(I)

/

The gonﬁzquencer of the Modalijir Syﬂem.

Ow we have taken a viewof

thefe two things, which were

ropos’d to he in uir‘d into.

_ iliirji, We have feed], What are
thafe plain and inconttjiable Trnthr, again,/t
the denial and unbelief of which thofe pro-
nounce Damnation, who take the Damnatory
Claufe: in the Athanaﬁan Creed as denouncing
Damnation again/i them only who deny certain
plain and inconteﬂable Truths‘, which may be
zmderﬂood by the Doﬂrirze: of the Trinity and
Incarnation, and which are agreeable to the Be-
lief of the ‘Unity of God. Secondly, We have
feen, What Reafonr they alledg, why by the
Doflriner of the Trinity and Incarnation they

anderﬂand the [aid plain and inconte/lable

Truthr, and confequently why they jndg they
may apply the Damnatory Claufes a: they do,
or take them in that fenfe in which they take
them. We may now bend our thoughts on
what has been faid, and fee what 0b_/er12a-
tion: may be made upon the whole. Re-
ﬁeéting attentively thereupon, it feems that
the following Conﬁderation: do naturally pre-
fent themfelves.

In general, the Refult of the foregoing
Notions is, not only that the difference be-
tween the Orthodox and thofe that are eall’d
‘Unitarian: is only verbal or about Terms
and Expreﬂions, but alfo that there Term:
and Exprejﬁonr, which divide the Llnitarians
from the Trinitarians, ought not U be im-

po.r’d as :1 Condition of Church-Communion: T

And that, for theie Reafcns.

(1.) The Trinitarian Term: and Expref-
ﬁom, which caufe the Separation of the
Unitarians, are not fcriptural, and cannot be
thought abfolutely necejj”.-zry.

(2.) They are very improper, and do in-
tingle and obfcure, rather than illuﬁrate,
the Doﬁrines that are intended and cxprel'-
fed thereby.

.7

(3.) They occaﬁon many needleﬂ and
rnzedifying Speculations.
(4.) They are the Caufe of much (un-

ireafonable) Heat, and ( unchriﬁian) Un-

eharitablenefs.

(5.) They caufe Heathens, Jews, Turks,
and many Chriflians to think, that Chri-
ﬂians bcellieve and are taught to believe
three Go r.

(6.) They are a Stone of Stumbling, in
the way of thole who truly believe the Gof-
pel to be a Divine Revelation, andthey are
an Occaﬁon of Separation.

(7.) A better Protuiﬁon would be made for
the Truth, (and inconteﬂably every Man’s
Right of difcerning and judging for himfelf
would be better fecur’d) by the difufe ofththe
{hid Terms and‘Expreﬂ'ions than by eir
being impofd. , \

In general, the Refult of the fore mention’d
Notions, in the ﬁrﬂ place,'i5-, that the dijTe-
rence between the Orthodox and thofe that are
wild ‘Unitarian: 1’; only-‘verbal, or about
Term: and Expreﬂions. Thoﬁ: Men, who
are fo much offended with the unfcriptural
Expreﬂions _in the Athanaﬁan Creed, do not
deny thefe three efiential Properties, Intel-
lefl, Wifdom, and Will, to be in the Divine
Nature-, and they are call’d ‘Unitariam,
only becaufe, not thinking that upon the
account of the faid Properties, God can
properly and fafely be call’d three Per/ans,
die. they will not ufe the Orthodox Terms,
as {hall hereafter be further obferv’d. They
conceive, that, if we fpeak of God as be-
ing three Divine Perjonr, this will give the
Idea (efpecially to the vulgar, who are hard
of Comprehenﬁon, and do not conﬁder,
and who are much the greater part of Man.-
kind) of three Gods, (which doth but too
often happen, whatever be laid to prevent
it, many reprelénting to themfelves the

A three

 

I25"

three Divine Perfons as three Deities that are
at perﬁeét Unity and Peace among them-
felyesg and «that, therefore make as it were
but one-God, -,) as when we fpeak of three
Human Perjbnr, that gives (and that very
julily) the Idea of three Men. Howbeit,
on the other hand, the generality of the
Orthodox own and profefs _that they do not
mean and intend that God is three Perfons,
as three Men are three Perfons, but as the
Soul may be {aid to be three Perfons, or as
one and the fame Mind or Spirit m-ay be con-
ﬁdered three feveral ways, and fo may be
called three Perfons.

In lik manner, as touching the Doc-
trine of t e Incarnation ; the ‘Unitarian: do
not ' deny that the Divine Wifdom in a
mo,/I extraordinary manner dwell: in, illumi-
nater, conduti: and aﬂifir, and i:.manifeji-
ed by our Lord jefm Chri/i: only they
think, that upon that account God cannot
properly be laid to be Incarnate, becaufe
that Expreﬂion feems to import that God
partakes of the Inﬁrmities and Paflions of
the Flelh, as aSoul that is Incarnate doth.
But the Trinitariaar declare, that tho they
ufe the term Incarnate, yet they do not
believe that God can fuffer or be affected
like the Humane Nature, as the Soul {af-
fers and feels the Alfettions of the Body
with which it is Incarnate. When they
plainly exprefs their Notion concerning that
Doéirine, they make it amount to that
which we have feen the ‘Unitarian: do al-
low of, namely, That the Divine Wi/dam in
II moﬂextraordinary manner dwell: in, illu-

' urinates, conduﬂ: and aﬂijlr, and la‘ mani-

féﬂed by our Lord ]e/m Chriji. It is then
clearly evident that here is no Difference or
Conttoverf about the thing it felf, but on-

about t Inunner of expreﬂing it, or a-
bout the ufeof certain Words and Terms.

and then, in the next place, the Refult
of «I this in general feems to be, that
theft Tenn: and Expreﬁonr, which divide the
unitarians from the Trinitariam, ought not
to be impofcd as 4 Condition of Cbm'ch-Com-
marina.

Tho from all that has been laid upon this
Subjeﬁ it do not follow, ‘that when thefe

Terms are confécrated in the Church, they
are not abfolutely to be ufed , yet the fore-
going Arguments may imply, that the ufe
of them ihould not be impofed: For (zo-
vernorr may lbmetimes enaft fame ‘laws
which they lhould not enafi, and yet which
when enaéied, the grruerned may for the
fake of Order fubmit to, notwithfianding
the incommodioufnefs and injufiice of the
faid Laws. ‘

If the Governors of the Church are
not infallible, and if they fticl-r not reli-
gioully to the Go/pel Ter/nr of (hznimznion,
they may abufe the Power which they are
intruﬁed with, they may exceed their bounds
in their Laws and Prefcriptions about God’s
Worlhip, and about the differences of
Opinions, and make too’ great Encroach-
ments upon Cl1ril‘ti.sn Liberty 5 and for this
no doubt they lhall be anfwerable to God :
Howbeit, if their Injtxnftions do not de-
ﬁroy the elfentials of Religion, and are not
contrary to Holitzefs and Vertue, they may
be complied with for Peace ﬁke. If
Governors, for inftance, ordered that no-
thing {hculd be eaten but Herhr, or that no-
thing fhould be eaten but Fle/h-Meat, or
that when Chriflians Allembled themfelves
for the publick Worlhip of God they fhould
all of them wear Dog:-Skins or Bali-Hider
over their Garments ', it is not to be doubted
that fuch Arbitrary Governors would in-
falliblybe damned, for this hcrrid Tyranny
and this notorious Encroachment upon the
Rights and Liberties of Chriﬁians: Never-
theleis, thofe who werein fome meafure
perfuadcd, that thefe tyrannical Impoﬁti-
ons do not deﬂroy the Efience of Reli-
gious Worlhip, might and perhaps ought to
comply with them, if they found they
could be very Pious and Devout, when
they condefcendcd to thefe Human In{‘titu-
trons.

