things in Hea- 
 I ven and things in Earthy, and things under the Earthy, 
 and that every tongue^ (fbme o£ all Nations, Lan^ 
 guages, and Tongues) ^all conftfs that Jefus Chrift 
 IS Lord to the glory of God the Father, For whea 
 God exalts and magnifies himfelf, or exalts his Son, 
 it does not, and cannot fignifie any addition or in- 
 creafe of their effential Greatnefs and Glory, for nei- 
 ther the Father nor the Son can be greater than they 
 are ; but yet God is exalted, when his Greatnels and 
 Power is more vifible, and more univerfally acknow- 
 ledged and adored : and thus God has highly exalted 
 his Son too, by conferring the Mediatory Power 
 and Kingdom on him ; as to fhew this particularly, 
 but briefly. 
 
 This makes the Son more univerfally known, ac^ 
 fcnowledged, and adored. The Notion and Belief of 
 one God is Natural to Mankind ; that there are three 
 Divine Peribns, Father, Son, and Holy Ghofl:, in the 
 Unity of the Godhead, is not known by Nature, but 
 by Revelation: There are fbme obfcure hints and 
 intimations of this even in the Hiftory of the Crea- 
 tion ; more plain in the Types and Prophefies of the 
 Jewifh Law, which relate to the Meflias ; and pofli-^ 
 bly this was more particularly explained in their Ca- 
 bala, which fbme learned men induftrioufly prove: 
 contained this Myftery of the Trinity : but all this 
 while, this My fiery was very obfcure, and the Glory 
 ©f the Son little known in the World: for thougb 
 now we certainly knowfrom the Expoiition of Chrift 
 
 and 
 
 / 
 
Holy and E\er ^Jfed 7%! NITT 1 6 > 
 
 and his Apoftles, that the Prophets fpake of Chrift 
 under the name of Lord, and God, and Jehovah, yet 
 all went in the Name of God. But when Chrift ap- 
 peared in the World, then God owned him for his 
 Son 5 th/s is my beloved Son in ivhom I am well plea fed ; 3 Ma-th. . . , 
 Chrift owned himfelf for the Son of God, his only 3]oiin ^^y^'r 
 begotten Son : and upon all occafions calls God his 
 Father, and that in fucb a diftinguiQiing manner, 
 that the Jews underftood him to mean, that he was 
 the Son or God by Nature, and charge him with 
 Blafphemy for making himfelf God. He appealed iojoh.29,9c.. 
 to thofe mighty Works he did in his Father's Name, ^^'^^^ss* 
 to prove the Truth of what he taught them, that he 
 was indeed the Son of God. 
 
 But then God viGbly owned him for his Son, when 
 he railed him from the dead, and beflowed a King- 
 dom on him, a Name which is above every Name, as 
 St. Paul tells us, Thaf he was declared, to be the Son i Rom* 5.. 
 of God with power according to the Spirit of Ho line fs, 
 by the Kefir reci ion from the Dead. And for this rea- 
 fon, that of the Pfalmift Thm art my Son^ this dayzvhhj, 
 have I begotten Thee^ is applied to the Refurrefliorr 
 of Chrift from the Dead. We deliver unto jm i^kas'^2,^2'- 
 glad t y dings ^ how that the promife that was made ta 
 the Fathers^ God hath fd0ed the fame to us thtir 
 Children^ in that he hath raifed up Jefis again, as it 
 is alfo written in the jecond Pfalm, Thou art my Son^ 
 this day have 1 begotten Thee. Which it is plain does 
 not fignifie, that God then firft begot him ; for he 
 owned him for his beloved Son long before, at his^ 
 Baptifm ; and Chrift calls himfelf his only begotten; 
 Son long before; and the 6'^^/;^/^;^/ themfeives attri- 
 bute his SonCbip to his miraculous Conception in the: 
 Womb of the Virgin ; and Sl PW, we fee, expounds 
 
 God?& 
 
I 
 
 17 John 5. 
 
 -i ^5 A Vindication of the DoSlrine of the 
 
 God's begetting hira at his Refurretlion, by his be- 
 ing declared the Son of God by the Refurreflion 
 from the Dead, which fapoofes he was liis Son be- 
 fore, and that not y^ a^c'p'i^'^ according to the Flefh, 
 for fo he was the Seed of Dav/d, but x^ lu-veSf^ 
 olyzicccrwjA^ according to the Spirit of HoHnefs, or his 
 Divine Nature, for fb its oppofition to >{J} avLp'^ 
 proves it nriufl fignifie. He was the only begotten 
 Son of God licm eternal Ages, but the World did 
 not fully know hiin to be fo, till God declared this 
 by his Refurreftion from the Dead, and by bellow- 
 ing a Kingdom on \^^v(^ ; and then he vifibly appear- 
 edin the Glory and Majcfly of the Son of God, as if 
 he had been begotten by him that day; and this 
 feems to be the meaning of our Saviour's Prayer; 
 A^d now, Father^ plorifie thot me with thine orvnflf^ 
 with that gl'-ry which I had with Thee^ before thi VVorli 
 was ; that is, now pubHckly ov/n me to be thy Son, 
 which I always was, but was never yet flifficienily 
 declared fo to the World. And therefore when he 
 was raifed from the Dead, and advanced into his 
 Kingdom which he was to adminifler, not by Hu- 
 man Force and Power, but by the Power of the Di- 
 vine Spirit, it was time to let the World know this 
 great Myftery of a Trinity in Uniry, becaufe each 
 Divine Perfon has his diflinft and proper pirc in this 
 myflerious ceconomy: and therefore he commands 
 . . his Difciples to Baptize in the Name of ■'/.' Father ^ 
 ^' and of the Son, andof the Holy Ghofi, that is, into the 
 belief and worfhip of One God, Father, Son, and Ho- 
 ly Ghofl: : of which more prefently. 
 
 But this is not all 5 the Son is not only now made 
 known and manifeft to the World, and publickly 
 owned by his Father, but he has a peculiar Authority 
 
 inverted 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T(^INITY. \67 
 
 invefted in him, diftind both from the Father and 
 the Holy Spirit, as he is a Mediatory King. 
 
 There being but One Supreme and Sovereign God, 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, who are but One E- 
 nergy and Power, but One Monarchy, but One Ma- 
 ker, and One Lord of the World ; in the Natural Go- 
 vernment of the World there is no diftinftion of the 
 Divdne Perlbns, no peculiar Offices and Adminiftra-, 
 tions to diftinguifh them ; not One thing done by the 
 Father, another by the Son, and a third by the Holy 
 Ghoft, but the whole Trinity made and governs the 
 World by One individual Operation : and therefore 
 the Creation and Government of the World is the 
 Work of One God, and therefore peculiarly attribu- 
 ted to the Father, who is the Fountain of the Deity, 
 who is that Original Mind and Wifdom, who made, 
 and who governs che World by his Son and holy 
 Spirit ; fb that in the Natural Government of the 
 World, the Son has ao Kingdom of his own, but 
 reigns as One Supreme God with the Father and the 
 Holy Spirit, and-ali attributed eo the Father as the be- 
 ginning of Energy and Power. 
 
 But in the (economy of man's Salvation, the Son 
 has a Kingdom of his own, which is peculiarly his, 
 adminiftred in his Name, and by his Sovereign Au- 
 thority. The Father is attoned by him, and has com- 
 mitted 10 him all Power both in Heaven and in Earth : ^8 Matth. 
 He is made the Head of all Principalities and Powers, 
 which are now immediately fubje£i:ed to him, and 
 muft receive their Commands and Orders from him ; 
 as the Apoftle to the Hebrews tells us, when God hring- 
 eth in the firft begotten into the IVorldy that is, when 
 God railed him up from the dead, and received him into 
 Heaven, to fit at his right hand ; he ikithy and let all i Hebr.d. 
 
 the 
 
^68 A Vvidicat'ion of the DoHrine oj the 
 
 the Aiigtls of God worfjjlp him: obey his Commands, 
 and be his Minifters and Servants. The Holy Spirit 
 is given by him, he (ends the Spirit to dwell in his 
 Church, which is his Body, and to animate all the 
 true and fincere Members of it ; He governs this 
 lower World, difpofes of Kingdoms and Empires in 
 fubferviency to the ends of his Spiritual Kingdom : He 
 has the Power of pardoning fins, of judging the 
 World, of raifing the dead ; whom he pardons, God 
 pardons ; whom he condemns, God condemns ; for 
 the Father judgeth no mm^ hut hath committed all 
 judgment to the Son. Should the Father judge the 
 World, he muft judge as the Maker and Sovereign 
 Lord of the World, by the ftri£t Rules of Righteouf- 
 nefs and Juftice, and then how could any finner be 
 faved? but he has committed Judgment to the Son, 
 as a Mediatory King, who judges by the Equity and 
 I Chancery of the Gofpel. 
 
 The Power indeed whereby he adminifters his 
 Kingdom, is the Power of the whole Trinity, of Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft ; for they being effentially 
 One God, have but one Energy and Power, and 
 therefore can never aft feparately : and therefore the 
 RefurreSion of Chrift from the Dead is afcribed to 
 
 s Ads 24. God the Father, God raifed him from the dead \ to 
 13- 3c. Chrift himfelf, as he tells the Jews, Defiroy this Tem- 
 ple^ and in Three days I rvill raife it up. And, 1 lay down 
 
 a John 19. ^y i^f^-i ^^^^ ^ ^^y ^^1^^ ^t again y I have power to lay it 
 
 10.17,18. rfW/?, and I have power to take it again. And to the 
 
 Holy Spirit, If the Spirit of him that raiftd up Chrift 
 
 fro?n the dtad dwell in you ; he that ratfed up Chrift 
 
 from the dead, Jhall alfo quicken your mortal bodies by 
 
 the Spirit that dwelleth in you. Where God indeed 
 
 fiRon. iii is fa id to raife up Chrift from the dead, but it was by 
 
 his 
 
 !^ 
 
. Holy and Ever mjfed T:<^lKlTr. \6<^ 
 
 his Spirit , and by the fame Spirit he will raife 
 
 us. 
 
 But yet this is the Kingdom of Chrift, becaufe now 
 the Adminiftration and Exercife of this Power is com- 
 mitted to him, and is as it were under his direftion 
 and influence. The Natural Kingdom and Govern- 
 ment of the World is peculiarly attributed to God the 
 Father, though the Son and Holy Ghoft reign with 
 him as One God : Becaufe the Father is Original Mind 
 and Wifdom, and therefore the beginning of all Pow- 
 ^r and Energy. As the Father begets the Son, not 
 the Son the Father, and the Holy Ghoft proceeds 
 from Father and Son, not Father and Son from the 
 Holy Ghoft : fo the Son and Holy Ghoft will and aft 
 with the Father, not the Father with the Son and the 
 Holy Ghoft 5 that is, if we may fo fpeak where there 
 IS but One individual Aft and Energy, the Father is 
 the firft Mover in the Sacred Trinity ; For reflex Wif- 
 dom, that is the Son, who is begotten Wifdom, moves 
 and afts, as it is begotten, by Original Mind and Wif- . 
 dom, who is the eternal Father, as Chrift himfelf tells 
 us 5 The Son can do nothing of himfelf^ but what he 5 John 19. 
 feeth the Father do ^for whatfoever things he doth^ thefe 
 alfo doth the Sonlikevpife, And my Father work^th hi- 17. 
 
 therto^ and I work, : But the Father is the Principle 
 and Beginning of Aftion 5 and therefore the Goverii- 
 ment and Monarchy muft receive its Denomination 
 from him 3 that it is the Kingdom of the Father. 
 
 But now in the Mediatory Kingdom, the exercife 
 of the Divine Power is committed into the Hands of 
 the Mediator, and is adminiftred by the meafures 
 and terms of his Mediation. The Power is not taken 
 out of God's Hands, for that is impoflible 5 Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghoft govern the World ftill by One 
 
 Z in- 
 
170 A V'mdtcatm of the DoElrtne of the 
 
 individual Aft and Power, but as in the Natural Go- 
 vernment or the World the Exercife of this Powder 
 begins v^ith the Father, fo in this Mediatory King- 
 dom it begins with the Son, and is direfted by his 
 Mediation ^ that is, God governs the World now, 
 not meerly as a Natural Lord, by the Rules of Natu- 
 ral Juflice, but with Refpeft to the Mediatory Power 
 and Authority of his Son, and to ferve the Ends of 
 his Mediatory Kingdom. 
 
 Now the Father pfdgeth no Ma^/^ but hath commit" 
 ted all 'judgment to the Son 5 He hath Power to lave 
 and to deftroy 5 whom he pardons, God pardons 5 
 whom he condemns, God condemns , all Petitions are 
 put up to God in his Name ; all Bleflings, both Tem- 
 poral and Spiritual, are obtained from God in his 
 
 a Phil. 9) 10, Name 5 that is, it is the Name and Authority of Chrift 
 ^^* by which God now governs the World. This is the 
 Name God has given him, which k above every Name^ 
 that at the Name of Jefus every K.nee fhould bow^ both 
 of things in Heaven^ and. things on Rarirh^ and things 
 under the Earth : And that every Tongue fiould con- 
 fefs^ that Jep/s Chrift is Lord ^ to the Glory of God the 
 Father, That Angels in Heaven move at his Com- 
 mand, and obey his Power 5 that Men on Earth wor- 
 lliip God, and expeft all from him in his Name ^ that 
 evil Spirits tremble at his Name , and yield to his 
 Power 5 and that all the World confefs the Su- 
 preme and Sovereign Authority of the Son, to the 
 Glory of the Father, who hath thus highly exalted 
 him. 
 
 There can be no other meaning but this, in what 
 Chrift tells his Difciples after his Refurreftion from 
 
 aSMatth. ic. the dead 5 All Pon>er is given unto me both in Hea- 
 ven and Earth. For unlefs it be fome Power, which 
 
 he 
 
' Holy and Ever mjfed T^^lKlTY. t/ 1 
 
 he had not before as the Eternal Son of God, how 
 can it be faid to be now given unto him ? And yet 
 before, in conjundtion with, and fubordination to 
 his Father, he had all Power both in Heaven and 
 Earth ^ but then this Power was not in his own Name, 
 not feated immediately in himfelf, as his own Per- 
 (bnal Authority f, but now the Son is immediately in- 
 verted with this Power and Authority as a Mediatory 
 King. 
 
 And this is the meaning of what he tells us 5 As 
 the Father hath life in himfelf^ fo hath he given to the 5 Jo^i« 2,6. 
 Son to have life in himfelf, To have Life in himfelf, 
 is to have the Power and Authority of beftowing 
 Life, as appears both from what goes before, and 
 from what follows: As the Father raifeth up the 2:. 
 
 dead and qiiickneth them^ fo the Son qnick^eth whom 
 
 he will. Verily^ verily^ ^ fy ^^^^^ y^^ •> ^^^ ^^^^^ ^ 25. 
 
 comings and now k^ when the dead jh all hear the Voice 
 of the Son ofGod^ and they that hear Jhall live. Mar- 
 vel not at this^ for the hour is coming , in the which 28. 
 , all that are in the Graves Jhall hear his Voice^ andfoall 
 come forth '-^ they that have done good ^ to the Reftir* 29, 
 reSion of Life ^ and they that have done evil^ unto the 
 RefurreSion of Damnation. This Power the Son al- 
 ways had, as begotten of his Father from all Eterni- 
 ty, and One God with him, but he here fpeaks of 
 a Perfonal Authority 5 which is given him as the v^ 
 Son of Man, as an Incarnate and Mediatory King 5 
 And hath given him Authority to execute Judgment ^7* 
 alfo^ becaufe he is the Son of Man. And therefore 
 now it is given him to have Life in himfelf, as the 
 Father hath Life in himfelf: The Father hath Life in 
 himfelf, as the Original Fountain of all Life, by whom 
 the Son himfelf lives 3 all Life is derived from God, 
 
 Z 2 either 
 
T7^ JP^indkation of the DoHrine of the 
 
 6 John $7. either by eternal Generation, or Proceflion, or Crea* 
 tion 5 and thus Chrift hath Life in himfelf alio , in 
 the new Creation he is the Fountain of Life 5 he 
 51. qnickcmth whom he will '-^ he ii the bread of life ^ that 
 came down from Heaven 5 if any man eat of thk bready 
 57. he Jhall live for ever. As the living Father hath fe^t 
 me^ and I live by the Father ^ fo^ he that eateth me^ 
 
 II John 2$. even he fl) all live by me, I am the Reftrre&ion and 
 ^^* the Life 3 he that believeth in me , though he were 
 dead^ yet fldall he live 5 and whofoever liveth and be- 
 lieveth in me^ floall never die. This is the Authori- 
 ty of his Mediatory Kingdom , which he hath re- 
 ceived from his Father^ that he hath Life in himfelf, 
 and hath Authority and Power to give Life to the- 
 World. 
 
 This is a Kingdom in a Kingdom, the Mediatory 
 Kingdom of the Son in the Natural Kingdom of the 
 Father, which reftrains the Father's Juftice, difpenfes 
 his Grace, and direfts the Exercife of his Power in 
 the Government of the World, which though it be 
 iipon thefe accounts a Superior Authority, and thercr 
 fore a high Exaltation of the Son, yet it is no Dimi- 
 nution to the Father : The confejjing Jef us Chrift to be- 
 Lord^ if to the glory of God the tather, 
 
 I. Becaufe this Mediatory Kingdom is erefted by 
 
 the Father, and by the Father given to the Son 3 it is 
 
 he, who gave him this Authority^ becaufe he is the Son 
 
 of Man, And therefore Chrift every where owns, 
 
 17 John 28. that he was fent by God. / am not come of my felf^ 
 
 ^joj^n'jj,^' I am come in my Fathers Name^ I proceeded forth^ 
 
 8.42. and came from God-^ neither came I of my felf but he 
 
 ^°' fent me, I feeli not my own will, Ifeek^ not my owr$ 
 
 6, 38. glory, I came not to do my own will^ but the will of 
 
 him 
 
Holy and Ever mejfed T^miTX ijy 
 
 him that fent r/ie. Which Scriptures make up the 
 fourth Argument in the Hifioryofthe Unitarians a- 
 gainft Chrift's being God 5 becaufe Almighty God doth Page 8. 
 all things in his own Name^ and by his own Authority '-^ 
 but Chrift comes in the Father's Name, and does his 
 Will, and feeks his Glory. Which proves indeed, that 
 he receives this Power from the Father, that he ful- 
 fils his Will, and ferves his Glory in it 5 but if he re- 
 ceive this Kingdom, he has it, and a very glorious 
 Kingdom it is, in fome refpedts fuperiour to the Natu- 
 ral Government of God, as it fets bounds to it. But 
 this only proves, that he is not the Father, but the Son, 
 and the King of God 5 and this Authority being gives 
 him of the Father, to reduce Mankind to their Obe- 
 dience, it is no leflening of the Fathers Authority, 
 from whom he receives this Mediatory Powcr.- 
 
 2. This can be no Diminution to the Father, be- 
 caufe he is his only begotten Son 5 One God with 
 himfelf, the Bright nefs of his Glory ^ and theexprefs I- 
 mage of his Per/iw, the Natural Heir of his Power and 
 Greatnefi, and the Natural Lord of the World. As 
 a Son, he is by. Nature equal to his Father , but yet 
 fubordinate, and therefore cannot be his Rival ^ as a 
 Son, his advancement is the Glory of the Father, that 5 john i^. 
 al/ men flwald honour the Son^ as they honour the Fa^ 
 ther '-) and therefore it is no derogation to flie Father, 
 though he commit to the Son a more glorious Au- 
 thority , than he exercifes himfelf 3 the Authority 
 of a Mediatory Kingdom, or Sovereign Grace, which 
 is a more glorious Authority to Sinners, than Natu- 
 ral Juftice and Dominion : For all Men know, a Son 
 muft receive all from his Father, and if the Father, 
 for wife Reafons, of which more prefently, give the 
 
 Son 
 
174 ^ Vin^xcatim of the T>oEirine of the 
 
 Son the more glorious Power, it is the" Father, who 
 is glorified in it : As he is God, the Eternal Son of 
 God, and One with the Father, he is the proper Ob- 
 jedt: of Rehgious Worfhip 5 and therefore all thofe 
 Divine Honours and Adorations, v;hichare paid him, 
 upon account of his Mediatory Kingdom and Power, 
 are no Injury to the Divine Nature, as they would 
 have been, had God conferred this Power on a Crea- 
 ture 5 which had been to give his Glory to another, 
 which God detefts, and declares his abhorrence of, 
 and which all Arians and Socjnians do, who worfhip 
 Chrift, believing him to be only a Creature, or a meer 
 Man. The Comfnand in Scripture to worfhip him, 
 and pay Divine Honours to him, is a much better 
 Argument to prove that he is God, than to juflifie 
 the worfhip of any Creature^ which God univerfal- 
 ly prohibits, and is a much greater Contradidion to 
 the Principles of Natural Religion, than a Trinity in 
 Unity is to Natural Reafon. 
 
 3. To this we muft add. That his Kingdom is the 
 Reward of his Obedience and Sufferings 5 that is, it is 
 founded in the Expiation of his Blood : Is an Autho- 
 rity to difpence that Grace and Mercy which he has 
 purchafed with his Blood : So that his Kingdom and 
 Power is founded in the moft perfeft fubmiffion to 
 his Father ,*'is the Reward of his Obedience, whereby 
 he glorified his Father on Earth 5 and therefore let his 
 Power be never fo great and glorious, his receiving 
 it from God, as the Reward of his Obedience, fecures 
 the Prerogative and Glory of the Father. 
 
 4. Efpecially when we add, That the Exercift and 
 Adminiftration of this Kingdom, is not by way of any 
 
 direft 
 
Holy and Ever ^ejfed T(B^IKlTr. 17 j 
 
 direft Authority and Power over God ( which would 
 neceflarily eclipfe the Glory of the Father, and make 
 him fubjed to the Son ) but by way of Mediation and 
 Interceffion, as an Advocate and High-Prieft. He firfl: ^ 
 
 makes Atonement to God, and reconciles him to Sin- 
 ners, does not command or over-rule, but propitiate 
 the Divine Juftice, and then exercifes a Sovereign 
 Authority in forgiving Sins, in deftroying his Ene- 
 mies, in governing Kingdoms and Empires, in fubfer- 
 viency to his Spiritual Kingdom, and at the laft Day 
 in judging the World. 
 
 5. And therefore the time (hall come, when Chrift 
 fhall deliver up this Kingdom again to the Father : for 
 it is not a Natural Kingdom, and therefore muft not 
 laft always ^ no longer than till it has attained the ends 
 for which it was erefted : when Mankind are redu- 
 ced into Obedience to God 5 when the Kingdom of 
 the Devil is deftroyed, and the Devil and his Angels, 
 and all bad Men caft into the Lake of Ftre, which is 
 the fecond Death, and good Men raifed out of their 
 Graves, and rewarded with Eternal Life ; that is, 
 when Chrift has accompliftied the Work of his Me- 
 diation, that there is no longer any need of a Media- 
 tor, then the Mediatory Kingdom ceafes. The^ co- icor.i^. 
 meth the end , when he jhall have delivered up the 
 Kingdom to God^ even the Father^ when he Jfj all have 
 
 flit down all Rnky and all Authority and^ Power^ 
 
 And when all things Jloall be fithdued unto him^ thenjhall 24,-28^ 
 the Son alfo be fubjeS unto him , that put all things 
 under him^ that God may be all in all. That is, the Soa 
 fhall no longer have a diftinft Kingdom of his own, 
 but (hall return to his Natural Subordination to his 
 Father*, and reign with the Father and the Holy Spirit 
 
 One 
 
176 J Vindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 One God blefled for evermore : there (hall no longer 
 be any diftinftion between God and a Mediator, but 
 ■God (hall be all in all. 
 
 This is the beft Account I can give of that King- 
 dom which the Son receives from the Father, and 
 which he delivers up to the Father again 5 and thefe 
 Socimcins muft think themfelves very great Wits, or 
 the reft of Mankind very great Fools, who hope to 
 prove that Ghrift is not God, becaufe he received a 
 Kingdom, when it is fuch a Kingdom, as none but a 
 God can receive or adminifter. But to proceed : 
 
 /^i/?(jr> Vmu '^^ His next Argument is. That Chrift is not God, 
 *p. ^j 7- becaufe he k a Mediator between God and Men : A 
 
 Pnefi that appeareth in the Pre/ence of God^ and in- 
 tercedeth with him for Men, This he needed not have 
 proved, becaufe all Chriftians own it 5 only the Soci- 
 nians make him a metaphorical Prieft, which indeed 
 is no Prieft. But this 1 have anfwered already. He 
 is a Prieft after the Order of Melchizedec^ King of Sa- 
 iem^ and Prieft of God 5 that is, he is a Sacerdotal 
 King, and this Sacerdotal or Mediatory Kingdom 
 proves him to be God, not ameer Creature- Advo- 
 cate or Interceffbr. 
 
 ■ 4. His next Argument is, That he receives Autho- 
 rity from God, isfentbyGod, came to do the Will 
 of God : And this I have alfo already anfwered. 
 
 jpagc 8. "5. His next Argument confifts in applying fuch 
 
 things to the Divinity of our Saviour, as belong to 
 
 a Luke 52. his Humanity : That he increafed in Wifdom — . 
 
 ( he ftiould have added &^t//re too, but that had been 
 ridiculous, becaufe it had difcovered the fallacy, for 
 
 to 
 
Holy aitd Ever mjfed T^^lKlTl. 177 
 
 to be fiire Stature does not belong to a God) a/id m 
 favour with God and Men : And why did he not add, 
 that he was born, and was an Infant and Child, and 
 by degrees grew up to be a Man ? that he knows not 13 Mark 32. 
 the Day of "Judgment, which he evidently fpeaks of 
 himfelf as Man ; as all the ancient Fathers confefs. 
 In St. Mark it is faid. But of that daj^ and that hour^ 
 knoweth no Man^ no not the Angels that are in Heaven^ 
 neither the Son ^ but the Father, St. Mat hew does 34 Match. $5'. 
 not mention the Son .- Of that day and hour knoweth 
 no Man, not the Angels of Heaven^ hut my Father on^ 
 ly. Which iliews that the Son in St. Matthew is in- 
 cluded in the 8Ja? none, or no Man, and therefore 
 concerns him only as a Man : For the Father includes 
 the whole Trinity, and therefore includes the Son, who 
 feeth whatever his Father doth. But of this more here- 
 after. That he knew not where Lazarus was laid, be- 
 caufe he asks. Where have ye laid him ? And yet this ^^ J^^" '^^' 
 very Jefus knew without asking, at a diftance, and 
 fome days before that Lazarus was dead ; which 
 would tempt one to guefs, that he might know where 
 they laid him too, though in was decent to ask. What 
 his next Text referrs to I know not. For how the 
 Father, being always prefent with him to confirm 
 that teftimony he gaveof himfelfby miraculousPow-^M"^^'^^* 
 ers, proves that he is not God, I cannot tell: That he 
 was tempted by the Devi', proves that he was a Man, 
 but does not prove that he was not God : And that he 
 would not be called good by thofe, who thought him iSLuke 19. 
 no more than a Man ; or that he took this occafion 
 to inftruft them, what an infinite diftance there is 
 between the effential Goodnefs of the Divine Nature, 
 and the Goodnefs of Creatures, I think does not prove 
 that be is not God. 
 
 A a 6. His 
 
178 A Vuidkation of the Vocirinc of the 
 
 ^sgeio. ^^ f^jg ^^j.}^ Argument is to the fame purpofe^ 
 
 That God giveth what ami to -whom he plvafeth ] he 
 netds not the aid of any othzr ; ht entrtattth not for 
 him ft If and his Peoplt ; he cannot die ; and dtriveth 
 his P Giver from none but himfelf. But 'tis certain that 
 the Lord Chrifl could not himfdf without the previ- 
 ous ordination of the Father, conferr the prime Digni- 
 ties of Heaven or of the Church ("or any thing elfe, 
 if he pleafes, for he does nothing but what he fees 
 his F'ather do) he placed his fafety in his Fathers pre- 
 fence and help: He prayed often and fervently to the 
 Father^ both for himfelf^ and for his Difciples, He 
 died^ and was raifed from the dead by the Father. 
 After his RefurreBion he received of another that great 
 Power ^ which he now enjoyeth. 
 
 Now all this we grant, and have anfwered alrea- 
 dy, which partly referrs to the ceconomy of the In- 
 carnation, and partly to his Natural Subordination 
 to his Father. But to give a more full and plain 
 Anfwer, and to prevent all fuch Objeftions for the 
 future, it will be necefTary briefly to ftate this Mat- 
 ter alfb* 
 
 Now this Author is certainly fb far in the right, 
 that the One Supreme God has all Authority and 
 Power, can need no help from any other, can receive 
 no Commands, no Power from another, has no need 
 to pray to any other, to intercede for himfelf or others ; 
 can difpofe of all things, as he pleafes, and to whom 
 he pleafes: Accordingly this One Supreme God, Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft, receives no Power or Au- 
 thority from any other Being, intercedes with no other 
 Being, ftands not in need of the help of any other, 
 neither prays for himfelf or others to any other Be- 
 ing, 
 
 Well 2 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^lKlTj. 1 79 
 
 Well! but the Son prays to the Father, intercedes 
 with the Father, receives Authority from the Father, 
 difpoles of all things by his Father's Will. What 
 then ? then the Son is not the One Supreme God. Why 
 fb ? He intercedes with no Creature, receives Autho- 
 rity from no Creature, &c, nor from any God neither 
 (eparated from himfelf, for he is One God with the Fa- 
 ther and the Holy Ghoft : that he intercedes with the 
 Father, proves indeed that he is a diftinO: Perfbn from 
 the Father, not that he is not One God with him. If 
 each Divine Perfbn be God, none of them can inter- 
 cede with, or receive Authority from any feparate 
 Being, for then there muft be fome feparate God a- 
 bove them ; and then they are not the Supreme God ; 
 but if there be Three diftinft Divine Perfbns in the 
 Godhead, and an order and fubordination between 
 thefe Divine Perfbns 5 I fee nothing to hinder, why 
 One Perfbn may not intercede with another, and re- 
 ceive from another. 
 
 To fhow the fallacy of this, I will frame another 
 Argument exadly like it, which may do our Socini- 
 ans a kindnefs in helping them to a new Argument, 
 and who knows but that fuch great Wits as they^re 
 may make it a good one : and it is this. The One 
 Supreme God is not, and cannot be begotten of any 
 other, nor proceed from any other, and therefore the 
 Son who is begotten of the Father, is not the One 
 Supreme God, and the Holy Ghoft, who proceeds 
 from Father and Son, is not the One Supreme God. 
 The Major is as felf- evident as any Propofition in Eu- 
 elide ; whoever underftands the Terms, muft confefs 
 it to be true, that the One Supreme God cannot be 
 begotten, nor proceed from any other ^ the Minor is 
 confeffed by TrimtarUm^ that the Son is begotten of 
 
 A a 2 the 
 
i8o ^ Vindicaim of ih VoBrtne of the 
 
 tne Father, and the Holy Ghoft proceeds from Father 
 and Son ; how then fhall we avoid the Conclufion, 
 That the Son is not the One Supreme God, nor the 
 Holy Ghoft the One Supreme God ? Indeed no way, 
 that I know of, for the thing is true : the Son is not 
 the One Supreme God. nor the Holy Ghoft the One 
 Supreme God, nay, nor the Father the One Supreme 
 God, confidered feparately from each other, but Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft, or a Trinity in Unity is '. 
 the One Supreme God: Now of this One Supreme 
 God, it is certainly true, that he is not begotten, nor 
 proceeds from any other ; for then there muft be a 
 God above this One Supreme God ; but if there be 
 Three Perfons in this One Supreme God, this does 
 not hinder, but the Father may beget the Son, and 
 the Holy Spirit proceed from Father and Son, and yet 
 the One Supreme God neither be begotten nor pro- 
 ceed ; for it is not the One Supreme God, that is be- 
 gotten, but the Divine PerFon of the Son, who is God, 
 and with the Father and Holy Spirit, One Supreme 
 God; nor is it the One Supreme God that proceeds, but 
 the Divine PerFon of the Holy Ghoft, who alfb is God, 
 and together with Father and Son One Supreme God. 
 
 This is plain, and what every one may underftand 
 at firft fight ; and the fallacy of the Argument con- 
 fifts in this, That whatever may be affirmed of the 
 One Supreme God is applied to each Divine Perfbn 
 in their Perfbnal Capacities, as if each Perfbn confider- 
 ed feparate from the other Divine Perfons, were the 
 One Supreme God: Now this is falfe, for the One 
 Supreme God is not any One Perfbn diftinQ: and fe- 
 parate from the reft, but all Three Perfons eflential- 
 ly united into One God ; and therefore the Applica- 
 tion muft be falFe tooj when what is true of the' 
 
 One^ 
 
Holy and Ever Slejfed T^l NlTY. 1 8 1 
 
 One Supreme God, is applied to every diftinfl: Per- 
 fon in the Godhead. 
 
 It is certain, the One Supreme God can neither be 
 Father, Son, nor Holy Ghoft : If he be a Father, he 
 muft beget a Son, who is not One with him, and 
 yet is God : For the Son of God, who is begotten of 
 his Father's Subftance, and has the fame Nature with 
 him (which is the proper Notion of a begotten Son) 
 muftbeGod', astheSonofa ManisaMan: And if the i 
 
 Father himfelf in his own proper Perfbn, as begetting 
 the Son, be the One Supreme God, the whole entire 
 Deity, then he muft beget a Son without, not with- 
 in himfelf, who is not, and cannot be that One Su- 
 preme God, that the Father is. The One Supreme 
 God is One in himfelf, and feparate from all other 
 Beings : And therefore if the One Supreme God be a 
 Father, he muft beget a Son feparate from himfelf; 
 if he be a Son, he muft have a Father feparate from 
 himfelf; and fo of the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 In the One Supreme God, there may and muft be 
 a Trinity of Divine Perfbns ; within the Unity of 
 the Godhead there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy 
 Ghoft, but the One Supreme God is neither; neither 
 begets, nor is begotten, nor proceeds, for all Three 
 Perfons are the One Supreme God, and what belongs 
 to the Godhead, belongs to them all as confidered in 
 the Unity of the fame Godhead, but not as confider* 
 ed in their diftinfl Perfonal Capacities, as One is the 
 Father, the other the Son, and the third the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 And thus it is in the prefent Cafe : The One Su- 
 preme God can no more be fent, than he can be be- 
 gotten, can receive no Commands from any other, 
 cannot be given by any other ; cannot be fubjeOr to 
 
 any: 
 
t 
 
 182 A f indication of the DoElrtne of the 
 
 any other Will but his own, &c. but the Divine Per- 
 fbns may fend and be fent, and intercede with each 
 other ; for though in the Unity of the Godhead they 
 are all the One Supreme God, yet there is a mutual 
 Relation and Subordination between the Divine Per- 
 fbns, as I have already explained it. 
 
 As to inftance in Interceffion or Prayer for him- 
 felf or others, which is a Contradiftion to the Notion 
 of a Supreme God, as it is to the Notion of an Abfb- 
 lute and Sovereign Prince : But yet a Sovereign 
 Prince may intercede with himfelf ; his own Wifdom, 
 his own Mercy, Clemency, and Compaffion, may 
 intercede with him, and prevail too, without any di- 
 minution to his own Sovereign Power. Thus though 
 the Supreme God can intercede with no other Being, 
 yet the Son may intercede with the Father 5 his own 
 eternal and begotten Wifdom may intercede with him, 
 and make Atonement and Expiation for finners : and 
 thus God intercedes with no body but himfelf; for it 
 is his own Wifdom which intercedes with him, and 
 makes the Atonement. 
 
 And if we will confider things aright, we fhall find 
 that there can be no other Advocate with the Father 
 but the Son, but his own eternal and begotten Wit 
 dom. When a man intetcedes with himfelf, it is 
 done by reflefting on his own Mind, and examining 
 the Realbns and Motives he finds there to pity and 
 fpare, and to do good ; that is by his reflex Wifdom 
 and Knowledge of himfelf,which in the Godhead is the 
 Son, God's reflex Knowledge of himfelf, or his be- 
 gotten Wifdom, that Divine Aiyi^ot Word, which 
 Philo calls the ap^gp^V or High Priefl:; For let us 
 confider, what it is to intercede with God, and what 
 kind of Interceffion is confiftent both with the Sove- 
 reign 
 
Holy mi Ever mfd TRINITY. i g j 
 
 raign Authority, and Sovereign Goodnefs of God. 
 An infinitely wife, andjufl:, and good Being cannot be 
 moved by meer Entreaties, nor by the bare Interelt 
 and Favour of the Advocate; for this is weaknefs in 
 Men, and therefore cannot be incident to the Divine 
 Nature : Now if you fet afide Entreaties and Impor- 
 tunities and Favour, there can be no other Advocate 
 with the Father, but his own Eternal Wifdom. It is 
 his own Wifdom that muft Atone him, that muft re- 
 concile him to Sinners, that muft obtain Pardon and 
 all other Bleflings for them ; for if this cannot be 
 done wifely, God cannot do it ; and therefore his own 
 Wifdom muft do all this ; for no created Wifdom 
 can. But God loves his own Wifdom, his only be- 
 gotten Son, and therefore Wifdom is a powerful Ad- 
 vocate, and muft prevail with the Father. So that 
 the Son*s Interceflion with the Father is fb far from 
 being incongruous, or inconfiftent with his being 
 God, that the Divine Nature can admit of no other 
 Advocate or Interceflbr, properly fb called. To in- 
 tercede with a never-failing EfFeQ: and Succefs, is an 
 Aft of Power and Authority, and for God to make 
 a Creature-Advocate and Mediator , is to give a 
 Creature Authority over himfelf, which cannot be ; 
 for it is a debafement of the Divine Nature, and a 
 reproach to the Divine Wifdom, as if God did not 
 better know, how to difpofe of his Grace and Mer- 
 cy, than any Creature does. For Creatures to pray 
 to God for themfelves or others, as humble Suppli- 
 cants, is part of the Worfhip which Creatures owe 
 to God ; but to intercede with the Authority of a Me- 
 diator, is above the Nature and Order of Creatures; 
 and God can no more give this to any Creature, than 
 he can commit his own SoVeraign Power and Autho- 
 rity 
 
1 84 ^ Vindkdtm of the DoBrine of the 
 
 rity to them : But his own Eternal WifHom can Inter- 
 cede with Authority ; for Original Mind and Wifdom 
 muft yield to the Interceflions ot his own Eternal Wif- 
 dom: which is not tofubmit to any Foreign Autho- 
 rity, but to his own. To proceed ; 
 
 7. His next Argument to prove that Chrift is not 
 
 God. is this ; That Jefis Chrifi is in Holy Scripture 
 always f poke n of^ as a diJHn&^ and dijferent Perfon from 
 God'y and dtfcnhed to be tht Son of God^ and the 
 Image of God. This we own, and he has no need to 
 prove it : And this is a v/onderful Argument to con- ' 
 vince thofe who acknowledge Three diftinfit Perfbns 
 in the Godhead, to prove that Chrift is not God, be- 
 caufe he is a diftin£t Perfon from the Father; for fb 
 according to the Language of Scripture, God fignifies 
 God the Father^ when he is diftinguiited from the 
 Son and the Holy Spirit, as all Men grant ; And to 
 I'age 12. fiy> T^^^ ^^ impnjfihk that the Son or Image of the One 
 true God (fjould himfelf be that One true God, as that 
 the Son fhould be the Fathsr, and the Image that very 
 thing whofe Image it is, is meer Sophiflry ; for if the 
 Father and the Son and the Holy Ghoft be the One 
 true God, they are the fame One true God, and yet 
 the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father. 
 
 page 13. 8. His next Argument is, {xom many Texts^ which 
 
 expre fly declare th.it only the Father is God, Now this 
 I confefs, would be a demonftration, could he pro- 
 duce any one Text, which afferts the Father only to 
 be God, in oppofuion to the Son, and to the Holy 
 Ghoft; for then the Father muft fignifie tlie Perfon 
 of the Father, in oppofuion to the Perfcn of the Son, 
 <^nd to the Perfon of the Holy Ghoft ; but when the 
 
 Father 
 
 \ 
 
Holy and Bver mffcd 7(^1KIT1 185 
 
 Father is called the Only true God, only in oppofiti- 
 on to all the falfe Gods, which the World then wor- 
 (hipped 5 there Father does not fignifie Perfonally, but 
 that One Godhead or Divinityj of which the Father 
 is the Source, and Fountain, and Original 5 he being 
 that Eternal and Original Mind, which begets his own 
 Image or Eternal Son, and from whom and the Son 
 the Holy Spirit proceeds in the Unity of the fame 
 Godhead. 
 
 When the Father is faid to be the only true God. and ^7 John 3. 
 the One God^ that the Son and Holy Ghoft are not 
 hereby excluded from the Unity of the fame God- 
 head, is evident from thofe other Texts of Scripture, 
 which plainly teach the Divinityof theSon and Holy 
 Ghoft b for if the Scripture teaches, that the Son is 
 God, and the Holy Ghoft God, it can never ftparate 
 the Father from his only begotten Son and Eternal 
 Spirit 5 and therefore the Difpute will iflue here. 
 Whether the Scripture does teach the Divinity of the 
 Son and the Holy Spirit ? 
 
 When the Father is called the Only true God, it 
 muft be in oppofition to all thofe who were at that 
 time worftiipped for Gods in the World, but were 
 not true Gods, and therefore when Chrift calls his 
 Father the onlj true God^ it could not be in contra- 
 diftinftion to himfelf and the Holy Spirit, for they 
 were not then diftinftly worfhipped. And when 
 St. Paul calls the Father the One God^ he exprefly op- 
 pofes it to the many Gods of the Heathens, For though 
 there be that are called Gods^ whether in Heaven ( the 
 Sun, and Moon, and Planets, and deified Men ) ^r f;^ 
 the Earth ( the feveral Elements, Birds, Beafts, &€.) 
 C as there be Gods many^ and Fords many J but to us^ 
 there is but One God the Father^ of whom are all things^ 
 
 B b and 
 
1 8 6 A V'mi'icaimi of the 'DoElr'me of the 
 
 and we in him 5 and One Lord Jef^ Chrift^ by whom 
 are all things^ and we by him 5 where the One God and 
 One Lord and Mediator is oppofed to the many Gods 
 and many Lords or Mediators, which were worfhip- 
 ped by the Heathens. 
 
 Thefe Textb indeed do plainly diftinguifh between 
 the Father, and Chrift : Thk is Life eternal to kiww 
 thee the o?dy true God^ and Jefu^ Chriji whom thou haft 
 fent. And to tis there is hut One God the Father^ and 
 Ohe Lord Jefus Chriji -^j which is no more than what 
 St. Paffl teaches 5 There is One God^ and One Mediator 
 between God and Men^ the Alan Chriji Jefus. The One 
 God^and the One Mediator ought to be diftinguifhed 5 
 for the whole Chriftian Religion, and the falvation of 
 Sinners, depends upon this diftinftion^ but this does 
 not exclude Chrift from being One God with the Fa- 
 ther, though he have a diftinft additional Glory of a 
 Mediatory Kingdom. 
 
 I confider farther, when the Father is called the 
 One God^ and the only true God^ it can be underftood 
 only of thofe, who are diftind and feparated Gods 
 from the Father, and are not One God with him 5 
 but it cannot exclude thofe, who are united in the 
 Unity of the fure Godhead 5 for they are but One 
 God vvith the Father. 
 
 And this is plainly fignified in the Title of the Fa- 
 ther, and the Father of our Lord Jefus, which is God's 
 peculiar Name under the Gofpcl, as the Maker of 
 Heaven and Earth was before ; For the Title of the 
 Father does not exclude, but includes the Son 5 and 
 therefore if it appears from Scripture, that this Son 
 -is true and real God, begotten of his Father from 
 Eternity, the Son at leaft muft be included in this 
 Character of the only true God, His other Texts, 
 
 whick 
 
Holy and Ever mffed T^lHltT. 187 
 
 which he cites under this Head, prove no more but JC°''. 15.24. 
 that the Father of Chrift is God, not that Chrift is f^^Rom.l: 
 not One God with the Father. 
 
 9. He adds 5 If Chriji were indeedGod^ as well ^/ P^gc 14* 
 Man^ or (ds Trinitariansy/^e^/^J God the Sonhrcarftate 
 in an Hnwa?z Nature^ it had been altogether fifperflH- 
 ous to give the Holy Spirit to his /aid Human Nature 
 as a Director and Guide '-^ for what other help could 
 that Nature need^ which was One Perfon with (" as they 
 fpeak^J God the Son^ and inw^ich God the Son did per* 
 fonally dwell. 
 
 Now the account of this is plain and fnort ^ for the 
 whole Trinity is but One Energy and Power, and the 
 Divine Perfons cannot aft feparately ^^ex^;*^^ what 
 the Father does, that the Son does, and that the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft does by one individual Aft, as I have (hown 
 at larger but the Sanftification of all Creatures (and 
 fuch the Human Nature of Chrift is ) is peculiarly 
 attributed to the Holy Spirit ^ and he might as well 
 have asked, Why the Sanftification of the Church 
 is afcfibed to the Holy Spirit ^ for the Church is the 
 Body of Chrift, and Chrift the Head from whence 
 all Influences of Grace are derived into the Body 3 
 and though this be not a perfonal Union, it is next 
 degree to it 5 for we are Flefh of his Fle/fj^ and Bone of 
 his Bone : And a Perfonal Union makes no difference 
 in the manner of Operation, though it does in the 
 Meafures and Degrees : The Divine Word afts by and 
 in conjunftion with the Holy Spirit, and therefore 
 fanftifies his own Human Nature, as he does his myfti- 
 cal Body the Church by the Operations and Influ- 
 ences of the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 B b 2 10. And 
 
1 88 J Vindication of the DcHrme of the 
 
 ic. And this anfwers his next Argument. That the 
 Miracles of Chiift are attributed to the Holy Ghod, 
 or to the Father dwelling in him : For Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghoft aft together, as Chrift tells ns, Mji Fa- 
 ther wor^eth hitherto^ and I ivcrl^ 
 
 Page 1 5. II. His next Argument is 5 Had our Lord been 
 
 more than a Man^ the Prophejks of the Old Teftament 
 ^ in which he is promijed^ would, not defcribe him barely 
 as the Seed of the Woman 5 the Seed of Abraham 5 a 
 Prophet like unto Moles ^ the Servant and Mijfionary 
 of God^ 071 whom God's Spirit JI)ould reft. That our 
 Saviour ought to have been thus defcribed, though he 
 had been more than a Man, is plain enough, becaufe 
 he was to be all this : The Seed of the Woman^ the Seed 
 of Abraham, a Prophet like unto Mofes, but a much 
 
 gHcbr. 5,6. greater Prophet: For Mofes was faithful in all his 
 Houfe as a Servant^ but Chrijl as a Son over his own 
 Houfe. But what he infinuates, that he is We/;/ thus 
 defcribed, (hews, That this Author will never lo(e 
 a Caufe by over-much Modefty ^ for we with all the 
 Chriftian Church, and we have the Authority of 
 Chrift and his Apoftles for it too, fay. That he is de- 
 fcribed in the Old Teftament alfo, not only as the 
 Seed of Abraham^ hut as the Son of God. Of which 
 more prefently. 
 
 His next Attempt is againft the Divinity of the 
 Holy Ghoft, but here is little that requires a diftinft 
 Anfwer, it being only the Repetition of his old Fal- 
 lacies. 
 
 Page \6. !• That the Holy Ghojl or Spirit^ and the Power 
 
 of God^ arefpoken of as one and the fame thing. And 
 what then ? His intended Conclufion, I fuppofe, is 
 
 that 
 
Hbly . and E^er 'BleJJed T 'P^ 1 N I Tl] i 89 
 
 that the Holy Glioft is not a Perfcn, which u the In- 
 tention of his fecond Argument f, but ihi^ibfo novel 
 and ridiculous a Conceit, (toofendefi for any of the 
 ancient Hereticks ) that it ought not tc^ be ferioully 
 confuted, but defpifed : For it is as eaile to prove 
 the Father and the Son to be no Perfons, as the Ho- 
 ly Spirit. He is the Spirit of God, which fearcheth 
 the deep things of God, and he who knows all that is 
 in God, is a knowing Mind : But to dream of Power 
 and Infpiration in God, diftind as he confefies from 
 God, and no Perfon 3 is to attribute fuch Powers and 
 Faculties to an infinite Mind, as there are in created 
 Minds 5 to compound God of Mind and Intelleftuai 
 Powers and Faculties, which all Men of fenfe have 
 fcorned the thoughts of: What are Faculties in us, 
 are Perfons in God, or elfe God is not a pure and Am- 
 ple Aft, as I fhewed above. Which fhews the vanity 
 of his Pretence, That the Holy Spirit is fpoken of as a rage 18. 
 Verfon^ by the fame Figure of Speech that Charity is 
 defcribed as a Perfon^ I Cor. 1 3. 4, 5. af^d Wifdom^ 
 9. Prov. 1 1 . For thefe natural or acquired Powers and 
 Habits are faid to do that which the Perfon who has 
 them, and afts by them, does : As Charity fiffereth 
 long^ and is h^i^d ^ becaufe a charitable Man does 
 fo, &c. And if we may allow^ fuch Habits and Powers 
 in God, the Cafe may be fomewhat parallel 5 for v/hen 
 we have compounded God of Subftance or Effence, 
 or Faculties or Powers, we may then find figurative 
 Perfons in God, as there are in Men. 
 
 This is certain, all Perfonal Afts belong to a Per- 
 fon, and therefore whatever has any Perfonal Adls 
 afcribed to it, we mull; conclude is a Perfon, unlefs 
 we know by fome other means, that it is no Perfon, 
 and then that proves the Expreffion to be figurative. 
 
 Thus 
 
 I. 
 w 
 
I no A Vindication of the VoSirine of the 
 
 Thus we know Charity is no Perfon, but a Grace of 
 Vertue, and therefore when Perfonal Afts are attri- 
 buted to Charity, as to fufFer long, and be kind, d^c. 
 We know this is a Figure 5 but it is ridiculous hence 
 to conclude, That the Holy Ghoft, who has Perfonal 
 Ad"s afcribed to him, to work Miracles, to raife the 
 Dead, to comfort, to convince, to fanftifie the 
 Church, to dwell in the Church, as in his Temple, dv. 
 is yet no Perfon, becaufe Charity, which we know 
 to be no Perfon, has Perfonal Afts afcribed to it ; 
 Which is as much as to fliy, That becaufe Perfonal 
 Afts are fometimes ufed figuratively, therefore they 
 muft never be properly expounded 5 whereas on the 
 other hand, we muft never expound any thing figu- 
 ratively, but where the fubjeft will not admit of a 
 proper fenfe. If it were as known and certain, that 
 the Holy Ghoftis noP^erfon, as that Charity is none, 
 then there would be reafon to allow a Figure ^ but to 
 prove that the Holy Ghoft is no Perfon, only becaufe 
 Perfonal Afts arelometimes figuratively attributed to 
 that which is no Perfon, is a Maxim only in the So- 
 cinian Logick, which is nothing elfe but a Syftem of 
 abfurd and ridiculous Fallacies. 
 
 2. His fecond Argument againfl: the Spirit^s being 
 God, is this ^ A mamfeji diifiindtion is made^ as between 
 God and Chriji^ fo alfo between God and the Holy Spi- 
 rit^ or power and Inspiration of God 5 fo that 'tis im- 
 pojfible the Spirit Jldould be God hinifelf This has been 
 anfwered already, as to the diftinftion between God 
 and Chrift, and the (ame Anfwer will ferve for the 
 Holy Spirit. But this Confeffion of the Socinian con- 
 futes his whole Hypothefis, and proves the Holy Spi- 
 rit to be a Perfon, and God. 
 
 He 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^^IKITI. i p i 
 
 He fays the Holy Spirit is diftinft frpm God, fo 
 diftinft that 'tis impoffible he (hould be God himfelf ; 
 then (ay I, this Holy Spirit is either a Divine fubfift- 
 ing Perfon, or nothing bat a Name. If this Spirit 
 were a Divine Vertueand Power, as he would have 
 it, then it is not diftinft from God, but is God him- 
 felf, as the Powers and Faculties of the Mind, though 
 they may be diftinguifhed from each other, yet they 
 cant beany thing diftinft from the Mind, but are the 
 fviind itfelf 5 and therefore if the Spirit, as he fays, 
 be reprefented in Scripture, as fo diftinft from God, 
 that 'tis impoflible he (hould be God himfelf, then he 
 muft be a diftinft Divine Perfon, and not the meer 
 Power of God, which is not diftinft from God him- 
 felf. 
 