Thus the Arguments, that have been
treated of in this Chapter, poﬂibly may
not import that the Orthodox Terms ought’
not to be ufed by thofe upon whom they
are impofed, and in whofe POW€l‘1t is 1.11
no wife to take away the ufe of them;

but it feems that thefe Arguments, and that
‘ thcfe

 line.

  ‘thefe Notions‘ neceliarily imply, that the
 -9%

‘ z

I <9 '2-

W i: '

Term: and Expreﬂions, which divide the Uni-
tarians ﬁrom the Trinitarians, ought not to
he impofed as a Coziclitiorz of Church-Comm»
nion; (and confequently, ‘that thofe fhall
anfwer to God for it, that can concur to the
taking away the ufe of them, and that ef-
feftually do it not.) For ‘
(1,) The "Trinitarian Term: and Expref—
lions-, which caufe the Separation of the Uni-

tarians, are not Scriptural, and camzot he

thought ahjolutelr vzecejiiziy, that is to fay,
(at leaii) by thofe who take them in the
lenfe which has been fhewn, and which is
now under Confideration. No body in-
deed denies but that it is agreeable to the
tenor of the Scripturesof the Old. and New
Tefiament, that in the Godhead there" is
:1 Divine Urzderﬂiznding, a Divine Wifdom,
and a Divine .LrrUe' or‘ Will. But who can
pretend, or ferioully fay that God, _c0nfi'
dered as di/iingu_i]hed by thefe PTO}>£’l”lI£’J‘,_ is
Called three Perfom" in Scripture; or that
the Scripture aétually terms God, conlider-
ed as diﬁinguil‘ne_d by the Property of
'O'nderfianding, God the Father; conlidered
as difiinguilhed by the Property of Divine
Knowledgj, God the Son ; and conﬁdered. as
diﬁinguilhed by the Property of Divine
Love," God the Holy Ghoﬂ .9 ’Tis true, We
read of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghoji; ‘but inthofe Places there.is nothing
at allpintimating, that thereby we are to‘

underftand God _as diflinguifh’d by the.

Properties of Divine ‘ZJnoler_/ianding, Know-

In the New Teﬂament (will the ,7Jnita
rian: fay,)' God is ﬂiled Our Father, and
the Father of our Lord fefm Chriﬂ, and
our Lord fefue Chriﬂ is called the Son, and
the Son of God, as well as the Son of Man,
by way of Excellency; and by the Holy
Ghoﬂ fometimes is meant the Virtue of God,
fometimes the Divine Infpiration, and ordi-
narily it denotes the Chief of the Angels, or
elfe (colleliiiiely) it implies not -only the
Chief, but alfo the whole Body of H01)’ SP1‘
ritr, by whofeminiﬂry God often doth ma-
ny wonderful Works. _ .

HOWb€lt_. thofe that take the Trinity of

"*i.ii

€23

Perfons in the Divine Nature to be God as
diflinguilh’d by the Properties of ‘On-
derjianding, Knowledg, and Love, cannot
but own that the Orthodox Terms are not
Scriptural, but have been deviled,’ or ac-
commodated to the Orthodox Notions,'by
Chrifiians, in proeels of Time‘; and there-
fore, they muit take them as Eccleﬁajiical
Terms, confecrated to exprefs the Divine
Nature: and by the Father, the Son, and

the ‘Holy Ghoji, mention’d il1Script1b'e, they‘

can mean nothing elfe but‘°what an ‘Um’-
tarian can underliand thereby 5 ﬁnce it feems,
they cannot pretend, that thereby the Scrip-
ture deligns God as diliingiiilhed by the
Properties of ‘Uhderﬂanding, Wifdom, and

‘Love. Indeed they aliert, and that very
'incontel‘tably, ythatiwhat they underﬂand

by the Orthodox Expreﬂions is certainly in
Scripture, or that it is agreeable to the te-
nor of Scripture to believe that there is in
God a Divine ‘Undcrﬂanding, Knowledg, and-
Will 3 and that, thin, the Dogm of the
Holy Trinity is certainly Scriptural, the

thing being agreeable (as was laid) to the‘

tenor of Scripture, tho the word: that ex-
prefs it be not ufed in that fenfe in Scripture;
(as was obferved,) the Scripture, when it
{peaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghoﬂ, not feeming (for any thing that can
be lhewn) tovdiliinguiﬂi thereby God by
the particular Properties of ‘Unolerftanding,

reﬂex Knowledg, and Will. It would then‘

be an ungrounded Conceit, if any imagin-
ed that Father, Son, and Spirit, as applied
to‘ exprefs the feveral Properties of ‘Under-
ﬂanding, Ifnowledg, and, Will in God, are
Scriptural Terms. - . i

And if Father, Son and Spirit, as deno-
ting God difiinguilhed by Divine ‘Under-
jlandirig, reflex Wifdom, and Will, be not
Scriptural Terms, the Holy Scripture, for
any thing that appears, never reprefenting
God, as particularly diﬂinguifhed by either

of his Properties, under the Names of God’

flit Father‘ or God the Son or God the Holy
Ghq/i, nor ever calling thefe three Diﬂinﬂions

(God diﬂinguilhed by the Property of Di-:

vine ‘Z/izderﬂanding, and God difiinguilhed
by the Property of reﬂex Wifalom, and God
A at - dillini.

.   ( 4)
dillinguifhed by the Property of Divine

Will or Low:,) three Perfonr -, it follows in-'

eonteﬂably, that neither‘ therefore can the

following Terms be thought Scriptural :

‘Namely, that the fecond Perﬁm of the Trini-

ty was Incarnate, or that God the Son was

perjbnally ‘United with the Man ]efm Chrijl 5

thereby only meaning that God, as particu-

larly diﬂinguilhed -by, or particularly con-
iidered with his Property of reﬂex Wifalom,
doth conliantly and extraordinarily dwell in
and illuminate or conduit and aﬂijl our Lord

fefm Chri/i, in the difcharge of his Oﬂice.