 If the Spirit be diftinft from God, and not God 
 himfelf, and yet have Perfonal Ads afcribed to him, 
 then he muft be a diftinft Perfon 5 for Faculties, Ver- 
 tues, and Powers, have Perfonal Afts and Offices afcri- 
 bed to them, only upon account of their Unity and 
 Samenefs with the Mind in which they are, which is 
 a Perfon, and ads by thefe Powers 5 but a Power 
 which is diltinft from God, and is not God himfelf, 
 (^as he fays the Holy Spirit is) if it have any Perfonal 
 Ads, muft be a diftind Perfon 5 and if thefe Perfonal 
 Ads are fuch, as are proper only to God, it muft be 
 a dilVmd I^ivine Perfon. 
 
 He fays, this Holy Spirit is the Infpiration of God 5 
 be it fo : This Infpiration then is either within God 
 himfelf, or without him, in Creatures, who have this 
 Infpiration. If it be within God himfelf, it muft be a 
 Perfon, or elfe it cannot be diftind from God 5 and 
 a Divine Perfon unlefs any thing be in God, which is 
 not God If this Infpiration be without God, in Crea- 
 tures,, 
 
.102 A FiriJicatm of the DcFtr'me of the 
 
 tures, who are infpired by him ^ how is it the Spiitt 
 of God ? For the Spirit of God muft be in God, as 
 the Spirit of Man is in Man : How does this Infpira- 
 
 I Cor. 2. 10, tion in Creatures ^e^rr^ all things^ yea the deep things 
 ^ *• of God ^ and /{noweth the things ofGod^ as the Spirit of 
 a- Man fywrveih the things of a Man ^ For the Infpira- 
 tion in Creatures fearcheth nothing of God,and know- 
 eth nothing of God, but what God is pleafed to re- 
 veal. The Infpiration knows nothing of God, but 
 the infpired Mind knows as much, as it is infpired 
 with the knowledge of. So that according to this 
 Account, the Spirit of God is nothing but the infpi- 
 red knowledge in Creatures 5 and therefore no Per- 
 fonal Afts can be attributed to it, but what Creatures 
 can do by fuch Infpiration 5 and let any Man confider, 
 whether this anfwers thofe Charafters we have of the 
 Spirit of God in Scripture. 
 
 If this be fo, I defire to know, How the Spirit of 
 God differs from his Gifts and Graces ? For if the 
 Spirit be nothing but God's Infpiration in Creatures, 
 the Spirit is either a Gift or a Grace, and is not One 
 in All, but as many as thofe Creatures are, that are 
 infpired 5 and as different as the Gifts and Graces are, 
 with which they are infpired ; Whereas St. Paul 
 
 ^1 Cor. 12.4,5, tells us, There are Diverfities of Gifts, but the fame Spi- 
 ^' rit 5 and there are differences of Adminiflrations, but 
 the fame Lord, and there are diverfities of Operations^ 
 but it is the fame God, -which worketh all in all. So 
 that the Spirit is diftinguifhed from his Gifts, as the 
 Lord is from his Adminiftrations, and God from his 
 Operations 5 and is the fame Spirit in all, as it is the 
 fame Lord, and the fame God. 
 
 3. His 
 
 1 
 
Hgly and Ever Slejfed T(^miTr: 1^5 
 
 5. His next Argument is , The Spirit is oka}?ied 
 for US of God by our Prayers ; therefore it felf is not 
 God. But this has been afifwered already ; for though 
 the One Supreme God cannot be fent, nor given 
 (\\4iich I Tuppofe is the force of his Argument) yet 
 in the ever blefled Trinity, One Divine Perfbn may 
 fend and give another ; the Father may fend the Son, 
 and give the Holy Spirit. And yet fince they like ,,. 
 that better, we will allow, That the Holy Spirit does 
 give himftlf^ and is asked of himfelf\ for the Divine 
 Perfbns in the Trinity, as I have often obferved and 
 proved, do not a£t feparately, bu| as the Father and 
 the Son give the Holy Spirit, fb the Holy Spirit gives 
 himfelf in the fame individual A£t. « 
 
 And when we^pray toGod for his Holy Spirit, we 
 pray to Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, who are 
 this One God , and One entire objeQ: of Worfhip ; 
 It is the ever bleffed Trinity we invoke, when we pray 
 Our father which art in Heaven, For as they are 
 infeparably One God, fo they are the infeparable Ob- 
 jeft of our Worfhip : fince this great Myflery of a 
 Trinity in Unity is fb plainly revealed to us, we can- 
 not worfhip this One Supreme God, but w^e muft di- 
 re£l our Worfhip to all Three Divine Perfbns in the 
 Unity of the fame Godhead ; for we do not worfhip * 
 this One Supreme God, unlets we worfhip Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghofl : And therefore whether we in- 
 yoke each Perfon diftinOily, as our Church does in 
 th-e beginning of the Litany ; or pray only to God by 
 the Name of the moft High God, or by the Name of 
 Father, or the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrifl:, it is 
 all one ; for Father, Son, and Holy Ghofl: is the One 
 Supreme God, and the entire objeft of our Worfhip : 
 And whoever worOiips One God, but not Father, Son, 
 
 Cc and 
 
1 p4 ^ Vindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 and Holy Ghoft, does not worfhip the true God, not 
 the Cod of the Chriftians. Before this was (b plain- 
 ly revealed, it was fufficient to worfhip One Supreme 
 God, without any conception of the diftinft Perfbns 
 in the Godhead ; but when it is plainly revealed to 
 us, that this One Supreme Go J is Father, Son, and 
 Holy Gholt, whoever does not worfhip Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghoft, does not .worfhip the true God ; for 
 thetrue God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, and there 
 is no God befides him: which I would defireour V- 
 nitATtms ( as they falfly call themfelves) and our 
 £>ei/?j carefully toconfider: If any thing be funda- 
 mefttal in Religion, ic is the worfliip of the One true 
 God; aRd if Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft be this One 
 true God, thofe who worfhip a God, who is not Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft, do not worflaip the true. 
 ^God, and that I think is the true Notion of Idolatry. 
 So that thefc Men are fo far from being Chriftians, 
 that I cannot fee, how they are worfhippers of the 
 true God ; which fhould at leaft make them concern- 
 ed to examine this matter a'ith more Care and lefs 
 Prejudice than they have yet done. 
 
 ^0 that when we worfhip One God, we worfhip 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, and when the Glory of 
 thefe Divine Perfbns was made known to the World, 
 there was no need of any new Comn>and to worfhip 
 thefe Three Divine Perfbns ; for when it is revealed, 
 that they are the One Eternal God, the Command of 
 worfhipping this One God muft include them all. 
 Which gives a fufRcient Anfwer to what he adds, That 
 there is neither Precept nor Example in all Holy Scrip- 
 ture , of Prayer ?nade to the Spirit^ on this or any 
 other occafion : Which on the Trinitarian Suppofition, 
 that the Holy Spirit is a P erf on and God^ 'no lefs than 
 
 the 
 
. Holy and Ever mjfed T<^I NIT r. 195 
 
 the Father y is very fur^riz^in^^ haj utterly undccoun- 
 tdte. But I hope this will fatisfie any man, that it 
 is not unaccountable ; for though the Spirit be God, 
 he is but One God, with Father, and Son, and there- 
 fore not a diftinft and feparate Objed of Worfhip, but 
 is worfbipped with the Father and the Son, in thell- 
 nlcy of the fame Godhead, and this required no new 
 Comnaand, nor any feparate worfhip of the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 There is indeed a diftind worfhip pa'd to Chrifl: ; 
 All men mufl honour the Son^ as they honour the Father. 
 When God brought his firfl begotten into the World^ 
 that is, when he raifed him from the Dead, and exalt- 
 ed him to his own righthand, he J.tid^ and let all the 
 A}7gels of God worfhfp him: God hath highly exalted 
 him^ and given him a Nann^ which is above every 
 Name, that at the Name of Jefiis every l^nee [ho uU -^Wil lOyii 
 horv^ of things in Heaven, and things in Earthy and 
 things wader the Earth, But this is not meerly as he 
 is the Son of God, thelfecond Perfbn in the Trinity, 
 for fb he is worQiipped as One God with the Father 
 and the Holy Ghort ; but as he is a Mediator or a 
 Mediatory King ; as he has a Kingdom diftinft from 
 the Natural* Kingdom of the Father, as I have alrea- 
 dy fhown, fb there is a wcrfhip proper to him as Me- 
 diator ; but the Ho'y Spirit has no diftinft Kingdom, 
 and therefore no diftinft Worihip, but is worfhipped 
 in the Unity of tffe Godhead, and this required no 
 new Command ; for he who knows, that Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghoft are One Supreme God, muft wof- 
 fhip Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft as One Supreme 
 
 God. 
 
 « 
 
 4. His next Argumeift is againft a Trinity of Per- 
 
 C c 2 , Tons 
 
^96 A Vmdication of the DoElrine of the 
 
 I'^ge 19. fQj^s ^^ fl^g Godhead, which, he fays, is contrary to 
 *. the whole Scripture^ which fpeal{s of Gdd hut as One 
 Perfon,, and [peaks of him^ and to hhn^ bj fmgniir 
 Prononns^ jiich as I^ Thou^ me, Him, 
 
 His Proofs that the Scripture fpeaks of God as hut 
 ^ . One Perfon^ are very wonderful. His firft is, that of 
 
 ' ' J^^^i > Will we fpeak wickedly for God? and talk dtceit- 
 fully for him ? Will ye accept his Perfon ? will ye con- 
 tend for God? But furely to accept God's Perfon^ no 
 niore fignifies the Perfonality of the Godhead, than to . 
 accept the Perfon of a Man, fignifies his Human Per- 
 fbn: the Hebrew is his Face, which is far from figni- 
 fying a Perfon in the fenfe we fay, there are Three 
 Perfons in the Godhead. To refpefl the Perfon of a 
 Man is to do fomething for him, which neither Law, 
 nor ]uftice, nor Equity required ; not becaufe he is a 
 Perfon, which every Man is, but from fbme partial 
 refpeft we have to his particular Perfon ; and there- 
 fore to accept the Perfojfoj God here fignifies to [peak 
 wickedly for Go d ; which is an abfurd and fenflefs 
 thing, as Job reprefents it, whether the Supreme 
 , God be One Perfon, or Three ; for in this fenfe of 
 Perfon, One God can be but One Perfon. 
 iHebr. 1,2. jhe Other Text that Chrift is the exprefs fmage 
 of God's Perfon, is as little to the purpafe ; for it is 
 plain, the Perfon of whon! the Son is the exprefs I- 
 mage, is the Perfon of God the Father ; and the Fa- 
 ther indeed is but One Perfon. <*' 
 
 As for his fingular Pronouns, they prove indeed 
 tkat there is but One God, as we all own, not that 
 there are not Three Perfbns in the Godhead. For 
 when the Scripture* fpeaks of God without any parti- 
 cular refpefl: to the diftindion of the Perfbns, it mull 
 ipeakbut of One God, becawfe God is but One, and 
 
 fingu-* 
 
Holy and Ever mpd T^l N 1 T 2. 1 9 7 
 
 fingular Pronouns are moft properly applied to One 
 God. As for what he objefts, That /^o h[lame cm'^^i^^^* 
 be gi'Vtn in any L.Angua,gt of Three Ptrfons whoever 
 /poke of themf Ives^ 'or rverejpokefi to, by the finguLir 
 Pronoims^ /, Thou^ Me, Hmi, Thee ; it were fufEci- 
 ent to anfwer, That there is no other Example in 
 Nature neither, of Three Pcrfons who are effentially 
 One^ and if the manner of fpeaking muft be con- 
 formed to the Nature of Things, there can bi no other 
 Inftance of this way of fpeaking, becaufe there is no 
 other Example of this Unity \ but all Languages 
 fpeak of One in the fingular Number, and fo the 
 Scripture ufes fingular Pronouns of One God. But 
 this is not the Cafe; for when God fpeaks of himfelfj 
 he does not fpeak of himfelf, as Three Perfbns, but 
 as One God, and therefore may fay I and Me: And' 
 when the Prophets. fpeak of God, or pray to him, 
 they pray to.him as One God, and therefore may 
 fay, Thou, and Him, and Thee. When Three Per- 
 fbns areOneGod, God may fpeak of himfelf, or we 
 may fpeak of, or to God, either confidered as Three 
 Perfbns, or as One God ; and tRough Three Perfons 
 require the Plural Number, yet One God may fpeak. 
 of himfelf, or be fpoken to, by fingulaj^ Pronouns. 
 
 5. He fays, Hdd the Son or Holy Ghofl. been God^ Page 22, 
 this wonldnot have been omitted in the J po files Creed, And - 
 
 I fay, Had not the Son been God, and the floly Ghoft 
 God, they would not have been put into the Apoftlcrs^ 
 Creed, no more than into the formof Baptifn,whichis 
 the original of the Apoftles Creed. That the Primitive 
 Chjiftians did believe the Divinity of theSon, and oft he 
 Holy Ghoft , we are fufficiencly affured from all the an- - 
 cient Records of their Faith; but there was norealfcn . 
 to exprefs this in fb fhort a Creed, before the Aria?^. 
 
 and 
 
x^Z A Vindication of the VoElrim of the 
 
 and Socinim Herefies had difturbed the Church ; and 
 indeed there was no need of it, for the only Son of 
 God muft be by Nature God, and the Spirit of God is 
 as effentially God, as the Spirit ofaManis effential to 
 a Man. " ' • 
 
 Page 24. He concludes, Ih^tthurs (^(^^^ SocinUns) is an 
 
 account able dnd reafo^able Faith ; hut that of the Tri- 
 nitarians is abfurdy md contrary both to Reafon and to 
 . ' it ft If y and t her tf ore not only fat f^ but impoffible. The 
 
 Faith of a Trinity in Unity, I hope, I have fuffici- 
 ently vindicated already from Abfurdity and Contra- 
 diftion. But it will be worth the while briefly to 
 confider, how accountable and reafonable th^'Sociniayi 
 Faith is. | 
 
 The Socinlan DofVrine is, That Chrifl-, who is cal- 
 led the Son, the only begotten Son of God , the 
 Brightnefsof his Glory, and the e^prefs Image of his 
 Perfon, is no more than a meer Man, who had no Be- 
 ing, till he was Conceived in the Womb of the Vir- 
 gin Mary J and is called the Son of God, becaufeGod 
 ^formed him by an immediate Power in the Virgins 
 Womb, and raifed him from the Dead, and exalted 
 him to his own right hand in Heaven ; and that the 
 Holy Spirit is only the Power and. Infpiration of God, 
 that is, is either God himfelf, or the Operation of his 
 Power in Creatures. ^ ^ 
 
 This is their accountable and reafonable Doflrine 
 and to Ihow how very accountable and reafonable it 
 is, I come now to draw up my charge againfl it. 
 
 I. That it ridicules the Scriptures. 2. Thar ito-i- 
 dicules the whole Jewifh Oeconomy. 3. Thar it ri- 
 diclflcs the Chriftian Religion. 4. That it jufiifies, 
 or at leaft excufes both Pagan and Popifh Idolaci'es! 
 
 The 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T%^ INITY. ipp 
 
 The Charge is full enough, and I am contented it 
 fhould pais only for big huffing words, till I have 
 - proved it ; and then I hope, it may pals for a juft 
 Return to the ridiculous Blafphemies of the Br^ef 
 Notesy and Brief Hijiorj. 
 
 I. That it ridicules the Scripture, by putting ei- 
 ther an abfurd, or a very mean trifling fenfc on it, un- 
 worthy of the Wifdom of God, by whom it was in- 
 fpired ; and this I flaallgive fbmeinftancesof, intheir 
 Expofitions of Scripture, which I find in the Brief Hi- 
 flory of the V;iitarians, 
 
 In the fecond Letter he takes notice of feme Texts 
 in the Old Teftament, which fpeak of God, and in 
 the Nev/ Teftament are applied to Chrift, which we 
 think a very good Argument to prove. That Chrift 
 is that God, to whom thofe Texts belong in the Old 
 Teftament ; for though poffibly without fuch an Ap- 
 plication we could not certainly have known, that 
 theft Texts were fpoken of Chrift, yet the Authority 
 of Chrift and his Apoftles who have made this Appli- 
 cation, is as good a Reafon to believe, that they were 
 meant of Chrift, as to believe any other pare of the 
 Gofpel: Let us thenconfider, how he anlwers fuch 
 Texts. 
 
 What the Pfalmijl fays, Thy Throney God, is for Pjge4. 5; 
 ever and ever^ a Scepter of Kifhteoiifriefs is the 6*^c/>- 45 P[3'^^»7»^ 
 ter of thy tsjngdom. IhoH hajt loved RtghteoujnejSy 
 and hated Iniq^uity^ therefore God^ even thy God, hath a^-^ 
 nointtd Thee with the Oyl of GUdnefs above thy FeL 
 lows'y the Apoftle to X^^z Hebrews applies to Chrift; 
 But unto the Son he faith. Thy Throne, God^ &C. To 
 this he Anfwers, In the Hebrew^ and in the Greek, 'tis 
 (jod^ is thy Throne ( i/e, thy featy refling jflace^ efia- 
 
 hlijhjnent') 
 
2 CO * jyimlkationof the VoSlrimof the 
 
 hlijljment^ for ever \ If he had only fa id, it mxyhefo^ 
 he had {aid right ; but it is falfe, to lay, it is {q^. For 
 the Hebrew tJohim may be either the Nominative or 
 the Vocative Cale, and (o the Greek 6 0g:$, which is 
 an Attick Vocative, and fb is ufed by the SqtHti- 
 g'tnt^ 2 2 Pfalm X. O 0g^5 /w.y, o 0e^f /w,?. My Gody 
 my God, why hafi thou for fake n nie. And it is evident, 
 the Scptuaoff^t^ the Vulgar Latin, the Chaldee Para-' 
 phrafij the Syriack and Jrabick Ftrftons^ took it for 
 the Vocative Cafe, and thus the Chridian Church has 
 always underftood it ; and this, is the moft natural 
 ConftruQion, when it immediately follows a Pronoun, 
 which h s no other immediate Relative j Thy Throne^ 
 O God^ that is, Godj thy Ihrone is for ever and ever. 
 And thus the ApolUe.muft underftand it ; Jo the Son 
 he faith. Thy Throne, God : where, Go^, murt: be 
 referred to the Son, and thytoGod: And the fence he 
 gives of it, is abfurd, and what we have no Example 
 of in Scripture, that God is a. Throne : God indeed is 
 iSPfalmz. called a Rock, a Fortrefs, a high Tower, which is ex- 
 pounded by a Deliverer', but a Throne here fignifies 
 a Kjngdom, as is evident from the following Words ; 
 and to fay, that God is the Throne^ and the Kingdom of 
 ^ Chrift, is to fubjecl: the Father to the Son ;' for a 
 
 King fits upon his Throne, and governs his King- 
 dom. 
 
 The Apoftle in the next Verfe cites another gloria 
 ous Teflimony which God hath given to his Son ; And, 
 -6^2 .^^^« '^^^^^^ Lord m the beginning hdji laid the Foundations 
 ^ ' of the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of thine 
 
 hands; they jh all per if J ^ but' thou remained', and they 
 all [Jjall wax old as doth a Garment, and as a Veflurt 
 (halt thou fold them up ^ and they fh all he changed', hut 
 ihou art the fame, and thy years J/jall not fail. This 
 
 • • is 
 
Holy and Eyer mffed 7(^lKITr. 201 
 
 is fo plain a Teftimony to the Divinity of our Saviour, 
 if thefe words be allowed to be applied by the Apoflle 
 to Chrift, that our Author is forced to deny it. He 
 fays, The Context has this fenfe^ And thou Lord ^ (that^^%^ 5°- 
 ij, and in another Text of the Pfalms, it is faid^ Thou 
 Lord^) which is certainly true, if he had added but 
 one word more, viz, to the Son, And in another Text 
 of the Pfalms, it is faid to the Son^ And thou Lord 
 hajl laid the Foundations of the Earth ^ for fo the Con- 
 text requires us to fupply it, if we will make fen(e of 
 it 5 for the Apoftle ooferves in what different Lan- 
 guage God fpeaks of the Angels, and to the Son : Of 
 the Angels^ he faith, who maketh his Angels Spirits^ and 
 *. his Minijiers a flaming Fire 5 but to the Son^ he faith, 
 
 thy Throne y God^ is fir ever and ever, And to 
 
 the Son^ he faith, Thou Lord in the beginning haji laid 
 
 the Foundations of the Earth, • But to which of 
 
 the Angels faid he at any time^ Sit on my right hand 
 until I make thine Enemies thy Footflool, This is ea- 
 fie and natural 5 but to apply thofe words to the Fa- 
 ther, Thou Lord in the beginning hajl laid the Foun- 
 dations of the Earthy &c. is to break the whole Con- 
 text, is contrary to the Apoftles defign, and no good 
 fenfe can be made of it 5 and this I think is to ridicule 
 Scripture, to make it Nonfenfe, or very bad,difturbed, 
 and incoherent fenfe, when there is no need of it, but 
 to ferve an Hypothefis, which the Text was defigned 
 to confute. He fays, Tho, Aquinas rightly acknowledged^ 
 that the words of both thefe Texts may be underftood of 
 God only^ not ofChriJi 5 but this is falfe ( as indeed he 
 feldom cites any Author, but he corrupts him ) for 
 Thomas fays, this Text may be underjlood of either ^ but 
 if you underftand it of the Father, then by in the be- 
 ginning you muft underftand the Son, who, he fays, 
 
 D d is 
 
202 AVtndicatton of the DoBrine of the 
 
 is called the beginning : Thou Lord in the beginning • 
 that is, in or by the Son, hafi laid the Foundations of 
 the Earth 5 for he faw the Context required, that thefe 
 words fhould be applied to'Chrift, but he thought it 
 indifferent , whether they were applied to him in 
 whole or in part, fince both ways he is made the Crea^ 
 tor of the World, which anfwers the Apoftles defign 5 
 and though I think Thomas was miftaken, yet this 
 makes nothing to our Author's purpofe. 
 ^SPfalmiS. Thus what the Pfalmiji fays of God, Thou hafl 
 4 £pJ^' S* afcended on high^ thou haji led captivity captive ^ thou 
 hafi received Gifts for men '-^ St. PW attributes to 
 Chrift. Here our Hiftorian fpends a great many 
 words to no purpofe, about Chrift*s defcent into the 
 Grave and into Hell, and his afcending into Heaven 
 to fill all things 5 or, as he fays, it might be betterv 
 rendred to fulfil all things'-^ that is, all the Prophefies^ 
 of himjelf and others concerning his Death^ and Afcen- 
 jion into the higheft Heavens : But how does ^m vroLvTu, 
 lignifie all Prophefies, or how does his Afcenfion into 
 Heaven fulfil all Prophefies > As^r the Gifts given to 
 men^ he fays, in the Pfalms, they are literally, meant of 
 God^ and of Chriji^ only by way of Prophefie^ or rather 
 of Emblem^ or Accommodation 5 which he learnedly 
 proves, becaufe ^/6e G>/>/ the Apoftle fpeaksof, were 
 not given or received till about One thonfand Tears af- 
 ter DavidV time. 
 
 Now what of all this? we readily grant, that as- 
 cending on high, the leading Captivity captive, the 
 receiving Gifts for Men, which the Pfalmifl: {peaks of, 
 were not the fame, with the Afcenfion of Chrifl into 
 Heaven , his leading Captivity captive , and giving 
 Gifts to Men, but were Types and Figures of it 3 but 
 the fingle Queftion is, whether Chrifl be that God, 
 
 of 
 
Holy and Ever (Blejfed T^lKlTY. lo} 
 
 of whom the Pfalmzji fays, that he afcendedon high^ 
 &c. If he be not, St. "Paul has abused us, for he ap- 
 plies that to Chrift, which was not faid of him 5 if 
 he be, we have what we defire, that Chrift is Cod : 
 but this, which was the only Queftion, he fays not 
 one word to. .Men may be Types and Figures, as 
 David and others were of Chrift 5 and in this cafe, 
 what was faid of D^z;/^, as a Typical Perfon, may 
 be applied to the Perfon of Chrift: but God himfelf 
 can be no Type, for the Type is always lefs perfeft 
 than the Antitype 5 and therefore whatever is faid of 
 God, muft belong to his Perfon, and cannot belong 
 to any other. What God did under the typical ftate 
 of the Law, may be a Type and Figure of thofe more 
 glorious things, which we would do in Human Na- 
 ture ^ and thus his Triumphs and Victories over the 
 Enemies of his Church, which is by a Metaphor called 
 his afcending on high, ( fince God, who fills all 
 places, neither locally alcends nor defcends) was a 
 Type and Figure of his real Afcenfion into Heaven, 
 after he had firft defcended into the lowermoft parts 
 of the Earth, as the Apoftle argues 5 but if what the 
 Pfalmifl (ays, that God afcended on high, &c. recei- 
 ved its accomplilhment in the Afcenfion of Chrift in- 
 to Heaven, Chrift muft be the God of whom the 
 Pfalmiji fpeaks. 
 
 Thus what the Vfalmifl (ays of God, Worjhip him Page 49- 
 all ye Gods , or Angels , the Apoftle attributes to V^^^^^T 
 Chrift 5 when he bringeth in the firjl begotten into the 
 World^ he faith, and let all the Angels of God worjhip 
 him. To this our Author anfwers, 'Tis uncertain whe- 
 ther St. Paul had any refpeS to the words in the Pfalm, 
 What ? when he cites the very words, as a Propfaefie 
 of Chrift? How ftiall we then know, when the Apo- 
 
 D d 2 ftk 
 
204 J vindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 ftle has refpeft to the words he quotes ? But if he had, 
 he doth not quote the words of the Pialmift as if they 
 were fpok^n of Chriji , hut only declareth the Decree 
 of God ( h^own to him by the Spirit ) for fthje^ing 
 the Angels to Chrift^ in the fame words that the Pfal- 
 mift had ufed upon another occajion, . But he proves 
 this Decree of God by no other Revelation, but the 
 words of the Pfahmji^ nor pretends any other ^ and 
 if that don t prove it, we have no other. But his Rea- 
 fon for this is admirable, hecaufe they are words mofh 
 proper to exprefs that Decree^ for the Writers of the 
 New Teftament generally ^ff^ to fpeah^ in Scripture 
 Language : Which is an effectual Anfwer to all the 
 Texts of Scripture quoted out of the Old Teftament 5 
 that the Apoftles did not intend to prove any thing 
 by them, but only affeUed tofpeal^in Scripture Lan- 
 guage ^ but when the Apoftle fays this was fpoken of 
 Chrift, if it were not fpoken of him, I doubt heaf- 
 fefted fomething worfe than fpeaking in Scripture 
 Language^ this is either to ridicule Scripture, or 
 give the lye to it , let him chofe which he likes 
 beft. 
 Page 60. St. Paul applies that of the Prophet Ifaiah^ I have 
 
 il Rom.^'io,y^^^^ h ^^yfi^f-y (which all acknowledge to be fpoken 
 1 1, by God ) unto me every Kneeflja// bow^ to Chrift. This 
 our Hiftorian fays, is, Becaufe Chrifl then and there 
 C at the taft Judgment ) holdeth the place of God^ re- 
 frefenteth him^ and a&eth by his Commiffion. So M.en 
 are faid to appear before our Sovereign Lord the Yiing^ 
 when they appear at the Bar of his Judges^ becaufe the 
 Judges acJ in the Kings jiead^and by his Commiffton, But 
 why does he confine this bowing the Knee to the laji 
 Judgment? St. P^/// indeed gives this as onelnftance 
 of it, but does not confine it to this, but in the Epi- 
 
 ftle 
 
s, *^> 
 
 11. 
 
 , Holy and Ever mjfed T%IK 1 7X i o 5 
 
 ftle to the Philjppians makes it as large as the Exal- 
 tation of oar Saviour 5 Wherefore God hath highly ex- 2 Phil. 
 alted him^ and given him a. Name^ which is above eve- 
 ry Name^ that at the Name of J e fits every Knee fdoidd 
 
 borv^ and that every Tongue fhoidd confefs that 
 
 Jefus Chriji k Lord^ to the Glory of God the Father, 
 This is what God {ays by the Pro^h^ty Every Tongne 
 fiial/ fwear to me 5 and St. Vaid to the Romans^ Every 
 Tongue fhall confefs to God, And this fhovvs, that it is 
 the Perfon of Chrift to whom we muft bow the Knee : : 
 It is the Name of Jefus at which every Knee mnft' bow 5 
 and every Tongue muft confefs^ that Jefus Chrifi is the 
 Lord, Now I fuppofe he will not fay, That we muft 
 confefs the Judges to be the King, or that we muft 
 bow to their Perfons, but to their Commiffion 3 or 
 that they reprefent the Ring, wherever they are, but 
 only in the Kings Court.-- ^-' 
 
 If then we muft bow to the Perfon of Chrift, and : 
 confefs him to be the Lord, and this be an accom- 
 pli(hment of God's Oath, unto me every Knee flmll 
 bow^ and every Tongue flo all fw ear '-^ then Chrift is • 
 that God, who in the Prophet i/^i^/) fwore, that eve- 
 ry Knee (hould bow to him ; And the Prophet plainly 
 defcribes, who this Go J is to whom every Knee ftiall- ' 
 bow 5 Surely [hall one fay ^ in the Lord have / r/^/6^e- 45 ifai.24,25: 
 oufnefs and flrength 5 even to him fball men come^ and 
 all that are incenfed againjl him [hall be afljamed 5 in 
 the Lord fld all the Seed of Ifrael be jujiified^ and fi all 
 glory '-y And I fuppofe all Chriftians know, who that 
 Lord is, who is made unto us \Yifdom^ andRighteouf iCor.i.^c. 
 nefs ^ Sanctification and Redemption'-;) by whom we are 2 Cor. 5,21, 
 jujiified through Faith in his Blood-: And this is that 
 God, to whom every Knee muft bow. 
 
 But 
 
 L 
 
'2 oiS A Vhidication of the VoBrine of the 
 
 But he is a little miftaken alfo in his Laws we are 
 not faid to appear before our Sovereign lord the 
 King, becaufe we appear before the Judges, who aft 
 by the King's Commiffion ^ for this is true only of the 
 Court oi Kings- Bench ^ which is peculiarly the Kings 
 Court 5 though other Judges aft by the King's Com- 
 miffion alfo : In the King's Court we are faid to ap- 
 pear before the King. 
 
 But now though Chrift receive his Kingdom and 
 Power from God, and God is faid to judge the World 
 by him, yet it is properly Chrift' s Judgment' Seat : 
 
 Rom. 10. ^^ ^^* ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^'^^ '^^ ^ WeJhallaUfland before the 
 5 Cor. 5. 10. Judgment' Seat of Chrijl ^ and we mufi all appear he- 
 fore the Judgment-Seat of Chrift 5 for the Father judg- 
 eth no man^ hut hath committed all Judgment to the Son^ 
 that all men fhould honour the Son^ even as they honour 
 the Father ^ which I explained before. And there- 
 fore this being Chrift's Court, of which he is the Su- 
 preme and Sovereign Judge, to him we muft bow 
 our Knee 5 that is, he is that Lord, of whom the Pro- 
 phet Ifaiah fpeaks. 
 srfa* u. '^^^ i2imt Prophet tells us, San&ifie the Lord of 
 Hofts himfelf and let him be your fear^ and let him 
 he your dread. And he (hall he for a SanUuary 5 but 
 for a Stone of ftumhling ^ and for a Roc^ of offence to 
 both the houfes of Ifrael'-y for a gin^ and for afnare to 
 the inhabitants of Jerufalem. This is evidently fpo- 
 ken of the Lord of Hofts, the God of IfraeU And this 
 9Bom.3i, St. Paul applies to Chrift, that the Jews d\dfiumble 
 ^*'^^* andfall^ and were broken^ as the Prophet foretold at 
 this ftumhling Stone : Ifrael^ which followed after the 
 Law of Righteoufnefs^ hdth not attained to the Law of 
 Righteoufnefs. Wherefore ? becaufe they fought it^ not 
 4)y Faith ( the Faith of Chrift ) but as it were by the 
 
 Works 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T%lKlTr. tor 
 
 Works of the Law^ for they fiambled at the flnmhling" 
 flone 5 a^ it is written^ behold I lay in Sion aftumbling" 
 ftone^ and rock^ of offence ^ and whofoever believeth on 
 himjhaU not he afnamed. Where the Apoftle joyns 
 two Prophefies together ^ the firft, that which I have 
 already quoted, where the Lord of Hofts is faid to 
 be a Stumbling- ftone, and Rock -of Offence : And a- 
 nother of the lame Prophet 5 Behold^ 1 lay in Zionfor 28 Ifai. i6* 
 a Foundation a Stone ^ a tried Stone ^ a precious Corner- 
 Jione^ a fire Foundation : he that believeth Jhall not 
 make hafte 5 which both St. Paul and St. Peter render 
 with the Septu^gint /hall not be afhan^ed. Now from 
 hence we learn, that the Prophet fpeaks of the fame 
 Stone, that the Stumhling-flone and Rock^ of Offence^ is 
 the Foundation-jloue^ and precious Corner-fione : And. 
 therefore the Lord of Hofts, who is the Stumbling 
 ftone, is the precious Corner- ftone alfo : And St. Paul 
 and St. Peter tells us , that Chrift is the Stumbling- 
 ftone, and that precious Corner-ftcne, of which the 
 Prophet fpeaks^ that is, that Chrift is the Lord of 
 Hojis, To whom (to Chrift) coming as U7tto a living i Pet'2'4>5>^» 
 Stone ^ difallowed indeed of Men ^ but chofenofGod and 
 precious^ ye alfo as lively Stones are built up a fpiritual 
 
 Houfe wherefore alfo it is contained in Scripture^ ^ 
 
 Behold^ I lay in Sion a chief Cor ner-Jione^ e/e^, precis 
 ous^ and he that believeth on him Jhall not be confounded^ 
 or ajhamed. 
 
 All that our Hiftorian fays to this, is, That neither ^^g^ s^, 
 St. Paul , nor St. Peter cite the words of the Prophet 
 ^-ns fpok^n ofChriJi^ but only as in fome fenfe applicable 
 to him^ namely as Chrifl was to many a Stone offtum- j. 
 
 bling 5 which is nothingelfe but to out-face the World 
 with down- right Impudence 5 and to charge the Apo- 
 ftles with abufing Scripture, and producing Proofs, 
 
 which 
 
 « 
 
 • ♦• 
 
 ^ 
 
zo'8 4 Vindication of the DoSlrine of the 
 
 which are no Proofs. St. Paul alledges this Prophe- 
 fie to prove, that the Infidelity of the Jews, and that 
 Offence they (hould take at Chrift, was foretold in 
 Scripture h which anfwers that Objeftion againft his 
 being the Mejjias^ that the great Body of Jfrael^ to 
 whom the Mejfias was peculiarly promifed, ftiould re- 
 jeft him when he earner which had it not been fore- 
 told, had been a very urianfwerable prejudice 5 and 
 *^^" yet if Chrift be not the V xo^h^ts jiumhling Stom^ this 
 Prophefie does not foretel it. St. Vettr urges this 
 Prophefie to prove, that Chrift is the Foundation, 
 Corner-Stone , Eleft , and Precious, on which the 
 Church was to be built 5 but he abufes us alfo with a 
 fham Proof, if this Prophefie were not meant of 
 Chrift. And thus thefe Men, rather than they will 
 allow the Scripture proofs, that Chrift is God, deftroy 
 all the Old Teftament proofs of the Truth of Chri- 
 ftianity 5 and 1 am afraid they are able to give us no 
 good proof of Chriftianity without them , and yet if 
 fuch Texts as thefe muft pa{s only for Accommoda- 
 tions and Allufions,! know not where they will find 
 any proofs. St. '^ohn curioufly obferves the feveral 
 Circumftances of our Saviour's Death, and ftiows that 
 they were the Accompliftiment of ancient Prophe- 
 fies ^ and among others, that of piercing his Side with 
 the Soldier's Spear, which was foretold by the Pro- 
 
 laZech. 10. phet Zechary^ They JImll look on me, vohom they have 
 
 p/er^ed, which is confefled to be fpoken of God 5 and 
 
 ' ' here he tells us again, That the words in the Prophet 
 
 19 John 57. are not by Sf, ]ohn interpreted of Chriji ^ but accom^ 
 modated to Chrifl and his Sufferings, And thus, as 
 faft as he can, one after another, he accommodates z^ 
 way all the proofs of Chriftianity : for we may as well 
 prove the Gofpel out of Horner^ by accommodating 
 
 Homers 
 
 ;Fagc 6$. 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T(^miTr. 2 op 
 
 Homers Words and Phrafes to it, and turning it in- 
 to an Humericd Poem, as we know has been done, 
 as prove it by accommodating the Phrafes and Lan- 
 guage of the Old Teftament to ir, which were never 
 intended to fignifie any fuch thing ; this I think is to 
 ridicule and profane both the Old and New Teftament, 
 and to overthrow the Authority of both. 
 
 But I am quite tired with this Work, and there- 
 fore (hail pafs over his other Old Teftament Proofs ; 
 for what can we fay to convince thefe men, that fiich 
 Old Teftament Texts fpeak of Chrift, who will not 
 believe the Apoftlesthemfelves? and to conclude this, 
 I fhall only give you a Specimen, how they deal 
 with the New Teftament alfo, in two or three In- 
 ftances. 
 
 I rtiall begin with the Form of Baptifm ; G^^eaS Match 19. 
 therefore anA teach all Nations^ b&ftizing them in the 
 Name of the Father^ and of the Son^ and of the Ho- 
 ly Ghofi. AH the Fathers have made this an Argu- 
 ment, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft are One 
 God, becaufe we are baptized in their Name, and we 
 muft not be baptized in the Name of any Creature 5 
 for to be baptized in their Name, fignifies to be de- 
 voted and confecrated by a Sacred and ReHgious Rite 
 to the Faith, WorQiip, and Obedience of Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghoft ; and it is Idolatry to joyn Creatures 
 with God in fo folemn an Aft of Religion; in the 
 fame A£t whereby we give up our felves to God, to 
 give up our felves to Creatures, in the fame Form of 
 words, without making any other difference between 
 them, but the Order of Perfons. 
 
 And it is to no purpofe to difpute, What is meant 
 by baptizmg in the Name^ for whatever that be, it 
 figniSes the very fame to be baptized in the Name of 
 
 E e the 
 
2 lo A F'iiiclication of the Voclr'tm of the 
 
 the Father, and to be baptized in the Name of the 
 SoxH, and in the Name of the Holy Ghoft ; our Savi- 
 our makes no diftindion, and we muft make none ; 
 and if Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft be not One God, 
 this Form of Baptifm deftroys the diftin£lion between 
 God and Creatrires, and devotes us as intirely to Crea- 
 tures as to God. 
 
 We muft confider Baptifm, as the Sacrament of our 
 
 Initiation into the Chriftian Religion, and our Ad- 
 
 miffion into the Gofpel-Covenant, and therefore the 
 
 Perfons in whofe Name we are baptized is that God, 
 
 who receives us into Covenant, and to whole Wor- 
 
 ihip and Obedience we confecrate our felves. Our 
 
 Page 77. Hiftorian fays, Thatr^^e baptized in the Name of a 
 
 Perfon or Perfor/s : is a Rite by which one delivers him- 
 
 Jelf to the Inflitntion, InftrnBion^ and Obedience of 
 
 fuch Perfon or Perfons : fo that to be baptized in the 
 
 Name of the Father , Son^ and Holy Ghofl, is to proftfs 
 
 to be led or guided by them^ or ( as Grotius exprejjes 
 
 this matter ) "^tis to declare we will admit of no other 
 
 things as a part of our Religion^ but what proceeds 
 
 from thefcy that is^ nothing but what is commanded by 
 
 God or the Father, and has been delivered by his Sony 
 
 the Lord Chrifl., and confirmed externally by Miracles, 
 
 and internally with the Witnefs and Teflimony of the 
 
 Spirit^ that is by the Power and Jnfpiration of God, 
 
 This is a very falfe Account of Gr^/i///, and there- 
 fore I fliall confider it, as his own. Now I readily 
 grant, that Baptifm does include our Profeftion of 
 pelieving the Gofpel, and making that the fole Rule 
 of our Faith and Worfhip ; thole who are baptized 
 do own, as Grotius fpeaks, tres dog?natis fui Au^o- 
 resy Three Authors of their Doftrine or Religion, 
 'ather^ Son, and Holy Ghoft j but then Baptifm be- 
 
 insr 
 
 -F' 
 
Holy and E^>er mffed T^lKlTr. 211 
 
 ing a Religious Rite, it is a Religious ProfeHion of 
 this, a Religious devoting oar felves to them, and 
 therefore we give up our felves to their Inftitu- 
 tion and Guidance, not as to Creatures, but as to 
 God, who is both the Author, and the Objeft of cur 
 Faith and Worfhip. No Man mufl: religioufly confc- 
 crate himfelf to a Creature, for that is Idolatry : Even 
 among the Pagans , their Myfteries terminated on 
 their Gods, and they were initiated by them into the 
 Worfhip of that God, whofe Myfteries they were ; 
 and it was never known yet, that Men devoted them- 
 felves to the Inftitution and Guidance of any Human 
 Doftors or Matters by Religious Ceremmonies. 
 
 Now if Baptifm be a Religious Rite, God and 
 Creatures can never be made the joynt Obje£t of Re- 
 ligion, and therefore the Son and the Holy Ghoft, 
 muft be One God with the Father. I defire to know 
 what is meant by being baptized m the Name of the 
 Father? Is it only to takeliim for our Inftructor and 
 Guide ? Or is it to worfhip and obey him for our God ? 
 And why then do not the fame words in the fame Re- 
 ligious Ad fignifie the fame thing, when applied 
 to the Son and Holy Ghoft, as they do when ap- 
 plied to the Father ? Let them (hew me any one In- 
 ftance in Scripture, where a Creature is joyned with 
 God in any A£l of Worfhip, much lets in the Fun- 
 damental Contra£t of Worfhip (if I may fb fpeak ) 
 wherein we devote and confecrate our felves to God. 
 
 Our Author with his ufual Aflurance adds ; T/> in 
 'vam'i not to fay ridictiloujly fretended, that a Perfon 
 or Thing is God, becaufe we are baptized into it ^ or 
 in the Name of it ; for then Mofes and John Baptift 
 
 alfo would be Gods : Our Fathers were all bapti' 
 
 zed unto Mofes: ^nto what then were you baptized^ iCor.io.r, 2. 
 
 E e 2 and 
 
2 12 A Findtcation of the DoBrine of the 
 
 i9Aas3. ^^^ they faid tmto JohnV Baptifm. That is {faith 
 the generality of Interpreters ) unto John , and the 
 Doctrine by him delivered. 
 
 But in the firft place he mifreprelents the Argu- 
 ment, which is, that the Son, and Holy Ghofl: are 
 God, becaufe we are baptized in their Name, as we 
 are in the Name of the Father ; and together with 
 him ; in the Na?ne of the Father^ and of the Son^ and 
 of the Holy Ghofl ; and I confefs, he had anfwered 
 this Argument, could he have fhewn us, that the Jews 
 were baptized in the Name of God, and in the Name • 
 of Mofes^ for that had joyned Mofs with God, as our ' 
 Saviour joyns the Son and the Holy Ghoft with the 
 Father in the Form of Baptifm. 
 
 But he is fo far from doing this, that in the next 
 place I obferve, that the Jews never were literally 
 baptized in the Name of Mofes^ or in the Name of 
 John^ as Chriftians are by our Saviours Inftitution in 
 the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghoft-. Mofts did not Baptize the Jews at all, 
 muchlefsin his own Name, though St. PWobferves, 
 that they had a kind of Myftical Baptifm under Mo- 
 fes in the Cloud, and in the Sea/ 
 
 And therefore it is plain, that to baptize into Mofes 
 is a figurative and allufive Expreflion, and does not, 
 and cannot (ignifie, that they were baptized in the 
 Name of Mofes^ becaufe it is not true ; for though 
 we fliould grant, as he argues, that to be baptized 
 6 Rom. 5. into Chrifl^ and baptized in the Name of Chrifl^ fig- 
 3 Gal. 27. nifies the fame thing, when Men are literally bapti- 
 zed in the Name of Chrift, yet is a demonilration, 
 that to be baptized into Mofes, and baptized in the 
 Name of Mofts, cannot fi^nifie the fame thing ; be- 
 caufe thofe who were myftically baptized into Mofes^ 
 
 never 
 
Holy and E)>cr <Bhjfed r%lKl TY. 213 
 
 never were baptized in the Name of Mo/es ; and it 
 is b^urlefquing Scripture to make any Phrafe and Ex- 
 predion fignifie that which never was. I will only 
 ask this Author, Whether the Jews were baptized in 
 the Name of Mofcs f If they were nor, ict him tell 
 me, how their being bapttz^td into Mojts coQies to fig- 
 nifie their being baptized in the Name of Mofts f 
 Could the Apoiile mean by this Phrafe, that they 
 were baptized in the Name of Mofis? that is, could 
 the Apoftle mean, what he knew was not true. 
 
 And. yet 1 deny, that to be baptized into Chrifr^ , 
 
 and baptized in the Name of Chrifi^ fignifie the fame 
 thing 5 for to be baptized into Jefus Chrifi^ does not 
 relate to the Form of adminiftring Baptifm in the 
 Name of Chrifl:, but to the effed of it, in uniting 
 us to Chrifl, and incorporating; us with him, as Mem- 
 bers of his Body, which induces an Obligation of a^^o"^*3^4- 
 Spiritual Conformity to his Death, in dying to Sin, 
 and living to God. And thus the Israelites were bap- 
 tized into Mofts, or into the Mofaical Covenant, not 
 by being baptized in the Name of Mofes^ but by my- 
 ftical Sacraments ; the Cloudy which over-fhadowed 
 and guided them, .and the Red-Sea^ which divided 
 and gave them fafe Paffage, but drowned the Egypti- 
 ans, being Types and Figures of the Chriftian Bap- 
 tifm ; but I fhall not fpend time in explaining this 
 now; it is enough to {hew, that it is nothing to oar 
 prefent Argument. 
 
 Thus it is evident^ that to he baptized into JohnV 
 baptifm^ does not fignifie to be baptized in the Name 
 of ^ohn^ for John did not baptize in his own Name, 
 but made Profelytes to the Meffias, as the Apoftle 
 adds ; "^ohn verily baptized with the baptifm of Re- 
 'pentance^ frying unto the People^ th^t they fljofild be^ 19A&4. 
 
 lieTje 
 
■114 ^ Vindication of the DoBi'meofthe 
 
 I'irve en him-^ v:ho ffjot^ld come after him^ that />, on 
 Chrijt ]jefns. Are not thefe now admirable Proofs, 
 that we may be baptized in the Name of Creatures, 
 becaufe the Ifratlites were myftically baptized into 
 Mofis^ who never literally baptized any, much lefs 
 in his own Name ; and that the Difciples o{Jchn w^ere 
 baptized into Johns Baptifm, that is into Jch^^ and 
 that is, in the Name of 'Joh^, which we know he ne- 
 ver did. And yet the Soch-^ims, who deny the per- 
 fonality of the Holy Ghoft, make this Form of Bap- 
 tifm infinitely more abfurd ftiil : The Holy Ghoft, 
 they fay, is not a Perfon, but the Power and Infpira- 
 tion of God. Now is it not very abfurd, that the 
 Power and Infpiration of God, which is not a Perfon, 
 fhould be joyned in the fame Form with Father and 
 Son, who are Perfbns ? Is not this like fwearing Alle- 
 giance to the King, and to his Son, and to his Power, 
 or to his Wifdom? The Holy Spirit is plainly diftin- 
 guifhed from the Father, and from the Son ; and it 
 feems, has a diflinft Name of its own, into which we 
 are baptized ; now if the Holy Spirit be not a Per- 
 fon, I defire to know, how the Power and Infpirati- 
 on of God is fb diftinft from the Father, as to juftifie 
 our being diftinftly baptized in the Name of the Fa- 
 ther, and in the Name of the Holy Spirit, or of his 
 Power or Infpiration: To be baptized into the Name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, 
 is fufBcient to convince any Man, who is not refblved 
 againft being convift, that the Holy Ghoft is a Per- 
 fon, as Father and Son are Perfbns ; other wife it w^ere 
 very abfurd to joyn the Holy Ghoft with Father and 
 Son, in fuch a Religious Dedication as Baptifm is. 
 
 la 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^^IKITJ. t\ f 
 
 In the next place let us conGder the firft Chapter 
 of St. John^s Gofjoe!, which gives a glorious Teftimo- 
 ny to the Divinity of Chrift^ and a plain demonftra- 
 tion of the incurable perverfnefs of Hereticks. Iri the i John 1,2, 
 heoinninz ^<^s the Word, and the Word ivas xvith God. 
 and the Word was God, the fame was in thz heoinmn2 
 •with God. Our Hiftorian tells us, The Trinitarian 
 Expofition of this Ch after is abfir/d and contradicfo-^'^^^^'^' 
 ry. ^Tis this 5 In the beginning ; i. e. from all Eter- 
 nity, Anfvv. From all Eternity^ is before the begin- 
 ningj or without beginnings not in the beginnings Re- 
 ply. This is falfe. No man expounds in the begin- 
 ning of Eternity : But when St. John tells us, in the 
 Begining was the Word, we fay this proves the Eter- 
 nity of the Word : For that which m^j, when all things 
 began, which had a beginning, was it felf before the 
 beginning, and without beginning : efpecially when 
 it was fo in the beginning, that it gave beginning to 
 every thing e!(e ; that all things were made by himj 
 and without him was not any thing made^ that was 
 madt. 
 
 Was the Word ; i. e. was God the Son, Anfvv. But 
 where in Script are is the Word called God the Son ? ^ 
 Reply. This IVord indeed is God the Son^ but vre do 
 not Paraphrafe it fb in this place, in the beginning was 
 God the Son ; but in the beginning was that Divine 
 Peribn, who is called the Word, 
 
 The Word was with God ; i. e. The Son was with the 
 Father. Anfw. Is ftems then that God in this Clanfe 
 is the Father, But was not the Son alfo with the Ho- 
 ly Ghofi^ and is not he too ( according to the Trinita* 
 rians ) God, or a God'f If he is^ why doth St, John 
 only Jay^ The Son was with the Father; and 
 ho'V com^s the Father to tngrofs htre the litk 
 
 of 
 
 L, 
 
2 1 6 A Vmdkation of the DoSirine of the 
 
 of God to the Excltifion of the Holy Ghofl ? 
 Rep. This is true alfo ; the God with whom the 
 Word was, is the Father, but that is not his Chara- 
 £ber here neither, no more than the Charafler of the 
 Word is the Son. But by God^ the Apoftle here means 
 that Original Mind and Wifdom, that Supreme and 
 Sovereign Being, whom all men called God, with- 
 out making a diftinQion of Perfbns in the God- 
 head. 
 
 And therefore, whereas he thinks, that he has got 
 the Trinitarims at an Advantage, when the Apoftle 
 adds, and the Word was God, his triumph is vain. 
 What ( fays he ) fljall we do here r" was the Word the 
 Father ^ for fo they interpreted God in the foregoing 
 Claufe. No ! no ! neither (b, nor (o. The Word was 
 Godj fignifies the Word was a Divine Perfon in the 
 Godhead : and the Verfe is very plain ; in the be- 
 <r inning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 
 intimately and infeparably united to him, and that 
 not as a Faculty or Power, as Rtafon is in Human 
 Minds, but as a Divine fubfifting Perfon, for the Word 
 was God. 
 
 God is the Name of a Being abfblutely PerfeQ:, 
 and the Light of Nature teaches us, that there is but 
 One fuch Supreme Being, or but One God 5 but Na- 
 ture does not teach us, that there are Three Divine 
 Perfbns, who are this One God ; though when Reve- 
 lation Las difcovereJ this Myftery, natural Reafbn 
 is able in (bme-meafure to underftand it, and fee 
 the neceffity of it, as 1 have already fliewn ; and if 
 there be Three Divine Perfons in the Godhead, Rea- 
 fbn will tell usj that each Perfon is God, though all 
 Three Perfbns are but One God : This is the Trintta^ 
 rian Hypothefisj and if the words of the Evangelift 
 
 do 
 
Holy and Ever !BleJfed 7<i^nSllTr. 1x7 
 
 do eafily and naturally agree with this Hypothefis, 
 and cannot reafonably fignifie any thing elfe 5 that is a 
 fufficient Argument to me, that this is the true Inter- 
 pretation of the Text : 
 
 In the beginning was the Word^ and the Word was 
 with Gody and the Word was God, That is. 
 