For to own that God, particularly dillin-
guifhed by the Property of reﬂex Know.
ledg, is not , in Scripture called the Son, or
God the Son, or the fecona’ Perfon of the Tri-
nity, and yet to pretend at the fame time
that it is laid in Scripture that God the Son,
or the Son, or the fecond Perfon is Incarnate-,

and that the Scripture thereby politively

and expreﬂy declares that God di inguijhed
by the Property of re ex Knowledg, is perﬁJ-
nally united with Chrift; is an exprelé Con-

tradiﬂion: For it is expreﬂy to fay, and
unfay the fame thing; for itis (both) to lay

that the Scripture doth not call God, as par-

cularly diftinguilhed by the Property of re-

ﬂex Knowleclg, the Son or God the Son or the

fecond Perﬁm, and to fay that the Scripture

alferts that God the Son the fecond Perjbn of
the Trinity is Incarnate, and that it is God

asparticularly diﬂinguilhed by the Property
of reﬂex Knowledg th.lt is Incarnate. That
is as if, having granted that the Scripture

no where faith that Melchi(edel{ is Cham,

we lhould at the fame time hold that the

Scripture alferts that Melchizedelq tbe King of
Salem that blelled Abraham is C/Jam.

It is then moll evident and undeniable,
that if the Terms, that exprefs the Doﬂrine
of the Trinity, (according to this Notion of
it that we are conlideting) are not Scriptural,
(as tis obferved they are not -,) neither cer-
tainly can thofe Term: be Scriptural, that
cxprcfs the Doflrine of the Incarnation, a-
greeably to the ﬁrid Notion. It is true the
.$‘crip.‘ure lays that the Word war Flefh, and
that God was the Word: but (not to inﬁll
that no more may be implied by theft Places,

but that Goa’, or. the {Ewing Knowledg. of
God‘s Will, was the Subjefl of this Mzjfage ,,
or that it was Goal himfelf who fpolge by the
Meﬂerzger of the Gofpel, or who immediate-
ly gave him his Commillion, and lent him
on this great Errand, it being often ufual in
Scripture to put the Caufe for the Effeft,
and that this molt illuftrious Mejjenger was
buta frail and mortal Man, altho God"s
principal Embaffador, endued with the Di-
vine Power of working Miracles, and a
God to Mankind in a more eminent manner
than Mofe: was laid to be a God to Aaron
and to Pharaoh, dye. Excel. 7. I. Exact’. 22.
28. Pfal. 45. 6. (701122 Io. gs. howbeit,
whatever may be tle exaft fenfe of there
Palfages, it is notorious) it is no where
faid in Scripture as we have feen, that God
as particularly diftinguilhed by the Property
of reﬂex Wifdom was perfonally ‘United
with Jefuschtifl, it being not fo much as
expreffed in any place, as was obferved, that
by the Word or by the Sonwe are to under-
ftand God diﬂinguifhed by this Property of re-
ﬂex Knowledg. For it is manifeli, that hu-
man Conjeélurcr, and remote Confequencer,
drawn from difputable and far-fetched Ar-
guments, are not to pafs for the exprefr T exit
of Scripture; for no Man has more Right
‘than another to draw fuch Confequencer, or
to make his Comment or Interpretation palé
for Scripture. It is therefore plain, that
‘ nothing can be laid to be Scriptural, but
‘ the very Letter of Scripture, (left in its
‘ generality) or elle what is mo/I exprefr
‘ therein, and mojt incontejiahly olruiom to
‘ all ﬁncere Conﬁderers. Now it would be
abfurd and altogether groundlefs to alfert,
that it is moﬂ exprefr (and that it it mojt
inconteﬂably obviou: that it it fa) in Scripture,
that the jecond Perﬁm of the Trinity is per-
ﬂmally ‘United (as is here underftoocl, and
not only in this fenfe, but alfo in thefe
Terms) with the Man Chris’? fefua, and
that by the Word and by the Son we are ne-
celfarily to underftand Goal particularly ali-
_,/iinguifhed by the Property of reﬂex Know-
leal .
gLi}:cwife, it cannot certainly be liiid to
be Scriptural, to inwlqe Goal unn'ert.-'.r-.> Appel-
l.Ill(7‘.s

 

 

.—.—
.' .—/‘:‘r"4sv- -v - —~
, . 7‘ ' I ’ ' -

lationx peculiar to our .S'a1;iour’s Human Na-

ture. The Scripture indeed tells us of fe-_

verall~‘erl‘ons, who aélually feeing our Lord
jefus Chrift, called upon him, and begged
of him to grant them certain Favors, which
might undoubtedly be asked of him in
rhofe Circumftances. P It acquaints us more-
over, that all things are commanded to obey
his Orders.

Howbeit, it no where exprefles that the
Man fefm Chrijt is to be involged, when he
is not fear: of us 5 but it direfls us to invoke
God himfelf under Appellations peculiarly

denoting the Divine Nature, and to ask all_

we need of him for the fake of his Holy
Child Jefus, our Mediator and Intercellorz
{'0 that God, inclined gracioully to receive
fuch Addrelfes, acquaints our Advocate
with his Will hereupon, and accordingly
Orders are given, concerning the Affairs of
the Church, to the Holy Angels who are
all waiting our Saviour’s Commands. Thus
the fulnefs of the Godhead dwells in Chriﬂ,
and thus the Divine Wifdom illuminates,
conduits and afliﬁs our Lord Jc-fus Chrill,
to whom all Principalities and Powers are
fubjeéted. ‘But llill, there is neither Ex-
ample nor Precept, in Scripture, of aa’dref-
ﬂng our Petitions to the Man fefwr Chri/t,
when he is not feen of us, but only to
God, gthro Chrifl, or in the l\’-ame, or
for the lake of Chriﬂ.

Now it being evidentthat the Te rmr, ruhich
cauﬁz the Separation of the Lln‘tarians,- are
not Scriptural; it is eafy to obferve, that
the ufe of the [aid Term: cannot be thought
abﬂilutely necejfary. For furely, to iliy that
any thin which is not Scriptural is aL,"o!ute-
ly Neceﬂ%ry,woultl be very injurimr to the
Holy’, Ghoji that diftated the Sc?'i}-t':.7'e, and
that gave -it. for a perfcét Rule to the Chrif-
tian Church.

And after all, what re-al7:,-n can they
poflibly allign, who talte the Dc(ft'.‘inC‘ of
the Trinity in the fenfe that we are now con-
fzdering, why any unfcriptural Tomi; Ihculd
be held ahfolutely Necejjlzry?

Vvhy fhould it be abfolutely l"Cece,-jizry to
call God, conﬁdered as particularly diiiin-
guilhed by his ellential l’r.>y-cities, ts/ace‘

Perfonr, God the Father, God the Son,,'8lc‘.
when the Scripture doth it not? Or why
ihould it not be fuﬁicient to Salvation, to
own that there is in God a Divine ‘Under-
ﬂanding, a Divine Wifdom, and a Divine
Wiﬂ 5 without calling thefe, or God there-
with, by any unfcriptural Names?