 In the beginning of all things was the Divine Per* 
 fon^ whofe Name and Chara^er is ^tfZ SSIO^Q^ this 
 Word was infefarably united to that Supreme Beings 
 whom we call God^ and was himfelfGod^ a Divine Per- 
 fon fubfifling in the Unity of the Godhead'-^ not a Pow- 
 er and Facnlty^ as Reafon is in Man. Can any thing 
 be more eafie and obvious, and more agreeable to the 
 Doftrine of the Trinity ? Or if you change the Sub- 
 jeft and the Predicate,as others will have it, and read, 
 God was the Word^ 0gG$ h 5 Ao)/©-, it makes no dif- 
 ference at al! 5 for this Supreme Being, whom we call 
 God, was, and is The Word, though not Only the 
 Word : For God is the Father, and God is the Son, 
 and God is the Holy Ghoft, though God is not only 
 the Father, nor only the Son , nor only the Holy 
 Ghoft 5 but the Supreme God, is Father, Son, and Ho- 
 ly Ghoft. 
 
 Now when the Evangelift had faid. That the Word 
 wasGody ox God was the Word^ there was great rea- 
 fon to repeat, the fame was in the beginning with God^ 
 which our Hiftorian thinks a meer Tautology : For the Page 82. 
 intention of it is plain , to inculcate more exprefly 
 on us, that though the Word be God, yet the Word 
 is not all that God is, as Grotius well obferves 5 for 
 the Word was with God, and therefore a diftinft Per- 
 fon fromfome other Perfon, who is called God, that 
 is, that Eternal and Original Mind and Wifdom, who 
 is the Father of the Word : And why the Name of 
 
 F f God 
 
 r 
 
2 18 A J^indication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 God (liould pecultirly be appropriated to the Fa- 
 ther^ as the Foumaio of the Deiry, I have often ob- 
 Cerved. 
 
 But yet the Evangelift does in this Verfe fay fome* 
 thing more than he faid before, and therefore this is 
 no Tautology : He had faid. That the Word was in 
 the hcginnwg^ that it was with God^ that it was God : 
 now he adds, The fame Word was in the beginning with 
 God 5 that is, was always with him,^never feparated 
 from him : And this is added for the fake of what 
 follows, That the Word wasfo with God in the be- 
 ginning, that God made the World by his Word : 
 For all things were made by him^ and without him was 
 not any thing made^ which was made ^ which is another 
 very myfterious Repetition, which nothing can give 
 fo plain an Account of as our Hypothefis. All things 
 were made by him 5 this is full enough, without the 
 following addition^ nay, indeed fignifies more, than 
 what follows, in ftriftnefs and propriety of Speech, 
 feems to do : For that nothing was made without him^ 
 of it felf does not fignifie, tliat he made all things, 
 but that he had fomething to do in it 5 as he may 
 have, who is not the principal Ador. But our Do- 
 ftrine gives a plain account of this Addition : when 
 the Evangelift had faid,That this Word^wbo was with 
 God in the beginning, made all things, there was an 
 obvious Objection: vi%. Then it feems, that God 
 with whom the Word was^ did not make the World y. 
 if all things were made by the Word : to have attri- 
 buted the Creation of the World to the Word, fo as 
 to have excluded God from making the WorW, had 
 been very abfurd, and contrary to the fenfe of Man-^ 
 kind 5 God made the World by his Word 3 the Word 
 made all things, not fo as to Exclude God from ma-^ 
 
 king 
 
Holy and Ever Skjfed T^I^lNl TY. i. re? 
 
 ing the World ; and God made all things, but not Co 
 as to exclude the Word 5 for without him was not any 
 thing made, that was made : which is exaftly what 
 we teach, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, as they 
 are One God, lb they are One Creator, who made 
 the World by One individual * Ad and Operation. 
 God the Father made the World, and the Creation of 
 all things may eminently be attributed to him, as the 
 Fountain of the Deity, and of all Energy and Power 5 
 but he did not make the World without his Word 
 and Spirit : Al/ things were made by the Word , and 
 without him was not any thing made^ that was made. 
 
 This Account is very far from containing any 
 thing abfiird or contradiftious , but to have as lit- 
 tle difpute as may be with this Author, let us take 
 it in that fenfe he would have us take it in 5 inftead 
 of Word put the Son^ and inftead of God put Qod the 
 Father^ and I can find none of the Contradiftions he 
 talks of: for then the words run thus 5 In the begin- 
 ning of all things was the Word the Son of God^ and 
 this Son of God was infeparably united to God the Fa- 
 ther^ and the Son was One God with the Father^ this 
 fame Son was in the beginning with the Father 3 for 
 the Father made all things by him , and without him 
 VPds not any thing made^ that was made. 
 
 But let us confider what Account our Socinian Hi- 
 ftorian gives of this Chapter : He appeals to Grotinss 
 Interpretation of it, but has mifreprefented Grotius 5 
 that did an Aftion of Forgery lie in thefe Cafes, ma- 
 ny Men have loft their Ears for left matters. The 
 Account he gives of it in ftiort is this ; Briefly^ the 
 Word ( according to Grotius) is not an Eternal Son of ^^^^^^^ 
 43 od^ but is here the Power and Wifdom ofGodi^ which 
 
 Word dbiding without meafure on tide LordChrift^ . 
 
 Ffa ' 'tis 
 
2 20 A Ftndication of the DoElnne of the 
 
 'tk therefore fpoken of as a Perfon^ and as One Perjon 
 with Chrrji^ and he with that. Whoever wjll be at 
 the pains to confuk Grotius^ will foon lee, what ere* 
 dit is to be given to this Socinian 5 but it is no won- 
 der, that thofe Men pervert Human Writings, who 
 having nothing elfe to value themfelves upon but per- 
 verting the Scriptures. But what Agreement there 
 is between this Socinian and Grotim^ I (hall (how in 
 fome few Particulars, by comparing their Expo(itions 
 with each other 5 by comparing Grotius^ as he is re- 
 prefented by this Hiftorian, with Gr^^/W himfelf. 
 
 Brief Hijiorj!. Gratis. 
 
 I 3ohn I. J^ ^he beginningr] That So alfo Grotiuf. But 
 
 is^ when God created the adds was 3 jam turn erat 
 Heavens and the Earth. was when all things be- 
 
 gan 3 and fhows , that a- 
 mong tb€ Hebrews , this 
 was a popular Defer ipti- 
 on of Eternity to be be- 
 fore the World, 1 7 'John 5. 
 And to this purpofe ap- 
 plies the words of 'jtifiin 
 Martyr concerning the 
 word 'w^xi'mL^^i tjj^ ^ 
 oiimm^ he was before the 
 Worlds. 
 Was the WordT] The He- The fVord.'] He owns, it 
 brews cal/^ that Power and is called the Word in al- 
 Wifdom of God^ by which lufion to what Mofes fays, 
 he made the World , a?jd That God faid let there be 
 does all other his extraor- Light, But he calls this 
 dinary Works ^ the Word^ Word^vim^^dT^SoAlw olyrif- 
 
 33Pfal. 
 
Holy and Ever <BkJfed T%miTY. 
 
 Brief Hiftory, Grotif^. 
 
 35 PfaL 6. II Hebr. 2. po^co'. Power, Efflux, Ema- 
 'I Vtx,^,$Th€y borrowed thh nation, in the lame fenfe 
 Exprejjion from Mofes 5 as the ancient Chriftians 
 Godfaid^ let their be light^ ufed them , to fignifie a 
 
 I Gen. 5. undoubtedly Subftantial Word, Power, 
 
 Mofes is not to he under- Emanation. In this (enfe 
 flood of a Word orally fpo- he (hows, that it is ufed 
 ken 5 for God is a Spirit 5 in the ancient Books of the 
 iDHt his meaning is^ God put Chaldeans , and by Jthe 
 forth his Power and Wifdom^ Writer of the Orphickj :^ 
 and thereby created Light by Heraclitus and Zeno^ 
 and the Firmament^ 8cc. as TertuUian and La&an* 
 This is a direft oppofi- tius affirm. Nay, that the 
 tion to Grotius^ whom he Stoicks , and Platonifts^ 
 pretends to follow, and his and e(pecially Philo Ju- 
 Reafon is as filly , as his d^uf ufes it in the fame 
 Authority is counterfeit : fenfe 5 who attributes the 
 For why could not an in- making of the World to 
 finite Mind, beget a fub- the Word^ which he calls 
 ftantial Word,the fubftan- the Name, the Image, the 
 tial Image of his own Son of God. To which 
 Power and Wifdom ^ and purpoft he before cited 
 by this Word make the Rabbi Eliezel^ that God^ 
 World ? and why may not and his Name , were be- 
 this be reprefented by .his fore the World was made : 
 {aying, Let there be Light ^ and explains this by the 
 For fince he confefi[es, this fayings of fome Fathers, 
 was not an oral word^ why as all meaning the fame 
 fhould it be reprefented thing, and we know, they 
 by fpeaking, or faying, if meant by it a Divine Per- 
 God have not an eternal, fon. 
 fubftantialWord,by which 
 
 he 
 
 221 
 
 • 
 
211 A rindicatim of the VoSirm of the 
 
 Brief Hiflory. Grotius. 
 
 he made the World > there 
 muft be fome foundation 
 for fuch forms of Speech, 
 and fince it is eYident^God 
 did not create all things 
 by an oral Word or Com- 
 mand, there is no pretence 
 for this Expreflion, God 
 fard^ Let there he Light^ 
 unlefi there be a Divine 
 Perfon, who is the Word 
 and Wifdom of God, by 
 whom he made the Worlds 
 efpecially fince this Phrafe 
 ■ofMofes is thus expound- 
 ed both in the Old and 
 New Teftament, that God 
 tnade the World by his 
 Words which is every 
 where reprefented as a 
 
 Divine fubfifting Perfon. The Word was with God.^] 
 The Word was with God^ Grotius does fay, that this 
 \. e. It was not yet in the is oppofed to the Words 
 Worlds or not yet made being made Flefli, and ap- 
 i7f/& s hut -with God. So pearing in the World : but 
 that to be with God figni- he was far enough from 
 iies nothing but not to be thinking, that thefe words 
 in the World. have only a negative fenfe, 
 
 that to be with God, figni- 
 fies only not to be in the 
 world : for he tells us, what 
 
 The 
 
 * 
 
Holy and Ever mffei T^IKITI. 215 
 
 Brief Hijiaty, Gratiof. 
 
 the pofitive fence is^ that 
 with Gad is rs^ ^ p^. 
 Tei> with the Father ( the 
 very fenfe which our Hi- 
 ftorian before rejeded as 
 abfurd) and explains it hj 
 what Wifdem fays, 8 Vrtnp. 
 50. Then I mas by bim^ as 
 (me brought up with him^ 
 and I was daily his delight^ 
 rejoicing alway before hi mi, 
 which he does not think a 
 Profopopcpa^ but fpoken of 
 The Word v^asGod.'^i.G. a fubfifting Perfon, 
 The Word (or Divine Wif The Word was God7\ Here 
 dom and Power^) ( that is, Grotius produces numer- 
 not a fubftantial perfonal ous Teftimonies to prove 
 Wifdom and Power, but that that EHvine Perfon, 
 fuch a Faculty, as Reafon who is called the Word, 
 and Wifdom is in Man ) not the Faculty of WiC- 
 is not fomething different dom and Power in God 5. 
 from God , but being hk is God* 
 Wifdom and Power is God 
 ( as the Wifdom of Man is 
 Man) Vat the common Max-- 
 im of Divines ^that the At- 
 tributes and Properties of 
 God are God : Which is in 
 fome fenfe true. The mean- 
 ing of that Maxim is, that 
 there are no Powers or Fa.- 
 
 culties 
 
224 
 
 A Findication of the DoElrine of th 
 
 Brief Hiflory. 
 
 cultiesin God, as there arc 
 in created Minds, but God 
 is a pure and fimple Aft, 
 and therefore what are and 
 muft be diftinft Powers 
 and Faculties in created 
 Minds, muft be diftinft 
 Perfons in the Godhead. 
 And thus whatever is in 
 God is God, as each Di- 
 vine Perfbn is. But if there 
 be diftinft Powers and Fa- 
 culties in God, as there are 
 in Men, then the Wifdom 
 of God is not God,nor the 
 Power of God, God , no 
 more than the Under- 
 ftanding is the Man, or the 
 Will the Man, or the Me- 
 mory the Man. 
 
 Wtz^As^Thatthofe Per* 
 fons (whether Angels or 
 Men j to vphom the Divine 
 Word hath been in an ex- 
 traordinary degree commu- 
 nicated^ have alfo had the 
 "Names of Jehovah and God 
 communicated to them. 
 
 Grotiuf. 
 
 He fays indeed, that the 
 ancient Hebrews^ and Pri- 
 mitive Chriftians teach, 
 that when an Angel is in 
 Scripture called Jehovah^ 
 it is not a meer Angel, ye<^ 
 cui adfuerit o Kiy@^^ fuch 
 an Angel , to whom the 
 Word is joyned or united, 
 (not as the Hiftorian ftys 
 to whom the Divine vViP. 
 dom has been in an extra- 
 
 ordina- 
 
Boly and Ever ^Jfed 7(^lKtTr. 225 
 
 Brief Hiftory Grotius 
 
 ordinary degree commu- 
 nicated ; that is an extra- 
 ordinary wife Angel, for 
 there is no other fenfe in 
 it ) but I know not what 
 Grotius meant by the U- 
 nion or Prefence of the 
 Word with the Angel; but 
 I know the Primitive 
 Chriftians afterted, That 
 the Angel called Jehovah^ 
 was the Word. 
 Verf. 2 The fa.me ivas in Qrotius affigns this Rea- 
 the beginning with God^ fbn of the Repetition, that 
 This is here repeated by becaufethe Evangelifthad 
 the EvangeUfi^ to teach us called the Word God, he 
 that the Word is fo Godj would have us underftand, 
 th^t it is not all, thj^t God that he is fo God, that he 
 is ; there being other Fro- is alfo with God; that is, 
 perties and Attributes that the Word is not all 
 communicable, as well as that God is, but only One 
 the Word, So that the Perfon in the Godhead : 
 Word is but an Attribute which he obferves that 0- 
 of God, and a communica- r/fe;?,and others after him, 
 ble Attribute, and but one called the Diftindion of 
 of Gods communicable Hypoflafes, tho' the Pri- 
 Attributes. So that there mitive Chriftians, and y^- 
 may be many Wordsy for /^^/^^y^^/j- himfelf, ufedthat 
 the Word, as he juft now word Hypoftafis in a dif- 
 faid, may be communica- ferent fenfe ; and the Chri- 
 ted to Angels and Men, in ftians feemed to take up 
 fuch a degree that the this fenfe of it from the 
 
 G g Name 
 
^^6 A Vlndicatm of the DoHrine of the 
 
 Brief Hiftory. Grotius 
 
 Name 'Jehovah may be- Plantomfts: But whatever 
 long to them; and then becomes ofthePhrafe, this 
 why does St. John call the is plainly what Grotius 
 Word the fji^voyivh^ or the meant by the Words not 
 only begotten of the Fa- being all, that is God ^ that 
 ther. is, that he is but One Per- 
 
 fon in the Godhead, not 
 that he is but One com- 
 municable Attribute in 
 God. 
 
 This is fufficient to fliow how our Hiftorian hasa- 
 bus'd this Great Man, when he reprefents him, as ma- 
 king the Word only the Divine Wifdom and Power, 
 not a Divine Perfbn ; and all his other mifreprefenta- 
 tions depend on this, and need not be particularly ex- 
 amined. 
 
 But I perceive our Socinim Hiftorian is afhamed of 
 that Expofition which Socinus^ and his genuine Difci- 
 ples, give of this Chapter, which had been a fign of 
 (bme Llnderflanding and Modefty, had he not inven- 
 ted as foolifh and (enflefs an Interpretation himfelf, 
 for i is not Grottus's, but his own. 
 
 Socinns w^as fenfible that the Wordm^^^ fignifie a 
 Perfbn, but would aliow^ it to be no more than a Man, 
 called the Word^ not with relpeft to his Nature, but 
 Office, as the greateft and moft excellent Prophet, 
 who reveals God's will to the world. Our Hiflorian 
 was convinced, that the Word muftbe fomething Di- 
 vine, which was with God from the beginning of the 
 world, and was not different from God, but is God, 
 and did create all things at firfl:, and was in a fenfe 
 
 In- 
 
Holy and Ever <Bleffd T(I(_INITY. 
 
 Incarnate ; was made Fkflj^ did abide on^ and ir^habit an 
 kumxn Per/on, the Perfon ofjefus : So far is very well. 
 But then he will not allow the Word to be a Perfbn, 
 bur a Divine Quality or Accident, the Wifdora or Pow- 
 er of God ; and the fault of this isj that it is unin- 
 telligible Nonfenfe, to dcicnhQ the Word ib pompouC- 
 ly, as diftinft from God, but with God in the begin- 
 ning, and h'lmfelfGod, and to afcribe the making of 
 the World to him, and tell us, that he was made Flefh ; 
 and all this while the Word is only a communicable 
 Attribute in God, what we call the Faculty of Rea- 
 fbn in Men : This is a new way of making a God of 
 a Pro/opoptra, and incarnating a Profopopcca^ which 
 mufi: be a very figurative God, and Incarnation. But 
 I obferved before, that when any Vertue or Power or 
 Faculty is fpoken of as a Perfbn, what is faid of the 
 Vertue or Power belongs to the Perfon in w^hom 
 that Vertue and Power is : and what that is faid to 
 do, is done by the Perfon, or elfeit is not a figurative 
 but a falfe and abfurd form of fpeech : As when Cha- 
 rity is faid to fuffer long, and is kind ; the meaning 
 is, a charitable man is fo ; a Profipopcea is eafily un- 
 derrtood, and conveys its fenfe clearly and elegantly 
 to our minds; but where there is nothing but Non- 
 fenfe at the bottom, it muft not be made a figure, for 
 a figurative Speech is good fenfe: Let us then exa- 
 mine his Profopopceahy this Rule. 
 
 In the beginning was the Word^ that is the.Wifdom 
 and Power of God 5 and this Wildom and Power of 
 God was with God, that is, God was with himfelf ; 
 and this Wifdom and Power of God, was God, that is, 
 God was God: what fenfe I befeech you is there in 
 this ? 
 
 That the Wifdom and Power of God made the 
 
 G g 2 ^ world, 
 
 ^^7 
 
228 A Vindication of the DoSlrine of the 
 
 World, I grant is fenfcj becaufe God did make the 
 World ; but if there be any fenfe in the words kixtg 
 made Fkfh, it is certain, that God is Incarnate. For 
 the Wifdom and Power of God, which is with God, 
 and is God, cannot be Incarnate, unlefs God be Incar- 
 nate. Unlefs we can divide God from his Wifdom, 
 - and leparate the Wifdom of God, [which was with 
 him from the beginning, 3 f^om God, to be Incarnate 
 in Man. The Wifdom of God can no more be In- 
 carnate, unlefs God can be Incarnate, then the Wif- 
 dom of an Angel can be Incarnate, without the Incar- 
 nation of the Angel : and thus this Socinian is turned 
 Sahellian^ and Patropaffian. 
 
 However, I confefs, we are beholden to this Hifto- 
 rian, for he has given up this place to us, which is 
 one of the moft exprefs places for the Divinity of our 
 Saviour. He allows, that the beginning is the begin- 
 .ning of all things ; that f^f^<9r^fignifies (bmething Di« 
 vine h even the Wifdom and Power of God ; that to 
 be with Godj is to be intimately prefent with him ; 
 that to ^^ God, is to be God himftlf : That all thmgs 
 were 'T.ade by hirn, is meant of the firft Creation of 
 the world ; that this Divine Word was made Flelh, 
 and did abide on the human Perfon of Chrift Jefiis ; 
 the only difference betw^een us is, whether ihis Word, 
 of whom all thcfe things are laid, be a Divine Perfon^ 
 or only the communicxhle attribute of Wifdom and Pow- 
 er in God ; and this after what I have faid I leave to 
 any man of common uncierftanding to determine. 
 
 But what becomes of his beloved Soc/nus all this 
 while? when the very Mafter-piece of his Wit and 
 Invention is rejeftcd by his own Difciples ; for if this 
 Socinian be in the right, his Mafter was greatly in the 
 wrong. 
 
 By 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^IKITI. ^ up 
 
 By the Word he underftands a Perfon, but One who 
 is the M^ordj not by Nature, but Office: by the be- 
 ginning he underftands the beginning of Joh/2 the 
 Baptift's Preaching ; in this beginning the Word was ; 
 that is, Chrift was in being, was in the World, when 
 Joh^ the Baptift began to preach ; a great difcovery ; 
 But he rvas nnth God^ known to God only at that time : 
 which is very hardly true y ^W was God^ by Dignity 
 and Office, not by Nature. Jl/ things were made by 
 him^ not created 5 the World was not made by him; 
 but all things are new made by him ; that is, al I who 
 believe in him, are made new Creatures ; and after 
 a great many great things faid of this Word, at laft 
 the Evangelift difcovers this great Myftery, the Word 
 was m.^de Fleih-, that is, the Word was a Man. 
 
 If this be not ridiculing Scripture nothing is ; I 
 am fure it reprefents the Evangelift very ridiculoufly, 
 to tell the World, that Chrift, who was half a year 
 younger than John^ was in the World when Jchnht- 
 gan to preach ; but how great a Perfon he was, and 
 what his Office was, was then known only to God. 
 Which if it were true, is no great Myftery ; and to 
 fay this in fiich a myfterious pomp of words, as there 
 is nothing like it in all the Scripture, is fuch a v^in af- 
 feftation , as no School-mafter, but an arrant Fop, 
 w^ould endure in a School-boy. 
 
 I rrall not go about induftrioufly to confute that, 
 which they themfelves begin to be alhamed of, but 
 fhall only lay down one Rule of Expounding Scrip* 
 ture, and all other Writings, which is a very reafon- 
 able one, and will eafily anfwer all the Arc and Fal- 
 lacy which is ufed in this Caufe ; and that is this, to 
 expound all words and phrafes to a proper and literal 
 lenfcy and to the utmoft extent of their fignification, 
 
 where 
 
2 3 o A Findicatm of the DoElnne of the 
 
 where the Circumftances of the place do not require 
 a figurative and limited fenfe; if we do not allow 
 this, there is no certain Rule of expounding, but men 
 may interpret according to their own Fancies and Ima- 
 ginations, to any fenfe that the word was ever u- 
 ed in ^ and then we may make any thing of any 
 fhing, even a good Catholick of Socinus hiinlelf. 
 *- Now according to this Rule, in the hegmning muft 
 fignifie the firft beginning of all things ; for that is 
 beginning in its utmofi: Latitude, and that is the pro- 
 per fignification of beginning, when there is nothing 
 to limit it, and there is nothing here. Was the Word 
 niuft fignifie the Word did fubfift, and therefore is a 
 Perfon ; QoA mufl: fignifie Qod hy Nature ^ which isthe 
 firfl: and proper fignihcation of the Word, not a Me- 
 taphorical God by Dignity and Office, for there is 
 nothing to incline it to that fenfe : All things were 
 made by him, and without him was nothing made that 
 was made^ mufi: fignifie the firfl: Creation of all things, 
 when God made the World by his Word ; for that is 
 the proper Notion of making all things, to give be- 
 ing to them ; and as there is nothing in the Text to 
 require any other fenfe, fb its relation to in the begin- 
 nings when God made all things by his Word, deter- 
 mines it to this {enfe : This is all true and certain, 
 if it be a good Rule to expound words in a proper 
 fenfe, when there is nothing that requires an impro- 
 per and metaphorical fenfe : And then it is nothing 
 to the purpofe to fliow, that in the beginnings fbme- 
 times (ignifies the beginning of the Gofpel, that God 
 foQietimes fignifies a metaphorical God, that making 
 all things fbmetimes fignifies new making all things, 
 for all this I allow, when the Circumftances of the 
 place require it, when there is any thing added to 
 
 determine 
 
H:'j .:■:.{ f)cr Bk/fcd TTilXlTI. 231 
 
 QC 
 
 1 • ' L ■ . _ _ _ - * 
 
 A^ i^'v^kl) — ..^ ..-». 
 
 
 . _i 
 
 V^-' 
 
 w 
 
 Bj: I m:'^ : .v.^.en :o a Ccnc'jfion, and cherefore 
 this ;V...".; fervea: ::^.ent ^s ^ SpeciTiCa. howthefe 
 men cer'.c:: S.:ip:ure, and irrrcie to::;:: 2nd ridicu- 
 lo'Ji fenfes on it; and bvthe i^.p c: v.hs: I have now 
 d::::u: :ei. i: will be v-.:e 10 ce:ea an i heir other 
 F:iL.;c:es. and refcue the Scrip: :? from their per- 
 verle Comments ; as I fhall be re^dy at any time to 
 Ire^v, when I nnd a juft occafiootbr it. 
 
 Sec^nd'v. S rijuufmy as reaibnaD^e and 2cr?:!n:a* 
 ble a Doctrine as our Hiiiorian !^.v>it is, iTM^es cha 
 Jeui'n Oeconc:':'. vi:v unreafonaie and unaccoonta- 
 b'e. T!ie Je . Wc. .p was E^iternal and Ritual, 
 but vei V pc nypous and myfterious. and had there 00c 
 been ^ ' ' :g very Divine and Myfterious prefigu- 
 red hv 1:. K iii : been no becrer than a Childilli piece 
 c: P.^g; t V. unworthy of t:-e Wifdotnof God, un- 
 worriiV c. the Nature of Man. But the New Tefta- 
 ment aiLres us, that all thefe myfterio'J? Ceremonies 
 were Tvpesof Chriii, and v. ere accomp '; /in him; 
 
 .-.-.,. ; or in whom are all the hidden T:e^r:res 
 { >> -rtrr- ><7T53tpie5i J ofwifdom and knowiecge that 
 is, all thoieTreafuresof wifdomand knowedge, whkb 
 w ere formerly hid and concealed under the Tvpes of 
 the TewiihLaw : for thev were but t ■ .■.v^."/ >-. 
 
 r,y rv..., . ij .r h (^f Ct ;. And yet if Ch'rift 
 
 were no more than a meer Man, tl>e Ancitvpefalk 
 very fliort of the Types; I lliall inftance at prefenc 
 cnly in the Temp'.e, and i:s Wcr.hip and Minhiers. 
 
 The 
 
1 5 ^ A Vindication of the DoElrine of the 
 
 The Tabernacle and Temple was God's Houfe, 
 where he chofe to dwell by the vifible Symbols of 
 his Prefence ; and was fo contrived as to be a Figure 
 both of Heaven and Earth ; for fb the Apoftle to the 
 Hebre)vs exprefly tells us, that the Holy of Holies 
 was a Figure of Heaven, into which the High-Prieft 
 only entred, and that but once a year, to make Ex- 
 piation ; and therefore the other Courts of the Tem- 
 ple which were for their daily worfhip, did reprefent 
 the Earth, on which men wonTiip God : for God be- 
 ing the Maker and Sovereign Lord of the world, who 
 has Heaven for his Throne, and Earth for his Foot- 
 flool, it was fitting the Houfe where he dwelt fhould 
 be an Emblem and Figure of the whole world. 
 
 But we muft all confefs, that this was a very unac- 
 countable and infignificant Ceremony, for God, who 
 fills Heaven and Earth with his Prefence to dwell in 
 a Houfe made with Hands ; to appoint this the pecu- 
 liar place of his worfhip, ordinarily to accept no Sa- 
 crifices, but what were offered there, &c. Had it not 
 praefigured fomething more Divine and IVlyfterious, 
 Solomon in his Prayer of Dedication might well fay, 
 1 Kings 8, 27 S/// will God ifjdeed dwell on the Earth? Behold the 
 Heaven^ and He^^ven of Heavens cannot contain Thee 
 hoTV much lefs this Houfe that I have built. 
 
 The Temple then was a Figure, and we mufl: en- 
 quire what it was a Figure of. Now a Typical Pre- 
 fence can be a Figure of nothing, but a real Prefence, 
 and God's Perfonal dwelling among Men: for Pre- 
 fence and Habitation canfignifie nothing but Prefence, 
 and a Figure muft be a Figure of fomething that is re- 
 al : and nothing can anfwer to a figurative vifible 
 Prefence of God, but a perfonal vifible Prefence. 
 
 Now 
 
Holy and Ever (Blejfed 7(]^lKlTr. 235 
 
 Now our Saviour calls his Body the Temple, 2^0^ 
 ({top this T'emple^ and in three days I ivi/I raife it up : 
 which St. John tells us. He fpake of the Temple of his 2 John 19 21, 
 Body, The Temple then, which was God's Houfc, 
 where he dwelt, vvas but a Figure of Chrift's Body 5 
 Chrifl:*s Body then was that in truth and reality, 
 which the Temple was but a Figure of 5 that is, God's 
 vifible Prefcnce on Earth. But God was not vifibly 
 prelent on Earth, unlefs he were perfonally united to 
 Human Nature 3 that the Body of Chrift was the Bo- 
 dy of God, or of the Divine Word, by as true and 
 real an Union, as any Man's Body is his. Thus God 
 may be perfonally and vifibly prefent among Men, as 
 a Man, though his Soul be as invifible as the Deity, is 
 yet vifibly prefent by his Union to a vifible Body : 
 But if Chrift be not God Incarnate, if the Divine 
 Word be not perfonally united to Human Nature, the 
 Body of Chrift is but as figurative a Temple, as the 
 Temple at Jerufalem was , and then one Figure is 
 made a Type of another, which is as great an Ab- 
 furdity in Types , as a Metaphor of a Metaphor is 
 in Speech. 
 
 God was as really prefent in the Temple, as he 
 was in Chrift without a perfonal Union : for God fills 
 all places, and is really prefent every where, but yet 
 was peculiarly prefent in the Temple to peculiar ends 
 and purpofes 5 to hear Prayers, to accept their Sacri- 
 fices and Oblations, to give forth his Oracles and Re- 
 fponfes 5 and if Chrift be but a meer Man, he dwells 
 no otherwife in him, but by Infpiration^ and though 
 Chrift was more perfectly infpired than the Jewilli 
 Oracle, this does not alter the Nature of God's 
 Prefence, does not make one a typical and figu- 
 rative, the other a real Prefence 3 for God is really 
 
 H h prefent 
 
2}4 -^ Vindication of the DoSlrine of tl?e 
 
 prtfent in both , but not perfonally united to ei- 
 ther. 
 
 The typical Prefence of God in the Tabernacle and 
 Temple is not oppofed to a real Prefence, by real and 
 fenfible EfFefts, but to a vifible Prefence. God is pre- 
 ftnt every where,but he is invifibly prefent^ but as he 
 had chofen Ifrael for his pecuHar People and Inheri- 
 tance, fo he would dwell vifibly among them ^ but 
 this could be done no other way, but either by taking 
 a vifible Body, or by fome inftituted figns of his vifi^ 
 ble Prefence 5 the firft he would not do yet, but in- 
 tended to do in the fulnefs of time, which his own in- 
 finite Wifdom had appointed for it 5 and in the mean 
 time did prefigure this vifible appearance of God on 
 Earth in Human Nature by fome vifible Symbols of 
 his Prefence ; by a vifible Houfe, wherein he dwelt, 
 by a vifible Throne, or Mercy-Seat ; and by placing a 
 vifible Oracle among them : So that the Temple, as 
 a Type, was a Type and Figure of God*s vifible ap- 
 pearance and dwelling upon Earthy and therefore 
 if it was a Type of Chrift's Body, as Chrift himfelf 
 tells us it was, God did vifibly dwell in Chrift by a 
 perfonal Union 5 for nothing el(e can make God vifi- 
 ble, but a perfonal Union to a vifible Nature. 
 To this St. John plainly alludes, when he tells us, 
 I John 14. The Word was made Fkf/j^ and dwelt among us^ and 
 we beheld his Glory ^ the Glory as of the Ofily begotten 
 of the Father^ fnll of Grace and Truth 5 Io-hmvooo^v ei' 
 7]fjuiv^ tabernacled among us , fulfilled that Type of 
 God^ dwelling in the Tabernacle, and Temple at jfe- 
 rufalem^hy his dwelling perfonally in Human Nature : 
 fA%t 87. And we beheld hk Glory '-y that is, fiiys our Hiftorian, 
 the glory of the Man^ on whom the Word did abide and 
 inhabit in him : But St. John fays, it is the glory of the 
 
 Word 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^lKlTl. • 13 5 
 
 Word made Flejh 5 the glory of the Word, as of the 
 only begotten of the Father^ did (hine in Human Na- 
 ture 5 there were vifible figns of the Glory of the 
 Incarnate Word : This Glory he fays, was beheld in 
 his Miracles^ and in his Transfiguration^ and on many 
 other occafions : very many indeed , in his Life and 
 Doftrine efpecially 5 for how would they have the 
 Glory of the Incarnate Word (een, but by the vi- 
 fible Operations of it in Human Nature? How does 
 a Human Soul difcover its glory but by vifible Ani- 
 ons? 
 
 Thus our Saviour tells us, that he is greater than 
 the Temple 5 I fay unto you^ in this place is one grea- i2,Matth. 6* 
 ter than the Temple : Now the Temple was God's 
 Houfe and figurative Prefence, and if he were grea- 
 ter than the Temple, God dwelt in a more perfeft 
 manner in him 5 that is, he was not a fymbolical vi- 
 fible Prefence of God, which was all he could be, had 
 he been no more than a Man, but a vifible God 5 even 
 the Lord of the Temple, as the Prophet Malachi af- 3 Mai. r. 
 furesus: Behold 1 mil fend my Mejfenger^and hejloall 
 prepare the way before me 5 and the Lord whom ye feek^ 
 fhall fnddenly come into his Temple : even the Mejfen- 
 ger of the Covenant^ whom ye delight in^ behold he fhall 
 come^ faith the Lord of Hofis, This Meflenger, all 
 Men own, W2LsJohn theBaptift^ The voice of one crji^^Mmh,^. 
 ing in the wildernefs^ prepare ye the way of the Lord^ 
 mak§ his paths firaight. Now our Hiftorian confefles, 
 he prepared the way for Chrift : And God fays, he 
 ftiall prepare the way before Afe, which proves that 
 Chrift is this Lord of Hofts for whom John was to 
 prepare the way ^ but that I at prefent intend is, that 
 he for whom John was to prepare the way, is the 
 L«rd of the Temple, for it is called A^ Temple, Now 
 
 H h 2 we 
 
11^6 A J^mdication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 we know, the Lord Jehovah was the Lord of the 
 Temple : For the Temple was God's Houfe, dedica- 
 ted to his Name and Worlhip , he dwelt in his Tem- 
 ple before by Types and Figures, but now he was to 
 come vifibly and perfonally into his Temple, and 
 therefore he might well fay, he was greater than the 
 Temple, fincehe was the Lord of it^ that Incarnate 
 God, of v/hom God's dweUing in the Temple was a 
 Figure : and which had been a very empty and infig- 
 nificant Figure, unworthy of the Wifdom and Majefty 
 of God, had it not prefigured the myfterious Incar- 
 nation of the Son of God. 
 
 Thus as God had a typical Houle, fo he had a 
 typical High Prieft, and typical Sacrifices. That the 
 High Prieff, \vho once a Year entred into the typical 
 Holy of Holies, was a Type of Chrift, who entred 
 into Heaven, the Apoftle teaches us, <) Hehr, that 
 the jewifh Sacrifices were typical of the Sacrifice of 
 Chrift's Death 5 and the feveral kinds of them typi- 
 cal of the various EfFcfts and Vertucs of Chrift's 
 Death, we learn every wherein the New Teftament, 
 13 Rev. 8. which, I believe, is the true meaning, of the Lamb 
 JIain from the foundation of the world: not meerly 
 flain in God's Decree, for what God has decreed, 
 fhall be done, is not therefore faid to be done before 
 it is done : but this Lamb was flain in Types and Fi- 
 gures fom the foundation of the world 5 ever fince 
 thefall of ^^^///, in thofe early. Sacrifices, which were 
 offered after the Fall, which were typical of the Sa- 
 crifice of Chrift ^ for God had then promifed, that 
 the Seed of the Woman J/jonld breaks the Serpents Head 5 
 and for my part, I muft profefs, 1 know no Principle 
 of Natural Reafon , that teaches us to offer the 
 Elocd of Bcafts in Sacrifice to God 5 and therefore 
 
 muft 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T(^miTr. 237 
 
 muft think the Sacrifices of Beafts to be an Inftitu- 
 
 tion. 
 
 V. Now that a Human Priefthood, and the Sacrifices 
 
 of Beafts were not acceptable to God in themfelves, 
 
 the Apoftle to xhc HeLrervs fuiEciently proves 5 and Hebr.8 S:io. 
 I would defire fome of our Learned, Reafoning Soci- ^'^' 
 nia^s (as they think themfelves ) honeftly to tell me, 
 what account they can give of this Jewifh Priefthoodv 
 and Sacrifices, which is becoming God : why ftiould 
 God be propitiated by a Man, fubjeft to the fame 
 fins and infirmities, and very often guilty of them, 
 that other Men are ? why innocent Beafts muft die to 
 expiate the Sins of Men? When the Apoftle tells us, 
 that it is 770t pojfible^ that the Blood of Bulls ar2d Goats 10 Hebr. 4* 
 fiionli take arvay fin. ^ And yet if there were no more 
 in it, than God's meer Appointment and Inftitution, 
 I do not fee, but the Jewifti Priefthood and Sacrifices 
 might have been as effeftual as any other : I think, 
 they are fo far in the right, and confiftent with their 
 own Principles, that as they own Chrift to be no 
 more than a Man, fo they make him only a meta- 
 phorical Prieft, and his Death a metaphorical Sacri- 
 fice 5 for a meer Man can be no more than a meta- 
 phorical or typical Prieft and Sacrifice : but then the 
 difficulty is, how Chrift is the Antitype to the typi- 
 cal Priefts, and Sacrifices of the Law , if he be but 
 a metaphorical Prieft and Sacrifice himfelf^ for the 
 Antitype ought to be that in truth and reality, which 
 the Type is a Figure of: And though they were typi- 
 cal, yet they were true and proper Priefts and Sacri- 
 fices, and made a true and proper Expiation for Sin, 
 as far as they reached, and therefore one would think 
 ftiould typifie not a metaphorical, but a true Prieft 
 and Sacrifice, though of a more excellent and perfeft 
 
 Nature. 
 
2 v8 A Vindkauon of the T>oBrine of the 
 
 Nature. This is eafily accounted for^if we allow the 
 ITivine Word to be Incarnate, and to be our Prieft 
 and Sacrifice, but without this the Je with Oeconomy 
 is a moft abfurd and unaccountable Inftitution. 
 
 Thirdly, Socinianifm ridicules the Chriftian Religi- 
 on 5 that is, makes it a very mean and contemptible 
 Inftitution ^ which I (hall (hew in a few words. 
 
 The Fundamental Myftery of the Chriftian Religi- 
 on is the ftupendous Love of God in giving his own 
 Son, his only begotten Son^ for the Redemption of 
 Mankind. This our Saviour lays great ftrefs on s 
 3 John 16. God fo loved theWorld^ that he gave his only begotten 
 Son^ that vphofoever believeth in him Jhould not perijhj 
 hut have everlajiing life. By this one would have 
 thought, that Chrift had been the Son, the only be- 
 gotten Son of God, before he gave him ; as Ifaac^ 
 who was a Type of Chrift, was Abraham's Son, be- 
 fore he offered him at God's Command: for that 
 is the Argument of Love, when we part with what 
 we have, and what is dear to us 5 but this is not the 
 Cafe, if Socinianifm be true 5 God did not give us 
 any Son he had before, but made an excellent Man, 
 whom he was pleafed to call his only begotten Son, 
 ( though he might have made as many fuch only be- 
 gotten Sons as he pleafed ) and him be gave for us ^ 
 that is^ made a Man on purpofe to be our Saviour. 
 God*s Love indeed in redeeming Sinners is very great, 
 be the means what they will 5 but his Love in giving 
 his only begotten Son iov our Redemption, which our 
 Saviour fixes on as the great demonftration of God's 
 Love, is not (b wonderful, if this giving his Son figni- 
 fies no more than making a Man on purpofe to be our 
 &iviour. 
 
 In 
 
Holy and Ever ^Jfed T^IKITI 239 
 
 In the next place, the Apoflles mightily infift on 
 the great Love of Chrift in dying for us, and his great 
 Humility in fubmitting to the Condition of Human 
 Nature, and fufFering a (hameful and accurled Death, 
 even the Death of the Crofi. Te know the Grace ^y^2Cor.8. 9. 
 0Hr Lord Jefus Chrijl^ that for your fakes Be became 
 poor^ that ye through his poverty might be rich : For 
 the love of Chrift conflraineth us , becaufe we thus 
 judge^ that if one died for all^ then were all dead. Let ^ 14. 
 thk mind be in you y which was in Chriji Jefus^ who 
 being in the form of God^ thought it not robbery to be 
 equal with God^ but made himfelfof no reputation^ and 
 took, ^pon him the farm of a Servant^ and was made in^ ^ ' ^' 'g^ 
 the lik^nefs of men^ and being found in fafnon as aman^ 
 he humbled himfelf and became obedient unto deaths 
 even the death of the Crofs. Now fuppoGng Chrift 
 to be but a meer Man, who had no Being before he 
 was born of the Virgin, who knew nothing of his 
 own coming into the World, nor for what end he 
 came 5 whofe undertaking was not his own volun- 
 tary cht)ice 5 but God's appointment 5 where is the 
 great Love, where is the great Humility of this ? How 
 did he become poor for our fakes, who was never 
 rich? Tes^ fays our Hiftorian, he could have lived />/ Page 124. 
 the greatefl Splendor^ Dignity^ and Plenty, He that 
 could multiply the loaves andfifhes^ and the wine at the 
 wedding ^/Cana, need not have wanted any Comforts 
 of life* Right ! if he can prove that God would have 
 enabled him to work Miracles, to have made Jiim* 
 felf rich and great, and to have miniftred to Secular 
 Pomp and Luxury, if he had fo minded 5 but he be- 
 ing a meer Creature, could work no Miracles, nor 
 to any other ends or purpofes than God pleafed 5 rind 
 therefore if by God's Decree he was to live a mean 
 
 life 
 
240 ^ Vindication of the DoSlrine of the 
 
 life here, and die an accarfed death, and he was made 
 for this purpofe, he neither ever was rich, nor ever 
 could be rich , and therefore did not make himfelf 
 poor for our fakes. He could not by the Conftitu- 
 tion of God have done otherwife than he did, if he 
 would be the Saviour of Mankind, and therefore if he 
 was not rich before he came into the World, and vo- 
 luntarily chofe this Poverty for us,! donot underftand 
 the great Grace of his becoming poor, for he never 
 was rich, nor ever could be in this World. 
 
 Thus what is that Humility our Apoftle fo highly 
 commends in our Saviour ; For fuppofe his hei^^g in 
 the form of God^ fignifies no more than being made like 
 Page 128. U God^ (as our Hiftorian will have it ) by a communicci- 
 Hon of Poiver over Difeafes^ Devils^ the Grave^ the 
 Winds , the Seas^ 8cc. which dwindles the form of 
 God into juft nothing , for according to them he had 
 no inherent Power to do this, but God did it at his 
 Word, as he did for other Prophets 5 and therefore 
 this is noform^ no likenefs of God at all, for he did 
 not work Miracles, as God does, by an inherent Pow- 
 er, but God wrought Miracles for him 5 yet fuppole 
 this, how is it an Argument of his Humility, that he 
 committed not robbery by equalling himfelf to God^ (as 
 he renders the words, which our Tranllators render, 
 and which the ancient Fathers expound to the lame 
 lenft, he thought it not robbery to be equal to God J that 
 is, fiys he, did not rob God of hk honour^ by arroga- 
 ting to himfelf to be God^ or equal to God 5 though if 
 this were robbery, both Chrift and his Apoftles were 
 guilty of it, for Chrift declared, / and my Father are 
 One^ which the Jews underftood (and they did not 
 miftakehiminit) was to make himfelf God 3 and the 
 Apoftles do this frequently in exprefs terras, as I have 
 
 already 
 
Holy and Ever (Blejfed T(^mi Tt 24 1 
 
 already fhown : But to allow his Interpetation, I on* 
 ly ask, whether Chrift, if he would, could have com- 
 mitted this Robbery ? whether upon their fuppofiti- 
 on of his being a meer Marl, if he had arrogated to 
 himfelf to be God, God would have permitted this ? 
 and fuftered him to have wrought Miracles, to cheat 
 the world into this belief? if he could not, it is ridicu- 
 lous to tak of his humility in not doing it; and I am 
 fureit is ridiculous upon their Hypothefis, tofay, that 
 he could. 
 
 But he took upon him the Form of a Servant ; i. e. 
 became like a Strvant^ f^jf^ff^^^ nothing of his own^ and 
 fuffering injuries and reproaches, &c. But how did he 
 take this form upon him, [which muft fignifie his own 
 free and voluntary choice,]] when he did not take it, 
 but was made fo ? This was the Condition, which he 
 did no^ choofe, but was made for: and what humility 
 was this, for a meer Man, to be a Minifter and Ser- 
 vant of God, and fb great a Minifter, as to be in the 
 form of God, as he fays, to be glorious for Miracles, 
 and admired as the great power of God, efpecially 
 when he w^asto be exalted into Heaven for it, and ad- 
 vanced above all Principalities and Powers ? This is 
 fuch Humility, as would have been Pride and Ambi- 
 tion in the moft glorious Angel. 
 
 But he was made in the likenefs of men^ and being 
 found in fashion as a man^ humbled himfelf, &c. that is, 
 fays this Hiftorian, being made like other men in the 
 common fimilitude of man (and I pray, how fhoulda 
 man be made, but like a man) he humbled himfelf and 
 became obedient unto death ; i. e. notwithjlandincr thatj 
 he could have delivered himfelf from them^ yet was he 
 obedient even to evil Magifirates, and without reft- 
 liance under-went that death^ which their wickednefs 
 
 I i and 
 
242. AKtndkation of the DoEirine of the 
 
 4^^5 28. ^ ani rr.alice prepared for him\ or rather, which God 
 had decreed for him ; which his hmd and, counfel de- 
 termined before to be done : and therefore which he 
 could not, which he ought not to avoid. 
 
 The piain Cafe is this : All the Circumftances of 
 our Saviour's Fjirth, and Life, and Death, were fb pun- 
 ftually foretold by the Prophets, and fo peremptori- 
 ly decreed by God, that after he was come into the 
 world, there was no place for his choice and eie£i:ion ; 
 he could not iliev/ either his love or his humility in 
 choofing Poverty or Death, and therefore if it were 
 matter of his free choice, and a demonftrationof his 
 great tkimility and Love, as the Apoftle fays it was, 
 he chofe it before he came into the world : He was in 
 the form of God, equal to GoJ, rich, before, and 
 chofe to become Man, a Miniller, a Servant, and to 
 fiibmit to a mean Life, and an infamous Death for 
 our fakes, and this indeed was a mighty Love and 
 ftupendious Humility in the Son of God: This 
 v/ecanallunderftand: it isavenerable Myftery, and a 
 powerful Argument of our Religion ; but Socinian/fm 
 makes Nonfenfe of it. 
 
 The Faith and Worfhip of Chrift is the diftinguifli- 
 ing Character of the Chriftian Rehgion, and if Chrifl: 
 be no more than a Man, as the Socinians teach, it is a 
 direft Contradiftion, both to Natural and to the Mo- 
 laical Religion, which condemn the worfhip of any 
 Creature, and all Religious Truft and Affiance in them. 
 It is a Religion without a Prieft, and without a Sacri- 
 fice, or which is much the fame, retains the Name of 
 a Prieft and a Sacrifice, without any proper Atone- 
 ment or Expiation ; which is a very unfit Religion for 
 Tinners : But that which is moft to my prefent pur- 
 pofe is, that it makes a God of a meer Creature, and 
 
 makes 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T(^INirY. 243 
 
 makes a Mediator and King without any inherent 
 Power, to fave Sinners, to protefb his Church, to 
 govern or to judge the World, which is a meer Page- 
 ant and Shadow of a King 
 
 To make a Mediator or Mediatory King, who 
 fhall be a fit Obje£t of Religious Hope and Truft and 
 Worfhip (as I have already explained it at large) he 
 muft have a Perfonal Knowledge of all our particu- 
 lar Wants, and an Inherent Power to help us 5 and 
 though his Humane Nature Is confined to Heaven, his 
 Knowledge and Power muft extend to all the world ; 
 as he himfelf tells us after his Refurreftion, A// Poiv^ 
 er is given unto me^ both in Heaven and in Earth : 
 particularly, he muft have Power to proteQ: his 
 Church on Earth from all her Enemies, to reftrain 
 and govern the malice of Men and Devils, to forgive 
 fins, to give the frefh Supplies of Grace, to raife the 
 Dead, to judge the World, to condemn bad men to 
 Hell, and to beftow Heaven upon his fincere Dif- 
 ciples. 
 
 Let us then confider, what account our Socinian 
 Hifl:orian gives of this matter, and what a kind of 
 Mediator and King he makes of Chrift. Sometimes 
 to abufe the World, he tells us, the '^ozvciww'^ generally ^^g^ icg. 
 fiot only grants hut earneflly contend, that Chrijl is 
 to be w or [hipped and prayed to ; hecauft God hath 
 (they fay) by his inhabiting Word or Po'ver given to 
 the Lord Chrifi^ a faculty of knowing all things, and 
 an ability to relieve all our wants. Now if they mean 
 honeftly, that Chrifl has an inherent Perfonal Know- 
 ledge and Power, whereby he knows, and can do all 
 things, this is to alcribe true Divine Perfections to 
 him, for fuch are infinite Knowledge, and infinite 
 Power ; and that is to make him a true and real God ; 
 
 I i 2 and 
 
244 ^ Vindication of the Dofirine of the 
 
 and I think, there is not greater Nonfenfe in the 
 VVorld, than a Made God, than a Creature-God, as I 
 Ihowed before: But it is plain our Hiftorian is none 
 of thefe Sccirjidns^ for all his Expofitions lean another 
 way, and in the fame place he difputes earneftly a- 
 gainft praying to Chrift, and fays, that thofe Gtntk- 
 men (hemuft mean the Soctmm Gentlemen, who are 
 Page I i I. for praying to Chrift, efpecially the Poloman Zealots ) 
 y^y, that Chnfi*s Mediation and Inter celJIo/f for «-*, is 
 not to be under flood of a Fcrbal or Per fond Medtati* 
 on^ froceeding from a particiihr Kjiow ledge of our 
 Wants and Prayers (and thus we have already lort 
 this Faculty in Chrift of knowing all things) but be 
 
 mediates by his ^krtts ; that is (not by his Expia* 
 tion and Sacrifice, but (bj the perfecf Obedience and 
 ^J::ofl acceptable Services, that he has performed to God* 
 
 So that thefe Socinians are all of a mind as to this mat- 
 ter, that whatever they feem to talk oi Chriffs Fa- 
 
 cully of knowing all things ^ and Ability to relie^ce all 
 cur Wants, his Knowledge is only by Infpiration, as 
 the Knowledge of other Prophets is, not an abiding, 
 inherent Faculty ; and does not extend to all things, 
 not to the prefcnt and particular Wants and Neceifities 
 of his Church, much left of every particular Chrifti- 
 an, nay, not to the prayers that are made to him ; 
 and then I confefs, I fee no reafbn to pray to him; 
 and his Ability to help is not an inherent Power to 
 do thofe things for us, which we need, and which 
 we pray for, but only to intercede for us ^with God, 
 and that not particularly neither, but only in gene- 
 ral, for he does not always know our particular Wanu. 
 Chriftian Ears know not how to bear fuch talk as this, 
 which makes a Mediator and Mediatory Kingdom 
 an empty infignificant Name and Title, without any 
 
 other 
 
 ,' 
 1 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T(^iniTr. 14 f 
 
 other Power but Prayers : And that this is the Mind 
 and belief of our Hiftorian, I fhall now briefly fhovv, 
 and will leave all Men to judge, whether this be not 
 to ridicule the Scriptures and Chriftianity together. 
 