In like manner, taking the Doftrine of
the Incarnation in the fenfe that is agreeable
to this Notion of the Trinity; why fhould
any unfcriptural Terms concerning it be Ne-
ce_/]”a/y .9 If by the Incarnation, or perfonal
Union, he meant that God fully -dwells in
Chrifl, that is to fay, particularly by his
Divine Wifdom, doth extraordinarily and
conllantly illuminate, conduél and aflill him ;

why can it not be fuﬂicient to fay with the_

Scripture, that the fulnefr of the Godhead
dwell: bodily in the Man Chriji fefm .9 And
if in calling upon the Son of David, the in-
tendment be to invoke God who moﬂ extra-
ordinarily manifefl: hi; Divine Wifdom in and
by the Son of David 5 Why fhould it not b6
fuﬂ-icient in our Religious Addrelies to ex-
rrefs our felves thus, 0 0051, W710 40]} moﬂ ex‘
traordinarily manifeji thy Divine Wijdom in and
by the Son of David, (ye ? this would not
at all be contrary to- Scripture nor to thc
aﬁirefaid Z‘.’otion.c of t-he Trinity and Incar-
nation, nor to the Doélrines of the Trinity
and Incarnation in general. It follows there-
fore,that none of the unfcriptural Terms rela-
ting hereto can be neceffary -, and confcquently,
that to inﬁll upon the life of them as a Con-
dition of Church-Communion, is contrary
to the Gofpel Terms of union, on the part
of the Impofers.

This has beenin a great meafure taken
notice of, by many Learned Men who are
in the greatell llepute among the reformed
Churches. St. .4u_/iin owns that the word
I’erfon: applied to the Holy Trinity, is not
Scriptural. (Dc Trin. 1.5. c. 9.)

St. jcrom, in a Letter to Pope Damafm,
ablblutely difapproves the Llfe of unfcriptural
Terms.

Ca/"uin concludes thus his Dillertation of
tl:e_Trini.ty. S If any are lb Nice, that
‘ alter all they will not allow the word.
l 1’v.'rj:ns -, yet they cannot but conlefs that

' ‘ Wll-C‘l_l

i‘<6>i

’‘ when we fay one, we meanthe Subﬂance-,_
‘ when we fay three, we intend that in the
‘ Divine Efience or Subfiance there are three
‘“'?ropertler. Which being ﬁncerely ac-
‘ knowledgd by any, we will not ‘litigate
‘ with them. (Inftit. Cap. 6. Seth 25. P.
179. Genev. 1550;) '
~ In another place he faith. ‘ It is fit to
‘ forbear fuch F omis of f peaking which are
‘ remote from the ufe of the Holy Scrip-
‘ ture. " - ---The word Trinity is grounded
‘on no Teﬂimony of God’s Word, (go.
(Ept ad Pol. Tom. ult. P. 687.

Luther, to mention here no more, like;
wife faith. ‘ The Word, Trinity is an Human
‘ Invention. It were better to call Almigh-
‘ ty God, God, than Trinity. (Poﬂil. major.
Dominic.) ~ , r

I-lowbeit, it fufiiceth here to have ob-
{erv’d, That the Trinitarian T erm: and Ex-
preﬁonr, which caufe the Separation of the
‘Unitarian, are not fcriptural, and cannot be
thought abﬁilutely neeeﬂizry. What is next to
be conﬁder’d, is this. ,

(2.) The [aid Terms are very improper, and
do intangle and ohfcure, rather than illuﬂrate,
the Doﬂriner that are intended and expr'eﬁ~’d
thereby. That they are improper, the gene-
rality of the Orthodox do own. And indeed
who can deny it? Or who can think it very
proper, to call God, (who is the molt ﬁmplc
or moﬂ one Being) Father, Son, and Holy
Ghoﬂ proceeding from both the former,)
upon t e account of his Properties, ‘Under-
ﬂanding, Wifdom, Win , or to fay that God
is incarnate in a perfonal and hypoﬂatical
Union, becaufe God, by his Divine Wifdom,
doth moﬂ eminently dwell in, and mofi ex-
traordinarily and conﬂantly illuminate, con-
dud and am]? the Man Jefus Chrift ?

And now, that the Terms do obfcure, ra-
ther than illuﬂrate, the Doftrines that are
intended thereby, Experience doth conﬁrm
and demonlirate; for if you ask of a thou-
ﬁnd among the People who daily ufe thefe
Expreﬂions, it will be found that not one of
them ever conceiv’d, that, for inftanoe, by
God the Father is meant God as particularly
Jiﬂingui/lid by the Property of Divine ‘Under-
ﬁanding, &c. But by thefe Terms, Trinity,

 

three Perﬁmr, Incarnation, and the like, the
generality of People, that daily ufe them,
either do not imagine and cannot, atall
perceive what is meant thereby, or. the '
frame to themfelves quite other Ideas there-
of than they lhould; and, even to them,
often, thofe Ideas appear mofi grofs, and
ﬂrange, and inconﬁﬁent with the clearell:
Suggeliions of reafon. If you {hould ‘t€ll
them that when we call upon the Son of
David, our meaning is to invoke God who
dwelleth in and illuminates the Son of David ;
would they not truly reply, that, that is
more than ever they thought of or were
aware, and that if this be themeaning of
that Orthodox Exprefiion, the {aid Expr'ef-
ﬁon mufl: be own’d to_ be very uncouth and
obfcure? Why therefore lhould we not
exprefs our felves more properly and more
clearly, and plainly call upon God who dwel-
leth in and illuminate: the Son of David, ‘and
content our felves to aliert that in God
there is a Divine ‘Underjianding, W2:/dom, and

Will, without further intarggling that Doc-
trine, or obliging any, in folemn and reli-
gious Worﬂiip, to call God, upon the ac-
count of theft: Properties, God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Ghcji, three
Perfonr, Trinity .9 81c. _

_ (3.) The [aid T erm: octaﬁon many need-
lefr and unedifying Speculationr. There is no-
thing more ﬁmple, or plain and intelligible,
than this; that there is in God a Divine
Underftanding, a Divine Wifdom, and _a
Divine Will. Thefe few words Iiiﬂiciently

comprize and illufirate all that need to be .

faid concerning that matter. But if there
was occalion for a further explication there-
of, however, certainly, as was obferv’d, it
was not neceiiary to call God thereupon
three Perfonr, or to of: any unfcriptural or
obfcure and litigiozu Termr, which occaﬁon
no lefs litigiom and unedifying Speculations.
To what purpofe is it, as to any of the Ends
of Religion, nicely to inquire what Rela-
tions may be conﬁder’d among the Divine
Properties, wherein or how far they differ
from the Divine Efience, in what refpeft
they may be call’d Perfons, whether the
Divine Perfons are conﬂicutcd by Relation:
an