 I. Firft then let us confider, what the Knowledge 
 of our Saviour is : and two or three places will fuf- 
 fice for this purpofe , for they are very full and ex- 
 prefs, St. Jc/j^ tells of Chrift, He knew rvhat was in 2 John 25. 
 ?nAti. To which he anfwers, The Kjiowledge which^^l^^^* 
 the Lord Qhr'ifi had, or now in his fiate of Exaltation 
 hathy of the Secrets of mens hearts, is the pure gift of 
 God and revelation from God, and the Divine Word 
 abiding on him : that is, Divine Infpiration, for he 
 means no more by the Divine Word abiding on him : 
 This is a plain abufe of the Text, and the Reafon of 
 it, He knew what was in Man^ is the Realbn affigned, 
 why he needed no External [nformation or Teftimo- 
 ny of Man, needed not that any one (hoifld t eft t fie of 
 man^ for auuniiii he himfelf knew what n^as in man^ and 
 knew all men ; which, according to the propriety of 
 words, fignifies an inherent Perfonal Knowledge, in 
 oppo(Ttion to any External Manifeftation, and there- 
 fore to Revelation it felf : for he always knew all men, 
 which cannot be done by Revelation, which is par- 
 ticular and occafional. But this is not our Difpute 
 at prefentjbut only to (how, what this Socinian thinks 
 ofit. 
 
 The fame he tells us with reference to the laft Judg- ^ ^^^ 
 ment, when Chrift fhall^W^e the fecrets of men, the iQotI^.'j,', 
 knowledge Chrifl hath, or at the Uft Judgment jjjall^^^^ ^^9- 
 have of the fecrets of heart/, is purely by Revelati- 
 on from Godj and the Divine ^ord communicated to 
 
 him. This he repeats again in anfwer to what Chrift 
 
 faith 
 
24<^ ^ y indication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 2 Rev. 23. faith in the RtveLttion^ I am he which fearcheth the 
 P^ge 154- y^ifjs and heart. " The knowledge which the Lord 
 " Chrift had, or hath, of any ones iecret thoughts, is a 
 " Revelation made to him by God, as it was alfo fome- 
 ''times to former Prophets, — Prophets fearch the 
 Hearty (which was never faid of any Prophet, for to 
 fearch the heart is to look into the heart, and fee the 
 fecrets there, not to know them by Revelation) that 
 is^ kmw the thoughts and, propenfions of the hearty by 
 the Spirit or Injpiration of God in them. But the 
 Lord Chrift hath a far greater me a fur e of that Spi- 
 rit, than any of the former Prophets ever had: That is, 
 God reveals more to Chrift, than ever he did to any 
 former Prophets, but it is only Revelation ftill, not 
 an inherent Knowledge. In all thefe places to prove 
 that ChrijFs knowing what is in Man^ judging the fe- 
 crets of Men^ fearching the reins and hearty can figni- 
 fie no more, than that Chrift ha^ this Knowledge by 
 Inlpiration, he proves from the firft words of St. 
 I Rev. I 'Johns Revelation: The Revelation of Jefus Chrift^ 
 
 •which God gave to him^ to (J^evj unto his Servants things 
 which mu(t (hortly come to pafs. Which does not fig- 
 nifie, that this was a Revelation made to Chrift, but 
 that Revelation which Chrift made ; for though God 
 is laid to give it to him, it is to Ihew unto his Ser- 
 vants, that is, by the appointment of God Chrift 
 5 Rev. 6. fhewed this Revelation to John. Thus when St. John 
 Page i<,6» j^^ ^ Lamb^ having feven horns ^ i^nd feven eyes^ which 
 are the feven Spirits of God , fent forth into all the 
 Earth: He fays, This Text confirms what has been 
 often fdd^ namely^ that the Kjiowledge which our Lord 
 Chrift now hath of Affairs on Earth, is ( partly) by 
 means of thofe miniflring Spirits which are fent forth 
 into all the Earthy as his eyes^ to fee and relate the 
 
 /late 
 
Boly and Ever mfed T<I(^INITY. 2 47 
 
 ft ate of things : for what other reafon cm they be here 
 cdldd his eyes. I fhall not now difpute, what the 
 meaning of this is, it is enough that we know his O- 
 pinion, that Chrift now in Heaven knows nothing of 
 the Affairs on Earth, but either by the Revelation of 
 God or the Miniftry of Angels ; and it feems, not- 
 withflanding the Divine Word abiding on him^ God 
 does not reveal all things to him, but he is fain to u(e 
 the Miniftry of Angels to be more perfectly acquaint- 
 ed with the Affairs of his Church, And thus much 
 for his Knowledge ; and 1 confefs, I defire a Media- 
 tor who knows more, and in a more perfeQ: maa- 
 ner, 
 
 2. Let us now confider his Power, which the Scrip- 
 ture fpeaks fb magnificently of, and which Chrift 
 himfelf calls all Power both in Heaven and Earth : 
 and yet our Socinian tells us, that this all Power is no 
 other Power but Interceflion ; that Chrift: has no in- 
 herent Power in himfelf, can do nothing at all, but in- 
 tercedes with God to do it. 
 
 He exprefly tells us, and lays it down as a Princi- 
 ple, that Chrift's Interceflion is inconfiftent v/ith an 
 inherent Power in him, to hear and help us himfelf. 
 For if he doth hear our Prayers^ and can and doth ( by 
 a Power conji ant ly reftdent inhim^. relieve our Wants ^ 
 
 to what ftirpofe is he our Mediator with God 
 
 What can be more evident than that here (jHebr. 25.) Pageiio.iuo 
 Chriffsfaving us from the evils we either fear, or U' 
 i)0Hr under ^ is afcribed not to his own inherent Power ^ but 
 hut to his Inter ceffion with the Almighty. 
 
 Thus Chrift: promifestp be always with his Church- ,0 m,..k .^ 
 and a very comrortable Promile it is ; for we may 2g.2o. 
 
 €xpe£la conftant protection from him ; but our Hi- 
 
148 ^ Vindication of the VoSlrine of the 
 
 page 76. ftorian tells us, that Chrift is neither prefent with us, 
 nor can helpushimfelf; but Chrift is m the midft oj\ 
 and is with his People^ not by an immediate prefence^ 
 as God is , but hj his mo ft powerful aid and help^ 
 which he affords , partly by his continual and fuccefs- 
 Jul Mediation with God for them all in ger:aal ; part- 
 h by the Angels who are undxr his Diretiions^ and by 
 him engaged in the defence of the FaithfuL So that 
 Chrift's promife to be always with ns, does not fig- 
 nihe, that he will be with us, but that he intercedes 
 for us with God, not particularly for you and me, 
 for he knows not what our particular Condition is, 
 but for all in general ; and dire&s the Angels to take 
 care of all the Faithful, and leaves it to their difcre- 
 tion, how to do this, for he can only dire£t, as he 
 intercedes, in general, being ignorant of our parti- 
 cular Condition. 
 
 Pagl^o^s" ^^' Chrift promifes. If you ask any thing in my Name^ I 
 will doit ; and for my part I always believed our Sa- 
 viour could do it, as he promifed ; but he tells us, 
 the obvious meaning is, if you pray for any thing to 
 Gody ufing my Name, I will caujt it to be done for you^ 
 by my Interceffion. Well ! but will he particularly in- 
 tercede for us ? No ; but the general Intercefjion I 
 Will make for all good Chriftians, 
 
 Nothing is a greater fupport to Chriftians under 
 all their Temptations and Sufferings, than to remem- 
 ber, that they have a merciful and compafTionate 
 High Prieft, who is touched with a feeling of our In^ 
 firmities^ being in all things tempted as we are^ which 
 
 4Hcb. i5;id.the Apoftle urges as a great incouragement to us, to 
 
 come boldly to the Throne of Grace ^ that we may obtain 
 mercy ^ and jind grace to help in time of need: But 
 
 this Argument is loft, if our High Prieft does not 
 
 par- 
 
Holy and Ever (Blejfed T(^miTr. 249 
 
 particularly know what our wants are, nor when we 
 want help, nor does not intercede in particular for 
 us, but only generally for all : And they who are not 
 fenfible of this, do not confider the ftate of Human 
 Nature 5 for the hope of Sinners is in their Advocate 
 and Mediator, and in his Compaffion for them 5 but 
 if he know not their wants, his general Interceffion 
 gives them lefs hope. And yet this great Confola- 
 tion of Sinners is deftroyed by this Socinian^ who re- 
 folves all only into a general Interceffion, That our 
 High'PrieJi having been in our very Circumjiances^ is Page 14$. 
 touched with a true feeling of our Infirmities , and 
 therefore doth with great earnejinefs intercede for us 
 all in general. But let us confider the particular Ex- 
 ercife of this Mediatory Power. 
 
 One glorious Adt of Power is to forgive Sins, but 
 this is wholly taken away by our Hiftorian. Our 
 Saviour challeng'd this Power, while he was on Earth 5 
 The Son of Man hath power on Earth to forgive fins. 9 Match. 6. 
 Andbecaufe our Saviour challenges it, he dares not^^^^^'^'^* 
 deny it in plain terms, but expounds it away. He 
 fays, God gave thk Authority to the LordChriJl^ hecaufe 
 he gave to him alfo to know what was in mens hearts : 
 namely^ whether their Repentance and outward Profef 
 /ions were Jincere and lajiing 5 that is, Chrift had not 
 a direft Authority to forgive Sins, but a declarative 
 Authority, that their Sins were forgiven upon a cer- 
 tain Knowledge of the fincerity of their Repen- 
 tance. 
 
 Nay, Chrift is fo far from forgiving Sins, that our 
 Author will not allow that they are forgiven in his 
 Name, or for his fake, as appears from his Paraphrafe 
 on what our Saviour fays 5 That Repentance and Re- 
 
 K k mijfion 
 
250 A Vindication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 24 Luke 47. nnjjlon of fins jhofild he preached in hk Name, The 
 fenfe (fays he) is^Ckriji commanded the Difcjples to 
 require men to repent^ and on their fo doing to ajfure 
 them in his Name ( or from him ) that God woM for- 
 give them, God deliver us from fiich Expofitors, 
 who expound away the whole Gofpel of our Sa- 
 viour. 
 ^^.H^ Another Ad of Mediatory Power, which is abfo- 
 
 lutely neceflary to the Chriffian Church, is to give 
 the frelh Supplies of Grace according to the Needs 
 i$John and Neceffities of Chriftians 5 but though Chrift re- 
 prefentshimfelf as a Vine, and Chriftians as Branches 
 in the Vine, who derive their Spiritual Life andNou- 
 riftiinent from him 5 yet our Hiflorian will not al- 
 low that he can do any thing in this neither, but on- 
 ly intercede with God to give his Grace tons. Thus 
 17 Luke 5. when the Apojiles faid unto the Lord^ Increafe our 
 Page Sc. }:^aith 5 his Comment is, by thy Prayers to God^ which 
 are always heard for tfs. When St. Paul he fought the 
 Lord thrice^ that it (the Thorn in the I'lcjh^ the Mef- 
 fcnger of Satan to buffet him ) might depart from him^ 
 iCor. 12.8,9. and received an Anfwer, My Grace is fufficient for 
 ihet'-^ for myjiref7gth is made perfe& in weakncfs. His 
 Comment is. He befought the Lord -^ that is^ he befought 
 God'^ though we know in St. Pauh Epiftles, The Lord^ 
 ^^'- ^^'^' without any other addition, is commonly ufed for the 
 Lord Chrift. And fo it is here 5 where myfirength 
 is immediately interpreted to be the Power ofChriJi^ 
 and therefore he adds, the Power of Chriji here is the 
 Strength or Power which Chrift procures by his general 
 Mediation (for all his Churchy and every Member of 
 it) with God, So afraid is he to own, that Chrift can 
 beftow Strength and Power on us himfelf to conquer 
 
 tempta- 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T(^INl TY. 251 
 
 temptations. But ftill he was fenfibk, this was to of- 
 fer force to the words, and therefore fays. That the 
 Socinians, for the mojl part of them^ do grants that the 
 Word or Power of God abiding on Chrift^ doth qnalifie 
 him to hear our Praj/ers , and to fuccour us in all J3/- 
 ftrejjes. But of this above. 
 
 Nay, he will not allow that Chrift could direft or 
 profper St. Pauls Journey, but only by his general ' 12! 
 
 Interceflion : And that he caufeth us to abound in Love^ Page 136* 
 and all other Graces^ partly by his Gofpel^ partly by his 
 InterceJJion, 
 
 He denies that Chrift raifed himfelf from the dead ^^S^ ^^• 
 by his own proper Power 5 and though he (hall raife 
 and change our Bodies at the laft day, yet it is by the ^^s^ 93- 
 Divine Word and Power communicated to him^ and 
 abiding on him^ by which he raifed Lazarus, which he 
 lays, Chrift himfelf intimates was not his own proper 
 Power ^ hut God's , that is^ the Fathers. And left this 
 fticuld be thought too much that Chrift fhould raife 
 the dead, though by his Father's Power, not his own, 
 he adds. Almighty God can lodge even in dry Bones^ a 
 power ofrefloring the dead^ 2 Kings 13. 21. which is 
 a very honourable Comparifon for our Saviour, and 
 fhows what a mighty Opinion he has of his Power 5 
 which is only lodged in him, as it was in the Pro- 
 phet's dry Bones, and is no more his own Power. 
 But this lodging Power in dry Bones, is a new kiad 
 of Philofophy, and in great requeft at Rome. 
 
 To conclude 5 one v/ould think, that he fhould 
 leave Chrift the full Power of Judging the World, 
 fince God hath made him Judge both of the quicks and 
 of the dead. But this muft be expounded away to 
 nothing too. We heard b-efore, that at the day of 
 
 K k 2 Judg- 
 
a 5 2 A Vindication of the DoHrim of the 
 
 Judgment, when he is to judge the fecrets of Hearts, 
 he knows them only by Revelation from God ^ and 
 therefore he has no perfonal Qualifications to judge 
 the World, but only bears the Name, when God the 
 Father does the thing : But thus much he allows him , 
 Page 140. ThdtChrift is fat d to judge the Worlds becaufe he JImU 
 pro7wnnce the Decree and Sentence of God^ and order 
 ^ the Angels to execute it. 
 
 And now, has not this Sociman made a glorious 
 King and Mediator of Chrift, without the leafl: Power ■• 
 to do any thing, but intercede by Prayers and Suppli- 
 cations with God, and that without knowing the par- 
 ticular Condition of thofe, for whom he intercedes. 
 If this be Chriftianity, fit anima mea cum Philofophk : 
 If this be to expound Scripture by Reafon, it is plain 
 that Scripture and Reafon fpoil one another 3 for no 
 Man would reafon fo foolifhly, but to pervert Scrip* 
 ture 5 nor expound Scripture fo abfurdly,but to com- 
 ply with what he calls Reafon. 
 
 4. Socinianifm juftifies, or at leaft excufes, both 
 Pagan and Popifh Idolatries 5 at leaft as it is taught 
 by thofe Men, who allow of the Worfhip of Chrift, 
 which it is certain, the Chriftian Religion teaches : 
 Now if Chrift be no more than a Man, this is Crea- 
 ture Worftiip, and then Creature Worfhip is not Ido- 
 latry 3 and this goes a great way in juftifyingor ex- 
 cufing Pagans and Papifts. If the Worftiip of a Crea- 
 ture be natural Idolatry, God would not have per- 
 mitted the Worftiip of Chrift 5 if it be not, then 
 Pagans and Papifts are no Idolaters : Though they 
 v/orftiip Creatures, whatever their Fault be in it, ( if 
 it be fo miacha Fault, as a Miftake ) yet it is a Fault 
 
Holy and Ever Blejjed T^l NITY. 25 5 
 
 of a much lefs Nature than Idolatry, and more eafily 
 pardoned. 
 
 Efpecially when they do not worfhip thefe Crea- 
 tures as the Supreme God, but as their Mediators, 
 and Patrons, and Advocates with the Supreme God 5 
 for there is a Worftiip due to a Mediator, diftinft from 
 the Worftiip of the Supreme God, as the Worfhip of 
 Chrift proves, who is not God, but a Creature-Me- 
 diator 5 and thus the Heathens worfhipped their in- 
 ferior Deities , and thus the Papifts worfhip their 
 Saints : And if they do miftake, and worfhip tho(e 
 for Mediators, who are none, and can do them no 
 Service 5 the greateft hurt feems to be, that they 
 lofe their labour, but according to thefe Principles, 
 they do no injury to God. 
 
 For as they tell us, when it is fa id , That all men 5 Jo^^ni^. 
 fhould honour the Son^ even as they honour the Father 5 ^^^ ^^' 
 the meaning only is^ a^s roe honour God or the Father^ 
 
 fo we muji not forget to honour alfo the Son of God ^ - 
 
 An equality of Honour is no more intended here^ than 
 an equality of Perfection in thofe words ^ Be ye there- 
 fore perfect , as your Father , which is in Heaven is 
 perfect. So the Heathens did not intend the fame de- 
 gree of worfhip to their Mediators and Inferior Dei- 
 ties, as to the Supreme God , and we know the Pa- 
 pifts diftinguifh between the worfhip of Latria and 
 Dulia^ or that Sovereign worfhip which is due to the 
 Supreme God, and that inferior honour to Saints and 
 Angels 5 and it is plain, this is not an arbitrary, but 
 realdiftinftion, as is evident in the worfhip of God, 
 and the Man Chrift Jefus, who are worfhipped with 
 different degrees of honour, as ihck S^cinians aflert. 
 
 And 
 
1 5 ^. ^ Vindicatm of the VoElrine of the 
 
 And whereas the Papifts are charged with making 
 Gods and Goddefles of dead Men and Women, by 
 paying Religious Worfhip to them, they no more 
 make them Gods, than the Socmians make Chrifl a 
 God. 
 
 And as for the worfliip of the Virgin Mary^ they 
 have in reafon as much to fay for it, as the Sociniavs 
 have for the worfhip of Chrift : They make Chrift 
 the Son of God, only becaufe he was formed by a 
 Divine Power in the Womb of the Virgin 5 but Pa- 
 pifts, who believe Chrift to be God, own her for the 
 Mother of God ^ and I cannot fee, why it is not as 
 great an honour to be the Mother of God, as to be 
 born of a Virgin by the Power of God, and it may 
 be more. And in reafon I cannot fee ( allowing of 
 the Interceflion of a Creature) why the Virgin Mo- 
 ther of God, ftiould not intercede as powerfully for 
 us, as a Man born of a Virgin by the Power of God 5 
 and I am apt to think, our Saviour will account it a 
 lefs fault to worftiip his Mother, than to make himfelf 
 a meer Creature. 
 
 And though theblefled Virgin do not particular- 
 ly know our Condition, yet (he may help us by her 
 general Interceflion as Chrift does, and pray parti- 
 cularly for her peculiar Devotoes, and therefore at 
 leaft we may pray to God in the Name of the Virgin, 
 and other Saints, as Socimans do in the Name of Chrift, 
 who know as httle of them. 
 
 And yet the Virgin, and other Saints, mayunder- 
 ftand our Condition and Affairs the fame way, that 
 
 the 
 
BoJy and Ever mjfed T^^lKlTl. 25^5^ 
 
 the Socinians fay Chrift does, zn%. By Revelation 
 from God, and by the Miniftry of Angels, who are 
 fent into the World , and carry the News of this 
 World to Heaven, though we ftiould not allow of 
 their Glafs of the Trinity, wlierein they fee and know 
 all things. 
 
 So that here is nothing wanting but the Appoint- 
 ment and Allowance of God, to make the blefled 
 Virgin and other Saints as proper Advocates for us, 
 as the Socinians make Chrill to be ^ for they are as 
 well qualified for it, or might be, if God fo pleafed, 
 according to their Principles 5 and this the Papifts 
 think they have too, that God has appointed, or at 
 leaft allows the worfliip of fuch favourite Saints 5 and 
 though they are miftaken in it, it is certainly a much 
 more innocent and pardonable miftake, to make a 
 Mediator, whom God has not made, than to make the 
 Eternal Son of God aCreature» 
 
 In a word, whatever evil there is in Creature- wor- 
 fhip, that xhQ Socinians are guilty of in worfhipping a 
 meer Man 5 but this is not the worft of their Cafe, for 
 they overthrow the whole Chriftian Religion by it 5 
 which Popery does not overthrow, though it greatly 
 and dangeroufly corrupts it. 
 
 Sect, 
 
2 5 6 ^ Vindication of the DoHrtnc of the 
 
 Sect. VII. 
 
 A^i Ar? freer to what remains in the Brief Notes, 
 
 T Am now haftening to a Conclufion, and there is 
 I little behind to ftop me 5 for though half the Sheet 
 be yet untouched, it is anfwered before I come to it 5 
 and therefore both to fave Paper and Pains, I fhall 
 not tranfcribe his long impertinent Harangues, as I 
 have hitherto done, but only give the Reader a view 
 of thofe PafTages, which he intends for Argument or 
 Drollery, I know not whether. ' 
 
 Creed. -^^^ ^^^ ^^ of the Father alone^ not made^nor created^ 
 
 hut begotten. 
 
 Our Note-maker has difcovered a Contradiftion 
 between the beginning and the end of this Article 5 
 for either the Son is not of the Father alone ^ or he is 
 not begotten 5 for every No7jice in Grammar^ and proper 
 Speakings ktiows^ that begotten^ when it is diftingaijloed 
 from made and created^ always fnppofes two Parents^ 
 a Mother as well as a Father, He will allow the Son 
 to be begotten, if you fpeak^ of the Generation of the 
 Son by the Divine Power on the Virgin Mary 3 for 
 then it would have been true^ that the Son is neither 
 made^ nor created^ but begotten ^ for then he has both 
 Father and Mother 5 God is his Father, and the Vir- 
 gin Mary his Mother 5 and thus, though they will 
 not allow the Virgin to be the Mother, they will al- 
 low her to be the Wife of God, which is as honour- 
 able 
 
Holy and Eyer (Blejfed 7(^lKlTr. i^7 
 
 able. Thefe are very fit men to make Addreffes to 
 a Morocco AmbaflTador, for they are fb far of Maho- 
 met's mind, that God cannot have a Son, unlefs he 
 have a Wife ; but Mahomet v^'as the better Divine in 
 this, that he never dreamt of God's having a Woman 
 for his Wife. I am afraid this is Blafphemy ; I m fure, 
 we have always thought it io from the Mouth of a 
 fcoffing Athieft or Infidel ; for this his not is own but 
 borrow^ed wit. 
 
 For does our Author in earneft think, that God can- 
 not have a Son, unlefs he begets him, as one man be- 
 gets another ? This is to difpute againfl: God's beget- 
 ting a Son, as the Epicurean in Tidily did againft ^^^ „„//^/,^ 
 Gods making a World, that he wanted Minifters qu.-e ferramen- 
 and Inftruments for fuch a Work, as if God made a ^'^"J'^lj^Ychk-' 
 World, as a Carpenter biylds a Houfe. Does a Son qia ^Mimflri, 
 neceffarily fignifie one who is begotten of two Pa- ^^^^^' '^«n^';^f 
 rents ? I thought the true Notion of a Son had been, '^^^^^'^l^^xt 
 one who is produced out of the Subftance of its Pa- 
 rent, (not out of nothing, which we call Creation^ 
 nor formed of any other Praeexiftent Matter which 
 we call making) and that the true Notion oi hecret- 
 ting^ is to produce its own Image and Likenefs out 
 of its own Subftance, by what means foever this is 
 done ; and if one Parent can thus beget a Son of his 
 own Subftance, this argues greater perfeftion in the 
 Father, and is a more perfeft manner of Produftion 
 than by two ; and methinks he might allow the moft 
 perfefl: Being to beget a Son in the moft perfefl: 
 manner. And that an infinite Mind can and muft be- 
 get his own likenefs and image, that is, an Eternal Son, 
 by a reflex Knowledge of himfelf, I have already 
 fhewn. 
 
 L 1 The 
 
 Supra p. 130. 
 
158 AVtndlcation of the VoElnne of the 
 
 Creed, The Holy Ghofi is of the father and the Son, neither 
 
 made, nor created, nor begotttHy but proceedings 
 
 His firft quarrel againfl: this, is the Proceffion of 
 the Holy Ghoft, from Father and Son: The next is 
 about the diftinftion tetween being begotten and pro- 
 ceedings which he fays are the fame thing, and are 
 now confeffed to be fb, by the mofl learned Trinita-- 
 rians ; who thefe are, I know not, but be they who 
 thev will, it was no Argument of their Prudence or 
 Learning to rejeft a diftinftion, which both the rea- 
 fon of the thing requires, and the Chriftian Church 
 has always owned : But this I have accounted for be- 
 Supi^4 fore, and plainly fhewn the diflinflion between Ge- 
 
 &^ag€i34,i35. neration and Proceflion, the firft is a reflex Aft, 
 whereby God knows himfelf, and begets his own 
 Likenefs and Image 5 ProceflTion is a direO: Aft, that 
 Eternal Love whereby God loves himfelf and his own 
 Image, which proceeds from God, as all Thoughts and 
 Paffions proceed out of the Heart. 
 
 Creed. And therefore there is hut One Father^ not Three 
 
 Fathers^ One Son^ not Three Sons, One Holy Ghofi ^ not 
 Three Holy Ghofls. The fecond Perlbn, is indeed 
 the Son of the firft:, but the third Perfbn, who pro- 
 ceeds from Father and Son, is not the Son of either ; 
 for to proceed is not to be begotten, and therefore 
 there are not two Sons^ nor two Fathers, as this Au- 
 thor affirms; much lefsare they Three Holy Ghofls^ 
 though I grant, as he fays, that they are Three Holy 
 Spirits, But this is a meer childifh Fallacy, and 
 playing with words: as there is but One God, fo he 
 
 16 
 
Holy and Ever ^lejfed T^^lKlTt i j 9 
 
 is a holy Being, and a pure Mind and Spirit, as Spi- 
 rit is oppofed to Matter ; and thus all Three Divine 
 Perfbns are holy Minds and Spirits, effentially united 
 into One infinite Mind and Spirit; bat the Holy 
 Ghoft, who is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, 
 and a diftinO: Perfon in the Trinity, is but One. 
 