(7)

and in what manner, and the like? Yet
fuch Speculations as thefe are rank’d in the
higheﬂ place in fome Mens Theology, and
take up the greateft part of their time,
which aélually diverts them from making
more neceliary Obfervations. They are not
Iolicitous-to difcover the literal fenfe of
Scriyture, or to inform themfelves and o-
thers vxhat ceaﬁng from Sin or what habit
of Vertne is requir’d by the Gofpel, and
whether there be no Neceﬁt} to fade the
Lord hetimcr.- but nominal Queliions and
frivolous Speculations they give up them-
felves to, and they make a great buﬂle a-
bout them,’ and for fuch things they are
ready to brawl and‘ uarrel. There can be
nothing more unrea onable, and particularly
in this cafe, when no more is meant by
the Patrons of the unfcriptural and obfcure
and litigious Terms, than by the Unitarians.
Howbeit, it is an endlefs work to follow
them in the curious Speculations they build
on thefe Terms. - They content not them-
felves to call God, conﬁder’d with his ef-
fential Properties, three Perfons. Many
differ and difpute about the Charaéters, and
Order and Preheminences of thefe Perfons.
Some affect, that the triple Diliinﬂirn in
God is by Life, Intellefl, and Will-, fo that
God is three Perfons, as he is living, intel-
ligent, and willing. Others affirm, that Lfe
is nota diﬂintt Poweror Faculty, ‘but as it
were the Genus and Foundation of the o-
ther Faculties. And fome of the Antients,
and Modems alfo, have held, that the Cha-

raﬁer of the ﬁrjt Perfon is Power; there-

fore their Trinity is God, as Almighty, [elf-

knowing, and ﬁelf-lowing. But others make ‘

Power to be the Character of the third Per-
fon. Some Fathers of the middle Ages,
and fome Scholaﬂics that immediately fol-
low’d them, inﬁft only on Power, Wifdom,
and Goodneﬂr. ‘

They all call thefe Divine Properties not
only Charaﬂers, but Relations, which they_
aﬂirm (both) to difer from one another,
and yet to be but the fame Divine Elfence,
or not to differ from the Divine Elience but
only in our way of conceiving, a Relation in
the Divine Nature being ,diﬂinguilh’d from

the Divine Elfence only by an All o/"Rea/bn.

Thus they alfert, that the Divine Prin-
ciples are radically one, as they are the
Elfenceg but that virtually, connotatively,
and relatively to the Aﬂs, they are three.
And taking them to be Life, Intelleﬂ, and
Will, they after this manner explain that
Doéirine, in St. Athanaﬁza his Terms.
‘ The Catholic Faith is this, that we wor-
‘ {hip one God in Trinity, and Trinity in
‘ Unity; neither confounding the Princi-
‘ pler, nor dividing the Sub/iancc; for the
‘ vital-Power is one, the Izztelltflive ano-
‘ ther, the Volitive another: But the Deity
‘ of the Life, of the Intellec‘?, and Will, is
‘ the fame-, the Glory equal, (ye.

Thefe three they conceive to exifl one i

within another, circnm-inﬁ:ﬂi~uely, if it may
be fo faid. They affert, that the Perfons
‘are not dillinguillfd by them/elver, as the
ultimate Differences, but by Perfonal Pro-

pertier; and they deny that they are con-»

ﬂituted by Ahfoluter, not becaufe it is with-
out probable Rcafons, but becaufe it is de-
n)"d by the F-It/Jeri, and feems contrary to the
Councils, and the generality of the School-
Doﬂorr. Then they conclude that Relation
under the exprefr Form of Relation doth
conflitute a Divine Perfon, in its real Being,
without any A6‘: of the Mind, (ye. Some
as uilely as piouﬂy inquire, An Dem poﬂtt

’ fappojitare Ajinnm ant C ucurbitam : To which

Queﬂion the Anfwer -is, Refpondeo quad /Zc.
A thoufand more fuch (fubtile) Specula-
tlOl‘lS there are equally neceﬁary and edifying-,
but, I conceive, no more of theft need here
to be added. _

(4.) The [aid Terms are the Caufe of much
(nnreaﬁmable) heat, and (unchri/iian) uncha-
rztahlenefr. If upon the account of theﬁ:

Expreﬂionr and Terms, the Orthodox fall out

with the 'UnitarI'rm:; it is palpable that
there can be nothing more nnchri/iian and
nnreafonah1e.' For the ‘Unitarianr, do not
deny any of the Divine Properties; and they
ﬁrmly believe that God moft extraordinarily
aﬂiﬂs, with his Divine W2’/Zlom, the Lord
]efu.c Chri/I. And this laft is, fummarily,
as we have feen, what the Orthodox under-
ﬂand by the Incarnation, as by the Trinity

' they

' (8)..

they mean God’s mofi effential Proper-tier.
So'that Viﬁbly, the Orthodox and the ‘Unita-
rian: are agreed about the thing, as has been
fhewn-, the difference being only about
fome Expreﬂion:: and there-fore, as concer-
ning the Doﬂrines tlzemlelves, the ‘Unita-
rian: are as- truly Ortbvdox as thofe, that
appropriate the Title to themfelves, and
that ﬁnd fault with the ‘Unitarian:, on the
account till! the ‘Unitarian:, in freaking of
God and Cbriji, would ﬂick to the Expref-
ﬂan: and Term: of Scripture. _ Now to fay,
that to do fo is a He.efy, and a damnable
Herefy, is it felf, in any Man, a damnable
piece of Ineonfideration. And then furely
for - thofe who by the Trinity and Incarnation
uuderftand, and are convinc’d that by thefe
Doftrines is to be underﬂood what we have
feen the ‘Unitarian: do allow of ; for them,
I (Buy, to render the ‘Unitarian: odious, and

aﬂert that t are Heretic:, ( if any fuch
Perlbns do fo mnft needs be a moft ﬁnful
Diflimulation.

The difference betwixt the ‘Unitarian: and
Trinitarian: being as is reprefented by this
Syﬂem) only a di erence of Words‘; the ‘U-
nitarian: may with fome reafon complain
of the Trinitarianr, f()l' departing from the
fcriptural ﬁmpliei r, but the Trinitarian:
lave not ‘the  lhadow of ground to

lwith the ‘Unitar ianr. Yet the Tri-
nitarian: generally declaim againft and re-
vile the 'Unitarian:, as if they were the
Enemies of, and as if they deliroy’d the
Chriﬂian ‘Religion-, and they abhor and per-
feeute them, and fee every body againfl
them, as if they were the moﬂ abominable
of all Creatures.

Now what is the occaﬁon of all this un-
reafonableﬁir, and of this damnable un-
charitableneﬁ? Wh , the ‘Unitarian: hold,
that Divine Und nding, Wifdom, and
Will are Divine Propertie:; that it is fulﬁ-
cient to to term them, that there is no
reafon or neceﬂity upon the account thereof
me an God tbree Perfonr, lince the Scrip-
mfc doth it not, (ye, The Trinitarian:
rep , that Underﬂanding is the Cauﬁ: of
Wi   , and that Underﬂanding and wif-
dom produce the Will, that God may be

particularly and diﬂinﬁly conﬁder’d with
refpeft to each of thefe three Properties,
that being thus to be thrice conﬁder'd he is
three Perﬂm: according to the original ﬁgni-
ﬁcation of the Word Per/bn, that (ﬁnce
the ﬁrﬂ Property is the caufe of the fecond,
and the third proceeds from the two for-
mer) the ﬁrﬂ Perfon is to be call‘d the
l~'at'ner, the fecond the Son, the third the
Spirit that proceeds from the Father and
Sen, (ye. This is the utmoft of the diffe-
rence, that can here be fuppos’d.

It is then as if fome fpeculative Divines
call’d Faith the Mother of Chriftian Ver-
tues, Hope the Daughter of Faith, and
Charity the Grand-Daughter, and would
oblige all Chriﬂians, under pain of Excom-
munication, to make ufe of thefe Terms
in their Devotions, and to ask of God,
that he would bellow upon us not onfy the
Mother, but alfo her Daughter and Grand-
Daughter. If any were fo fcrupulous as
not to approve of fuch Expreflions in {0-
lemn Addrelfes to God, would it be agree-
able to Ch; iiiianity, to hate them upon that
account, and endeavor to render them odi-
ous to all the World, to reprefent them as
the Grand Enemies of all Truth and Reli-
gion, to exclude them from our Commu-
nion, and to opprefs and perfecute them?
This would certainly be to expofe Chri-
fiians to the hatred and contempt of the tell
of Men-, for vifibly it were to ufurp and
exercife a tyrannical Dominion over the
Confciences of our Brethren. For the fame
reafon then, the ‘Unitarian: ought not to
be excluded from us. And it muft needs
be very unrealonable and uncharitable (as
has been lhewn) to inlifi with Heat and
Paflion on any unfcriptural Expreflions,
which others do feruple at.

(5.) T be [aid Term: caufe lr’e.ztIJen:,
fcwr, and Turlqr, and man} C/Jri/iian: to
think, that Cbrijiian: believe and are taught
to /relieve time God:. The sxifeii among
the Heathen: have often on this account
retorted upon Chriﬂims the Accufation of
}’oI)tb¢=i[m, or oi holding m )f‘C Gods than
One. And the generality of the ]erv: and
M.zl:am:'tan: do abhor the Chriliian Religion,

chiefly

 

 
  

7..., _ __,,‘

chieﬂy becaufe they conceive that we hold
three Gods, that only agree in kind, or
that are of the fame Nature. Naturally
the vulgar among Clirifliaiis can fcarcely
tike the Orthodox Expreliions in any other
fenfe. And why fhould not they fo under-
ﬂand the faid Exprellions and Terms, when
they are fo underﬂood even by fome of the
molt famous Dorftors, and of the moﬂ emi-
nent Fathers? Gregory Nyﬂén, for inllance,
in fome Places of his Works, Cyril of Alex-
andria, Maximm the Martyr, T heodorztt A-
bucara, Theoriamu, held only a Speciﬁc ‘Uni-
ty of Nature between the Divine Perfons;
inch as between Peter, jamer, and 701222,
whom they would not therefore have to be
call’d three Men, but one, becaufe they are
of the fame Species; left otherwife they
fhould be oblig’d alfo, on their Principles,
expreﬂy to confels three Gods, which they
would not do verbally, tho three Divine.
Perfons, properly fo call’d, united only as
they are-of the lame Nature, cannot be
deny’d to be truly and really as much three
Gods, as three Men are three Men. See
Petaariur, de Trinitate, lib. 4. c. 9.

It multzbe own’d, that many of the Or-
thodox ‘Expreﬂions look that way, and in
their moﬂ obvious fenfe feem to imply a Plu-
rality of Gods. As Mr. Nye oblerves, in his
Inﬁitution: concerning the Trinity, (P. 195,)
the Terms Perfonr, Father, Son, Spirit. and
the like, in the Language of the People,
imply to many difiintt aftual Beings, and are
always fo underﬁood by them. When We
fay, in the Athanajian Creed, There it one
Perfon of the Father, another of the Son, &c.
or in the Nicene Creed,‘ God of God, who came
down from Heaven, and was incarnate, 85¢. in
the Domlogies, To whom with the Father
and the Holy Ghoﬂ, &c. and in the Invo-
cations, 0 God the Father, 0 God the Son,
&c. The People can naturally frame to
themfelves no other Ideas, but of fuch fe-
veral Divine Perfons, as agree in one, only
as they are of the fame Nature and hold a
good correfpondency one with another,
which indeed is the Notion of a Plurality of
Gods, which we have feet: was held by fome
of the Fathers.

\   (9)

The incommodioufnefs therefore of the

Orthodox Expreflions has caus’d many of
the moﬂ learned of the Orthodox Party to
think, that they were not {it for common
ufe, that they were better laid aifde, and
that lt. were faler to ﬂick to the Expreliions
of Scripture.
Forbe/am’ allcrts, ‘.That it isnot a proper
‘ manner of Worlhip, when the three Dia
‘ vine Perfons are fever-.illy ador’d, by di-
nvoc tions, ecau e tiere y we
‘ ﬂiiifl‘ I a ' - [3 f I b
‘ feem to make a Separation in the Objefl:
‘ ot_ religious Worlhip, which is moi‘:
‘ {iriéily one.——- Frantifcur ti Sanéia Clara,
‘ and generally the Doctors of the Church,
‘ deny that the Divine Perione, as Pcrfons,
‘ are the Obiefts of Divine Worlhip. }.
F0l’I7£’.". In/iruﬂion. Hijiorico-Theologic. Lib. 1.
c. 2;.
Luther faith, ‘ The Word Trinity, founds
‘ cdlv, and IS an Human Invention. it were
better to call Alnii,-«,hty God, Goa’, than
Trmrry. Poylil. mayor. Dominic.
Cal-viii is much warmer. ‘ The Word
‘ Trinity, fays he, is inlipid and prophane;
‘ it is the Popilh God, unknown to the Pro-
‘ phets and Apoﬂles. Epiﬂ. qmi ﬁdem ad-
monitioni: conﬁrmat. ad Polonor. Tom. ult. P.

687.

(6.) The [aid Terms are a Stone of ﬂun-
bling, in the way of tho/e-who truly believe
the Gofpel to be a Divine Revelation; and
they are an occalion of Separation. St. ferom
himfelf, in a Letter to Pope Damafm‘, de-
clares that he will not make ufe of the
Word Perfont: which Word even St. Au,/tin
owns to be very improper. Diﬁum eﬂ tamen
tre: Per/ona, non ut illud diceretur, fed ne
taceretur. De Trin. l. 5. c. 9. Why then
lhould it be thought ftrange, if many ten-
der. Confciences {cruple to ufe fuch like
unfcriptural Terms in the folemn Worlhip of
God? Now furely it is very much contrary
to Charity, to leave a ﬂuiubling-block in the
way, or an occaiion of Separation.