 In this Trinity none is before or After other^ none is Creed. 
 greater or lefs than another* 
 
 Tet the Son himfelf faith the Father is greater than /, Notes, 
 i4Joh.28. And the Son himfelf faith, landtheFather 
 are One^ 10 Job. 30. And therefore there can be no great- 
 er inequality between thenfi, than what is confiflent 
 with anOnenefs and Identity of Eflence : That is, not 
 an inequality of Nature, but Order, as a Father is 
 greater than the Son, who is naturally fubordinate 
 to him, though their Nature be equal and the fame. 
 Though we know, the ancient Fathers underftcod this 
 of Chrifl: as Man , as it is alfb expreffed in this Creed , 
 B.qnal to the Fat her ^ as touching his Godhead^ infer tour 
 to the Father^ as touching his Manhood. He pro- 
 ceeds. 
 
 As for the other Claufe, None is afore or after 
 other 5 V/j" jiifi as true^ as that there is no difference 
 between afore and after. I asky whether the Son doth 
 noty as he is a Son^ derive both Life and Godhead from 
 the Father ? All Trinitarians grant he does ; groundinpr 
 themfelves on the Nicene Qreed , which exprejly caRs 
 the Sony God of God, Light of Light, very God of 
 very Gody begotten^ not made. But if the Father gave 
 to the Son Life and Godhead^ he rnuft have both, before 
 he could co7nmunicatey or give either of them to the 
 Son^ and conftquently was afore the Son was* Ah efftci 
 
 LI 2 is 
 
2^0 A Vindication of the DoElrine of the 
 
 is fo early as its CA'ife ; for if it were, it Jhould not 
 have needed^ nor had that for its Caufe, No Propo- 
 fitio^ iti Euclid is more certain , or evident than 
 this, 
 
 Jnfvcr, I hope, he will abate a little of his Mathematical 
 Certainty, before I have done with him ; and yet I 
 fhall quickly have done with him too. I will begin 
 with his Philofophy of Caufes and Effefts. No Effecf^ 
 he fays, is fo early as its Cauje. Did he never then 
 hear of what we call Emanative Effefts, which co- 
 exift with their Caufes? Is not the Sun theCaiife of 
 Light, and Fire of Heat? and can he conceive a Sun 
 w^ithout Light, or Fire without Heat? and if he can- 
 not fb much as in thought, without abfurdity and con- 
 tradiction, feparate thefe Caufes and Effefts, is it pof- 
 fible to feparate them in time, that the Caufe fhould 
 be before its EfFeQ:? that is, that the Sun Ihould be 
 without Light, and the Fire without Heat ? and yet, 
 can Light be without the Sun, or Heat without Fire? 
 What becomes then of his Reafbn, which is as cer- 
 tain and evident as any Propofition in Euclid ? That 
 //' the Ejfeti in re as early as its Qaitft^ it fhould not 
 have needed^ or had that for its Qanfe, For Light 
 needs the San, and Heat the Fire, for their Caufes, 
 and yet are as early as their Caufes. But I perceive 
 he is but a young Mathematician or Philofbpher, and 
 therefore I would defire him to remember againft the 
 next time, That plain Matttr of Fa5t is as certain and 
 evident as any Propofition in Euclid. 
 
 In all other Caufes and Eflfefts, which fubfifl: di- 
 ftindly and feparately, his Maxim is good, That the 
 
 Caufe 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T^^IKITY. i6i 
 
 Caufb muft be before the Effeft ; but when the Ef- 
 feO: is effencial to the Caufe, and the Caufe cannot 
 be without it, there the EfFeft is as early as its Caufe, 
 becaufe the Caufe cannot fubfift without its Eft'e£t, as 
 the Sun cannot be a Sun without Light, and Fire can- 
 not be Fire without Heat. 
 
 And this is the Cafe here ; the Son is begotten by 
 the Father, and is God of God, Lioht of Ltght^ the 
 Holy Ghoft proceeds from Father and Son ; but Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft, are effentially but One 
 God, and therefore unL fs the fame One God can be 
 afgre and after himfelf in the Trinity, there can be 
 no afore or after, but all Three Perfbns are Coeternal, 
 becaufe they are effentially One Eternal God : And it 
 is in vain to confound our Minds with conceiving aa 
 Eternal Generation, for that is as intelligible as an E- 
 ternal Being, we can fee the neceflity of both, but 
 cannot comprehend either,no more than we can Eter- 
 nity. It is demonftrable, fomething muft be Eternal^ 
 and it is as certain, that an Eternal Mind eternally 
 knows it fe!f, and loves it felf ; for there can be no 
 infinite Mind without a reflex Knowledge of himfelf, 
 which is his eternal Son, nor without the love of him- 
 felf and his One Image, which is the Holy Spirit : of 
 which I have fufficiently dilcourfed already.- 
 
 And thus we are come to the lafl: part of our Task, 
 what concerns the Incarnation of Chrift, which after 
 all that has been faid to prove Chrirt to be the Eter- 
 nal Son of God incarnate, will take up no great time; 
 for what ever difficulties there may be in the Philo- 
 fbphy of the Incarnation, or how God and Man is 
 united into One Perlbn, it will not fliake my Faith, 
 who fee a thoufand things every day which I can give 
 no Philofophical Account of, and which a liitle 
 
 Phi- 
 
^6^ A Vindication of thzVoBrineof the 
 
 Philofophy would teach confidering Men not to pre- 
 tend to give any account of; and yet wc believe our 
 Eyes without underftanding the Philofophy of things; 
 and why we flhould not believe a Divine Revelation 
 too, without it, 1 know not. But let s hear what he 
 has to fay. 
 
 Creed ^1^^^ ^k^^ Faith is, that we believe and confejs, that 
 
 OHY Lord "Jeftis Chrifl, the Son of God^ is both God 
 and Mdn. 
 
 Notes T^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^fi ^^ ^^^^ Perjons, for as he is 
 
 God, he is a Perfon, Very right i And as he is a 
 ^ Man, he ts a Perfon, ; that we deny, that he is a di- 
 ftind: Perlbn from the Godhead, when united to God. 
 But a rational Soul vitally united to a Human Body 
 is a Perfon. Right! when it is by it felf; and fo a 
 Soul without a vital Union to a Human Body is a 
 Perfon ; and a Beaft, which has no reafonable Soul, 
 but only an Animal Life, as a Man has together with 
 a Human Soul, is a Perfon, or a Suppofitum, or what 
 he will pleafe to call ir, but it is a diftinft living 
 fubfifting being by it felf^ but when the Rational 
 and the Animal Life are united in Man, he is not 
 two Perfons, a Rational, and an Animal Perfon, but 
 one Perfon : And therefore we neither need own 
 Chrift to be two Perfons with Neflorius, (which yet 
 is much more innocent than to deny his Godhead; 
 nor deny him either to be God or Man ; for he is 
 God-Man in one Perfon ; as a Man is a Reafonable 
 and Animal Creature united into One Perfon ; though 
 we may find the reafonable and animal life fubfifting 
 apart, and when they do fo, they are two, and but 
 one, when united. 
 
 This 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed r^^lKiri z 6 5 
 
 This is explained in the Creed by the Union of 
 
 Soul and Body ; for as the reafmabU Soul and F/tfh 
 is One Man^ Jo God and man is One Chrifi : which he 
 lays vainly enough, // the only offa at Reafon^ that 
 is to be found in the rvhde Creed* We 1 ! we are 
 glad any thing will pa(s with him, though it be 
 but for an offer at reajon^ and let us hear how he con- 
 futes it. 
 
 I. He fays, In the Perfonal Vnion of a Sot4 with a 
 Body^ the Union is between Two finite t hi figs : but in 
 the ( pretended ) Perfonal Union of God to Man, and 
 Man to Gody the Union is between finite and infinite^ 
 which (^on the Principles of the Trinitarians, I wilh 
 he had told us, what thofe Principles are ) is irnyof 
 fible : For we rntifl either fuppofe, that finite and infi- 
 nite are comminf irate , that is^ equal^ which e'very one 
 knows is falfe ; or that the finite is united but to fome 
 ' part of the infinite ^ and ts disjoyned from the rtfl^ 
 which all Trinitarians deny and abhor, I beg your 
 pardon Sir ! they were never fb filly, as to think of 
 . it ; but they abhor to fee fuch Sacred Myfteries treat- 
 ed with fb much Ignorance and Impudence. 
 
 Since he is for confuting the Doftrine of the Tri- 
 nity by raifing Difficulties about the manner of this 
 Union, how God and Man are united into One Per- 
 fon ; I deGre, he would firft try his skill in inferiour 
 things, and tell me, how the parts of Matter hang 
 together? which though every body thinks, he 
 knows, I doubt no Body does. Then I would de- 
 fire to know, how Soul and Body are united, how 
 a Spirit can be faftened to a Body, that it can no 
 way releafe it felf, though never fe defirous of it , 
 the vital Uxiion ( wliich no Body knows what 
 
 it 
 
2 64 A Vindication of the VoFlrine of the 
 
 it is) is difToived ? Why the Soul can leave the Bo- 
 dy, when the Body is diffabled to perform the OfSces 
 of Life, but cannot leave it before.? The Soul, I fay, 
 which we TrimtarUns believe to be a Spirit, which 
 can pafs through Matter, which cannot be touched, 
 or handled or held, by Matter, and yet feels the 
 impreffions of Matter, is pleafed, or afflided with 
 them, and fympathizes with the Body, as if it could 
 be cut by a Knife, or burnt with a Fever, or torn by 
 wild Beafts, as the Body is. 
 
 And fince he apprehends, there can be no Union 
 without Commenfuration, and therefore a finite and 
 infinite Being cannot be united, becaufe they are not 
 Commenfurate ; I defire to know, whether he thinks 
 the Soul and Body are Commenfurate? whether the 
 Soul have parts, as the Body has, vi'hich anfwer to 
 every part of the Body, and touch in every Point? 
 Thefe will be very new Difcoveries, if he can fay 
 any thing to them ; if he can't, it is his beft way to 
 deny the Union of Soul and Body, becaufe he can- 
 not underftand it ; to afTert that man has no Soul, 
 but only a Body, becaufe it is impoffible, that Mat- 
 ter and Spirit fliould ever be united into one Perfbn 
 and Life ; which to the full is as unreafbnable, as to 
 deny the Perfbnal Union of God and Man, becaufe 
 he cannot underfiand how finite and infinite (which 
 are not Commenfurate, nor can be, becaufe neither 
 a finite nor infinite Spirit, have any parts to be mea- 
 fured) can be united. 
 
 But in great good Nature, he has found out a Sd- 
 uo for the Trinitarians \ That God indeed is infinite^ 
 and every Sonl and Body ( even that of Chrifl ) /f- 
 nite^ yet the Whole God and the rvhole Man are uni- 
 ted ; 
 
Holy and Ever <Blejfed T^IKlTr. 265 
 
 ted 5 hecaufe^ as the whole Eternity of God doth Co- 
 exiji to a raoment of time^ fo the whole Immenfity of 
 God is in every mathematical point of place : And 
 adds. The very truth is^ they cannot otherwife defend 
 the Incarnation^ or perfonal Union of an infinite God to 
 a finite lAan. 
 
 This is Gibberifti which I do not underftand^ but 
 this I do underftand, ( which I fuppofe is the mean- 
 ing of it, if it have any meaning) That an Eternal 
 Being, who has no beginning, and no fucceffion of 
 Being, may coexift with time ^ and that an infinite 
 Mind, who has no parts, or extenfion, is prefent e- 
 very where , without extenfion : This I have fuf- ^J^^ ^"P"» 
 ficiently difcourfed already, and refer my Header ^''^*^'^' 
 to it. - 
 
 But he has a thundring Argument againfl: this: 
 But withal it muft he owned^ that then the DocJrines 
 of the Trinity and Incarnation cU infer ^ imply ^ and 
 Oippofe all the Contradi&ions that Mr. Johnfon has oh- 
 ie&ed to the DoSrine of Tranfuhflantiation ^ I hope 
 not all, for that is a very good Difcourfe, and I on- 
 ly wifh for the Author's fake, y^yJi- omnia -^ but pray, 
 what is the matter? His whole Book^^ and all his Z)e- 
 monflrations ^ are founded upon thefe two Suppofitions^ 
 That a longer time doth not all of it coexifi in a 
 Jhorter 5 nor k a greater extenfion conflipated , or cqn^ 
 tained in a lefs. Suppofe this , ( for I have forgot 
 what his Demonftrations are, and have not the "Book 
 now by me ) what is this to the Trinity and Incar- 
 tion ? though a longer time cannot all of it coexifi in 
 a jhorter^ ( which I hope is not fo loolly exprefled 
 by Mr. Johnfon^ becaufe it is not fenfe, for Time is 
 in a perpetual flux, and nothing of it exifts but ^ 
 yvuH^ but what is this to an Eternal Being's coexifting 
 
 Mm with 
 
266 -^ Vtndlcathn of the VoBrtne of the 
 
 with time without time or fucceffion? Though agrea-- 
 ter Extenfion cannot he contained in a lefs^ what is this 
 to an infinite Mind's being preient every where with- 
 out Extenfion ^ for here is no Comparifon between a 
 longer and (horter time, but between Time and E« 
 ternity, which is not Time nor Succeflion, nor be- 
 tween a greater and lefs Extenfion, but between a 
 finite and infinite Mind, neither of which have any 
 Extenfion. But fiappofe the worft, how does this 
 concern the Doftrine of the Incarnation ? If he 
 could tell how to apply all the Demonftrations of 
 Mr. johnfo//^ (which he tells us in Print, he forbears 
 to do, becaufe the Prefs is not open to them ) thele 
 Abfurdities and Con traditions would not fall upon 
 the Doftrine of the Incarnation, but upon the Notion 
 ©f an Omniprefent God, who has no Parts, nor Ex- 
 tenfion, which was not invented to lalve the Difficul- 
 ties of the Incarnation, but is the true Notion of 
 God, and his Omniprefence, who is not Omnipre- 
 fent by Parts, but is every where a perfed and in* 
 finite Mind 5 and if he can ridicule God out of the 
 World, we will quarrel no more about the Incarnati- 
 on : I do not at all wonder, that he boan:s fo much, 
 what Follies and ContradiBions he could difcover in 
 the Aihanaftau Greedy for a Man who cannot under- 
 ftand common Senfe, can never fail of finding Follies 
 and Contradictions. 
 
 2» He proves , That the Union between God and 
 Man cannot mah^e One Perfon^ as the Union of Body and 
 ' Soul does^ hccauje the Union of Soul and Body ' is not 
 the Union of Two Perfons , hut only of One Perfon 
 ("the Soul J to a thing otherways without Life^ Rea- 
 Jbnj Memory^ or Free-will. But in the (pretended^ 
 Union of God with Many there are Two diflinB and 
 
 very 
 
Boly and Ever mjfed T(2^ / N J TT. 167 
 
 very different Lives ^ Memories , Reafons , and Free^ 
 vptUs^ which utterly deflroys a perfonal Union^ for that 
 fuppofes but One Life^ One Reafon^ One Memory^ One 
 Free-will, 
 
 Now this is falfe as to matter of Faft : For though 
 we will allow the Soul to be the Perfon, yet by its 
 Union to the Body , it has two forts of different 
 Lives, Wills, Affeftions, Appetites, Reafons 5 the Ani- 
 mal and Senfual, and the Rational Lifc;> Will, Appe- 
 tites, a Carnal, and a Spiritual Reafons that is, two 
 different Principles of Flefti and Spirit, as much as if 
 every Man had two Souls. 
 
 So that there may be two Lives, two Wills, &c. 
 in the fame Perfon, and it makes no difference in this 
 Cafe, whether thefe two Wills be feated in two diffe- 
 rent Subjefts, or the fame Soul by its vital Union to 
 Matter, have two diftinft Wills and Reafons 5 and 
 therefore we muft find out fome other Notion of a 
 perfonal Union than this, that one Perfon can have 
 but one Will^ one Reafon^ &c. For it is plain , one 
 Perfon may have two Wills and Reafons, and if he 
 may have two, he may have three, according to the 
 number and diverfity of Natures, which are united 
 into One Perfon. 
 
 Now when I inquire v/hat it is that unites diffe- 
 rent Natures into One Perfon, I do not mean, what 
 it is that naturally unites them 5 neither what the 
 natural Union is between Soul and Body in the Per- 
 fon of Man, nor of God and Man in the Perfon of 
 Chrift, for this we know nothing of, and therefore 
 no pretended Contradidions and Impoflibilities in 
 this, (hall hinder my belief of it 5 as I difcourfed in 
 the firft Seftion : But how two different Natures 
 
 M m 2 may 
 
268 A Ftndication of the DoBrine of the 
 
 may be fo united, as to make but One Agent 3 for 
 One Agent is One Perfon. 
 
 Now there are but two things neceflary to this: 
 I. That thefe different Natures be fo united, that 
 the fuperior Nature have the Government of the 
 whole Perfon ^ unlefs there be One governing Prin- 
 ciple , there cannot be One Agent , and therefore 
 not One Perfon, and the fuperior Nature muft be the 
 Governour and the Perfon: As this Author tells us, 
 the Soul is the Perfon in Man, a§ being the fuperior 
 governing Principle 5 and in the Soul, Reafon has 
 the natural government of Senfe, ss being the fupe- 
 rior Faculty, proper to a Spirit, whereas Senfe re- 
 fults from its Union to Matter : And thus in ChrifV, 
 the DivineWord is the Perfon, and in this perfonal 
 Union of God and Man, has fuch a government of 
 Humane Nature, as R-eafon has over Senfe in Man : 
 I John 14. And therefore St. John tells us, That the Word vpos 
 n/dde Flejl.\ or was Incarnate : For the Perfon of the 
 Word, took Humane Nature into a perfonal Union 
 with himfelf 
 
 And this is the Reafon, why all the Adions and 
 Paflicns of Humane Nature are attributed to Chrift, 
 as the Son of God, becaufe the Word is the Perfon, 
 to whom Humane Nature is united, and who has the 
 fule government of it 5 as all the Sufferings and 
 Actions of the Body arc attributed to the Man, 
 though the Soul is the Perfon , becaufe it is the 
 fuperior and governing Power, and conftitutes the 
 Perfon. 
 
 2. To ccmpleat a perfonal Union, it is necefla- 
 jy there be C)ne Gonfcioufnefs in the whole : As a 
 Man has a confcious Senfation of every thing, which 
 
 is 
 
Holy and Ever mjfed T\1K1 TY. i6^ 
 
 is done or fufFered either by Body or Soul 5 feels its 
 own Reafonings and Paffions, and all the Pains and 
 Pleafures of the Body 5 and in this Senfe there muft 
 be but one Life in one Perfon, and this one Confci- 
 oufnefs to the whole, is the one Life. 
 
 But then we muft obferve, That where different 
 Natures are united into One Perfon, this univerfal 
 Confcioufnefs to the whole Perfon, is feated only 
 in the fuperior and governing Nature, as ic ought to 
 be^ becaufe in that the "Natures are ugited into One 
 Perfon, and that muft govern and take care of the 
 whole. Thus the Mind in Man is confcious to the 
 whole Man, and to all that is in Man, to all the mo- 
 tions of Reafon and Senfe s but Senfe is nofc confci- 
 ous to all the Aftings of Reafon, which is the fuperior 
 Faculty, though it is confcious, as far as is neceflary 
 to receive the Commands and Diredions of Reafon 5 
 for the Body moves at the command of the Will, and 
 it is fo far confcious to its Commands. 
 
 Thus in the Perfon of Chrift, who is God-man, 
 the Divine Word is confcious to his whole Perfon ^ 
 not only tohimfelf, as the Divine Word, but to his 
 vThole Humane Nature 5 not by fuch Knowledge as 
 God knows all Men, and all things, but by fuch a 
 Confcioufnefs, as every Perfon has of himfelf; But 
 it does not hence follow, that the Humane Nature is 
 confcious to aH that is in the Wordx, for that de- 
 fcroys Humane Nature by making it Omnifcient, 
 which Humane Nature cannot be ^ and its being uni- 
 ted to the Perfon of the Word, does not require it 
 fliould be 5 for an inferior Nature is not confcious 
 to all, that is in the ftiperior Nature, in the fame Per- 
 fon. 
 
 This 
 
-lyo A V'mXtcatm of the T>oSirme of the 
 
 This Union of Natures does require, that the in- 
 ferior Nature be confcious to the fuperior, as far as 
 its Nature is capable, and as far as the perfonal Uni- 
 on requires 5 for fo Senfe is in fome degree conlci- 
 ous to Reafon, and it cannot be one Perfon without 
 it. And therefore the Human Nature in Chrift is in 
 fome meafure, [^ in fuch a degree, as Human Nature 
 can be, ^ confcious to the Word^ feels its Union to 
 God, and knows the Mind of the Words not by Ex- 
 ternal Revelajions, as Prophets do, but by an In- 
 v/ard Senfation, as every Man feels his own Thoughts 
 and Reafon, but yet the Human Nature of Chrift 
 may be ignorant of fome things , notwithftanding 
 its perfonal Union to the Divine Word, becaule it is 
 an inferior, and fubjeft Nature. And this I take to 
 be the true account of what our Saviour (peaks a- 
 24 Match. 36. bout the Day of Judgment 5 Of that day and hour 
 kttoweth no man^ no not the Angels in Heaven^ but my 
 Father only: Where our Saviour fpeaks of himfelfas 
 a Man 5 and as a Man he did not at that time know 
 the Day of Judgment, though perfonally united to 
 the Divine Word, who did know it 5 for as he is the 
 Divine Word^ fo our Saviour tells us. That he fe$th 
 all that the Father doth^ and therefore what the Fa- 
 ther knows, the Eternal Word and Wifdom of the 
 Father muft know alfo. 
 
 But yet the Human Nature of Chrift was confci- 
 ous to all the aftings of the Divine Word in it ^ as 
 we may fee in the Story of the Woman, having an 
 Ifliieof Blood twelve Years, who in the midft of a 
 great crowd of People, came behind him, and touch- 
 ed his Garment, and was immediately healed 5 our 
 Saviour prefently asked who touched him, and when 
 all denied it, and Peter wondered he ftiould ask that 
 
 ^ Queftion, 
 
Holy and Ever (Blejfed T^i I N ITY. 27 f 
 
 C^ueftion , when the Multitude thronged him, and 
 prelled him 3 J^^Jf^ fi^^-) fi^^ l^^dy hath touched me^^^'^^^1A^• 
 for I perceive that vertMe is gone out of me ; he felt 
 the miraculous Power of the Divine Word work- 
 ing in him, as a Man feels what is done in him- 
 
 felf. 
 
 This I think gives fome account, how God and 
 Man may be united into One Perfon, which though 
 it be a great Myftery, which we cannot fully com- 
 prehend, yet is not Wholly unintelligible, much lefs 
 fo abfurd and contradiftious , as this Author pre- 
 tends. 
 
 As for what he adds about believing and profejjing 
 this Faith, let him apply it to Chrift's being the 
 Mejjias^ or any other Article of the Creed, and fee 
 what Anfwer he will give to it 5 for what if Men cant 
 believe it ^ Are we obliged under the penalty of the 
 lofs oj Salvation to believe it , whether we can or 
 no ? Doth God require of any Man an impojfible Con- 
 dition in order to Salvation .<? No ! but if it be cre- 
 dible, and what a wife Man may believe, and what 
 he has fufficient Evidence to believe , he (hall be 
 damned, not beeaufe he cant, but won't believe 
 it. 
 
 But what if it he againjl a Man s Confcience to pro- 
 ofs it ?■ if he profefs againfh his Confcience\: 
 
 he fins ^ and if notwithftanding this a Man fnuft ei- 
 ther profefs or be damned^ then God requires fome Men 
 to fin in order to . their Salvation, God requires 
 no Man to profefs againft his Confcience 5 but he 
 (hall be damned for not believing it, not for not 
 profeffing what he does not believe : It look^ like 
 a Judgment upon thefe Men , that while they can 
 talk- of nothing lels than the fevereft Reafon, they 
 
 impofc. 
 
 L. 
 
V 
 
 27 ^ ^ Findicdtion of the DoBrine of the 
 
 impofe upon themfelves , or hope to impofe upon 
 the World by the niofl: Childifh Sophiftry and Non- 
 fenfe. 
 
 And now I (hall leave our Note-maker to harangue 
 by himfelf, and perfuade Fools, if he can, that the 
 Doftrine of the Trinity and Incarnation is nothing 
 but Popery, or muft be parted with for the fake of 
 Jews^ or be made a Complement to the M^rt?^^^ Am- 
 baflador, and his admired Maho/^fct'-^ or muft be fa- 
 crificed to Peace and Unity, and to fecure Men from 
 Damnation, who will not believe. I will not envy 
 him the fatisfadtion of fuch Harangues, it being all 
 the Comfort he has 5 for I am pretty confident he 
 will never be able to reafon to any purpofe in this 
 Caufe again. 
 
 Glory be to the Father^ and to the Son^ and to the 
 
 Holy Ghojl, 
 As it was in the beginnings is now^ and ever jijall bt^ 
 
 World without end. Amen. 
 
 # " 
 T H E E N D. 
 
 ADFERTISE M ENT. 
 
 APrefervative againfl Popery, in two Parts ; with a Vindication, in 
 Anfvver to the Cavils of Len>k Sahrnn a Jefuic. 40. 
 A Difcourfe concerning the Nature, Unity, and Communion of the Ca- 
 tholick Church. 40. 
 
 A Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor, iVoi;fw5. 4. 1688. 40. 
 A Praaical Difcourfe concerning Death. The Seventh Edition. 80. 
 The Cafe of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers, ftatcd and refol- 
 ved, according to Scripture and Reafon, and the Principles of the Church 
 Aof England. The Fifth Edition. 40. 
 
 A Vindication of the Cafe of Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers. 
 40. 
 
 By Willutm Sherloc^, D. D Dc?an of Sc. Faul\ Printed for W. Rogers. 
 
 A 
 
-^^^^ 
 
 L>m^ 
 
 'f'm. 
 
 
 ■< 
 
 ^ 
 
 K' 
 
 4'« 
 
 ■# 
 
 '!' 
 
 ) I 
 
 ^»^l^ 
 
 
 ^■ifpfr^r '^"'^ 
 
 
 >*: ! 
 
 
 ■Ifc.:? 
 
 #- 1. 
 
 ♦ » 
 4 
 
 - 4t 
 
 v^ 
 
 f¥''j-i""-*Vt 
 
 
 '^A. 
 
 \ , 
 
 ak 
 
 L\>.!. 
 
 .?ftb