(7.) A better Prwijion would be made for
the Truth ( and incontejiabl y every Man’:
Right of difcerning and judging for himﬁelf
would be bett:-’iJecur’d) by the difu/E: of H):
[aid Term: Expreﬂions, than by their

1 B " i being

(10)

mg impofd. As for the fecuring to eve-
ry Man his Right of difcerning and judging
for himflelf, it is plain and incontefiable
that; that cannot fo effeﬂually be done, but
by ﬂicking to the fcriptural Terms. And it
is undoubted that that cannot be a juf‘tiﬁ3-
ble means of conveying or promoting the
Truth, which is contrary to and deliruﬂive
of Right and Equity. But, moreover, it is
even evident that the Truth in general, and
particularly the Truth in queﬂion, is better
ﬁ:cur’d by jl-riptural than by rmfcriptuml Ex-
preiiions and Terms. Otlrerwife we mull fay,
(far he the biafpherny) that the Holy Ghoﬂ,
tluit  the Scripture, was not fo wil-
ling ‘or not (6 able to fecure the Truth, (0
Eli as is fit, as Men. mt after all (accor-
ding to this syﬂem of the Modalijh.) what
Truth is here to be fecur’d, but what is not
any con'i’pri'z.‘d in the Ward: of Scripture,
 arro granted and profeﬁ’d by the ‘Unite-
iiizirag I triean as ‘to ‘the iDo&riiIe;r tbemjelve:
of the Trinity ‘and ~Inc4rm‘ttion—? The Scrip-
:-tife ‘then ought by all means to be look‘d
tipah is a  and ﬂlfl'¢‘??nt Riﬂe; and if
any ahfohitely neceliaﬁy part ‘of the Gofpel
is ‘hid to thofe that have the -free -ufedf
Scrﬁiture, ‘it -is only ‘to them who wilfully
petilh. The Scripture will _never of it {elf
féigéiry ‘Min to -any .7"fitbe‘iI?ic rldtions, or
Eb belief ‘(if a ‘Plunilityof Gods. -But
we havefeen, 5t‘hdt-'the‘unﬁ;fipmral z'(0rtho-
 Eﬁipreﬂions do nattiﬁtlly —pref:nt fuch
ﬁfoig  ‘inch dangerotis Ideas. ‘its for
lﬂiofe who better undefﬂand the {aid ‘E8-
‘]Sféﬂioiis, '-they may indeed, ~if-they very
'é:lﬁéfuliy ‘attehd thefetiplsn, 1put :1 found
‘fcnfe onthein, doing Them mnehwiolence,
‘Rid not’-taking them in -‘Hie 6rdinary‘ﬁgniﬁ-
‘dtidh ‘of the Words, ’or iiaeeording ito ithe

?ihdll'6hvi6'us iaeasvwniaa they=rratura'!lyvof-

"fer'fo"hs. -’Bt5t it ?is'vé'ry’aiﬁicult -'to'b‘e al-
“Y?V’f9  ;e"“<.1‘bv'~f*¢‘"‘€ °f =*'*°“*s
‘trnihriptural ‘rams, ‘ﬁnch 3a: fpiritual Tyran-
  
, av s ‘ ~ ' ‘-t_ on-
“fcit{hces'of Men, and wk-».dmmmve
"t'of'the ~'Tr&th. The _ fl: therefore,
«*2 _ ‘Go’-this,-are"e1Iid!’Bﬂy Indvabﬁr
lately '~i6e':icu£ibl¢,/rnwttmrng  urwr

unfcriptural Expreilions. ( By the Mode-
li/ir every one knows thole are meant,
whofe Syliem we have been conﬁdering,
who take the Doftrine of the Trinity to im-
ply three Mode: of Exiﬂence, according to
which God may be conﬁder‘d, with refpeft
to his Divine Underfianding, his Divine
Wifdom, and his Divine Will.) The natu~
ral Refult, and the neceiiary Confequenees
of this Syﬁem. are plainly thofe that we
have now reprefented and enlarg’d upon.
Whofoever doth conlider, cannot but make
upon the whole, the Obfervations that we
have here made : So that, according to this
Syﬁem, thofe who can do any thing to-
wards the taking awiaythe public Ufe of the
unfcriptural Terms, are indifpenfably oblig’d
to do it. .l.ndeedin Article: of Peace, which
Clergymen are to fubfcribe for Order-fake ,
Scholaﬂic, Metaphyﬁcal and Learned Terms
may be allow’d to be us’d, when the {aid
Trenms, if rightly conﬁderkl, aétually agree
with the Latitude of the Scripture ithfeli;
as by this Syﬁem of the Modalajlis the Or-
thodox Terms are fuppos’d to «do. But,
from this {aid Syﬂem, it certainly follows,
that tho thefe Terms and fhgpreﬂions may
 -learned Men, who can dive into all -the
fenfes ,po'ﬂ'1ble, and fo are able to _.put.a to-
sltrable Conﬂruftion thereupon) be taken in
faalatitude agreeable to that of Scripture;
Eyct the ufe of them ought not to ?be im-
.«pos’d or rexafted, -in the Divine ;Worﬂ2ip.and
=foitmn Addrelies -to God, for the [even
-Reafonr ‘that have .been.alledg’d and ._fpoken
«co. Thefe Iieaﬁnr and the natural ‘Conﬁr-
qwencer ‘of this Syﬂem neceﬂiarilyxirnply, Jlut
~thofe that«are‘inﬂrumental in impoﬁ .-the
staid Terms, are -guilty of fpiritual ~ ymnny
-smd~Scbifm.

:lt-dothxnot follow indeed, -as has -been
‘obferv'.’d, that Men are iindjfpcnfrbly oblig’d
to -digvide upon-the account of’ thefe Terms.
The -ﬁefult of what has-been {aid only is,
thatthofe that can do any thing .-totake
away the-ufe.thereof, zate ohlig-,’d to do it;

abut, ' on the otherhand, it is conﬁﬂent with

Syllem, rthat in the .mean time, thofe
-who-.tan~talte dlefe .Terms.and Eaxpreﬂions
in a good fenfe, and ﬁnd they .caa: ufe. them
with

(:11 ) :‘

with Devotion, may for Peace and Union
lake, alfent to and comply with them; for
it items that whatfoever admits of a good
Conﬂruﬂion, tho otherwile incommsdious,
may confcientiouﬂy be fubmitted to, in fuch
circumliances, for Peace and Union fake,
when it is not thro our fault that Inch in-
commodious Terms are impos’d, and we,
on our part, meekly reprefent the incom-
modioufnefs of them, and with Prudence
and Difcretion do what we can that the Dan-
ger of fuch an Impoﬁtion be difcerned. In
fuch’a cafe then, inﬂead of dividing, it is

tnecelfary to exhort all Parties to union, as

well as to endeavour confcientiouﬂy to "ac-
commodate our {elves to the impos‘d Terms,
and ﬂudy in what good fen-fe they may be
taken and us’d with Devotion and Reverénce.
Yet after all, thole that are perfuaded of
the incommodioufnefs of rhefe Terms, are
not to foeik to accommodate ohemlelves _to
them, or to »aﬂ'e& the tile of them, more
than needs mm}. For it is 15/cceﬁry only
that itrfiiﬁes their ‘compliance-, but it doth
not allow them -to ‘betray that which (when
zdiey ﬁncerely confider and texamine) ohey
mheto ;be the Truth. . «On .-the contrary, if
they -foek their own pancictdar Pmﬁt by inch
aunomplignoe, and not the manifeﬂin and

=promotjng the ‘Truth as much as ,  le,

their -Condolbonﬁen _ is -undoub;
nable. ,

I humbly conceive, that what has been
{aid is a compleat Conﬁderation of the Sen-
timent and Syllem of the Modali/ix, who
by the Damnatory Claufer, in the Aibamzﬂan
Creed, denounce Damnation againll them
only, who deny thofe plain and incontellable
Truths, which may be underftood by the
Doftrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, and
which are moll evidently agreeably to the
natural notion of the ‘Unity of God.

To recapitulate in fhort this Syliem, I
lhall clofe this Chapter with fome Pallages,
out of Mr. N)Ie’s Infiitutions concerning tbe
Holy Trinity, &'.c.

Preface. ‘ Ifhould excufe the great num-
‘ ber of Authors, and Authorities here, to
‘ the fame thing, if I did not forcfee that
f it is abfolutely necellary for appealing

Ir ‘aim-

‘ thofe, who will be to much fu_rpriz’d'
‘ that the Fozitb of the Church is“ to dif-
‘ fcrent from the vulgar meaning of the
‘ Terms in which the expreﬂes it. " ” '

Inﬂit. p. 1. ‘ To hold the Doélrines of
‘ the Trinity, and of our Saviourls Divinity,
‘ in the Terms only, without ‘knowing: the
.‘ fenfc intended in thofe Terms; is to be no

9 more jag/itirveb Orthodox, in thefe Articles,

‘ than an "Heat is. i
P. 8. Perﬁinr, Father, Son,  (fboﬂ,'
in God, are not di{_linguilh’d by di/iinﬂ §'l4_b-
ﬂzzncer, ‘Under/landings, Willr, '&c.' but are
numerically one Sujbllance, L{nderllagding,.
-Being, Spirit, they idifferirs it Mind arid 3:
J’.
C P. _24. There is one Eternal Being, in
which we are to econﬁder Eternal Mind,‘ @1-
vine 5'elf- Knowleig generated bf  Qi-
vine Self’-Comp/acence’ inécelfaril pro 
from both.  ‘  ‘ C .
17.25. Qur Sim/iour is god-Man. Man, ,lIl
refpetfof his ‘tea-fonable,_S,oul,  
Body; pad, in rerpcn ”9fJ‘i3¢‘iﬂ4Y.“¢1¥i*?'S D1-
 1 ~ . I 1..-
P: a5. Many think,   1 J68
{ the fsacapjagsg ayrp‘ for   Parr.
thag: the {the Socz'm4n.r~ ghav _a' 3511'
rroyenf with the Cathol ck". * '

   

.. , 7533.'°!*.:‘4‘éf¢
‘Article's, smile in Truth   v-jilnd
;,C,ontrove.r-fy ( on -.l)§)‘tll"ﬁ_a,B5‘*~‘) is on1)'”,ﬁ,Qm
a Tmiﬂapprehenﬁon of one another’s Senfe
and Meaning.

P. 28. There is no difference in the Idea:
that the C/M76/J and the ‘Unitzzrizzn: have of
the Unity of God.

P. 29. There is not the leaﬁ Reafon, for
the Gentlemen of the ‘Unitarian Perfualion,
to divide from the Church.

P. 31. Becaufe Socinm knew not what
the Church intends by Perfonr, iiatber, Son,
and Holy Spirit, when {he ufeth them of
God, therefore he denied, there are three-
Perlons of God, or three Divine Perfons:
And hccaufe he miftook what is meant by
Incarnation, Iiypojiarical ‘Union, and fuch~
like, when he heard of them in Sermons,
therefore he denied the Divinity of Our Sn.-
vrour.

17'. 3,: ..

PCIYSW

I. 2. when he heard in the Cbar;b-
cafe m-, and Liturgier, of three Dxvmc
Per/bus, of Father, Son, and Spmt-, of In.
carnation, liypojiatical-‘Union, and fuch like-,
he took them, as ’tis to befear‘d the unlear-
ned too commonly do now, in the familiar

, and vulgar fenfe.

‘He imagin’d three fuc/2 Perfons, as three
‘Men, or three Angels are; that 15 to lay,
Perfons that are ejfentially dijlinfl, and not
modaﬂ} only. '

P. 31. But no Catholick Writer ever
faid, God is three Perﬁmr, in this fenfe of
three Perfons. The Catholick Church ever
owrfd ‘that, in H.155 refpeﬂ. God is but one
Perfon; the ever taught, he is but one intel-
ligent Ejﬁvrce: She declares it to _be Herefy,
and Tritbeifm, to afﬁnn t/Jree ( inﬁnite ) in-
teﬂigent Eﬂencer, {he believes but one fuch
Elfence; confequently that, in that regard
God is but one Perfon_. .

P. 53. The Dianne: of the School: de-
-fcribe a Perfon in the Holy Trinity, to be
‘ The Divine Ellence, or Godhead, under a
‘ particular (intelleﬂual co-eternal) Mode
{of exijiiag. . Of which Modes, they note,
3 there can be but three; original Intellefl,
‘ reﬂex Self?-Knawledg, and the Love, or
f‘ Self-Complacence _that proceeds from laoth.

I will only add, that if any take It ill,
that thefe things be reprefented, and hum-
bly ol_fcr’d to he conlider’d, they (as much

as in them lieth) take away that Freedom

which the Principles of Proteﬁants allow a

and recommend, and which is necelfary to
debate. things, and to clear them, and to
demonﬁrate, or to attain with rational allu-
rance or certainty to the Truth; they intro-
duce a Spiritual Tyranny; they oppofe the
Apoftle’s lnjunétion of examining all things,
for they aétually {hut up the Key of Know-
ledg, and will not haveMen enjoy and ufe
the means of a tair Information; they act
partially, and as if they could not err, and
as if they were to jndg magiflerially and
deﬁnitively ot Controverﬁes; and being
fallible, (as certainly they are, and as they
own themfelves to be, except they be the
Pope and a pretended general Council) they

ralhly run the hazard of moft mifchievouﬂy

and criminally ﬁghting againﬁ, and defpe-
rately oppreilingand. crulhing the Truth,
and rendring the Difcovery, and Acknow-
ledgment of it humanly imipoilible, or next
to impollible; they fubvert the Gofpel-
Terms of Communion.-, and in ﬁne, taking
fuch Meafures as are ﬁt to eternize Error,
and to retain Menfor ever in thkir Preju-
dices, Mifunderﬂandings, and Animoﬁties,
they are therefore, no doubt (-. hether or
no they otherwife err) in a'S_tate of Dam-
nation; and are moﬁ highly guilty before
God, molt lhamefully_negle€ting to reafon
and conﬁder.

FINIS.

RARE
BT
115

. C66
1693

IHVXTY W T - ﬂit
ELL spc ans RARE
6

Illlllliiiifﬂiiililifllﬂlll
01 O-005830773