Q. WHY do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity?

A. Because it is a very Ratio­nal Doctrine, that is, there is the highest Reason to believe it.

[Page 2] Q. What do you mean by this word Trinity? And, What Doctrines concerning it are proposed to our Belief?

A. I shall Answer this Que­stion in the very words of the Church of England; Whose Do­ctrine, I am fully perswaded, is Orthodox and Catholick.

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without Body, Parts, or Passions; of infinite Power, Wisdom and Goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in Unity of this Godhead there be Three Per­sons, of One Substance, Power and Eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Art. 1.

[Page 3] The Catholick Faith is this, That we worship one God in Trini­ty, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons; nor divi­ding the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Fa­ther, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one; the Glory equal; the Majesty coeternal. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. Athan. Creed.

It is very meet, right, and our bounden Duty, that we should at all times, and in all places give thanks unto thee, O Lord Almigh­ty, Everlasting God. Who art One [Page 4] God, one Lord; not one only Per­son, but three Persons in one Sub­stance. For that which we believe of the Glory of the Father, the same we believe of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without any difference or inequality. Pref. on the Feast of Trinity.

O holy, blessed and glorious Tri­nity, Three Persons and One God, have mercy upon us miserable Sin­ners. Lit.

This is what we believe con­cerning the Trinity. And that this is very Rational Doctrine; and that we have the highest Reason thus to believe, I shall endeavour to evince, when I have first explained the Nature of Faith in General, by shewing, [Page 5] What it is to Believe; and what this act Believe doth denote when applied to any Object.

Q. What is Faith, or Belief in General?

A. ‘ Belief in general I define to be, an Assent to that which is Credible as Credible.’ V. Bishop Pearson on the Creed, p. 2.

Q. What is meant by this word Assent?

A. ‘By the word Assent is ex­pressed that Act or Habit of the Understanding, by which it receiveth, acknowledgeth, and embraceth any thing as a Truth,’ Id. Ib.

[Page 6] Q. But are there not several o­ther kinds of Assent, besides Faith, by which the Soul doth receive and embrace whatsoever appeareth to be true?

A. ‘This Assent, or Judgment of any thing to be true, being a general Act of the Under­standing, is applicable to other Habits thereof as well as to Faith.’ Id. Ib.

Q. How then is this Assent which we call Faith, specified and distin­guished from those other kinds of Assent?

A. ‘It must be specified as all other Acts are, by its proper Object.’ Id. Ib.

[Page 7] Q. What is this Object of Faith?

A. This Object of Faith is that which is Credible as Credible.

Q. Why do you repeat the word Credible, and say Credible as Credible?

A. To denote the twofold Ob­ject of Faith, viz. Material and Formal.

Q. What is the Material Object of Faith?

A. The Material Object of Faith, is the thing to be be­lieved, or something which is credible.

Q. What is the Formal Object of Faith?

[Page 8] A. That whereby it is be­lieved, or the Reason why it is believed.

Q. What is it to be Credible?

A. ‘That is properly Credible, which is not apparent of it self (either in respect of our Senses or Understanding) nor certainly to be collected, either antece­dently by its Cause, or reverse­ly by its Effect, and yet though by none of these ways, hath the Attestation of a Truth.’ V. Bishop Pearson, p. 3.

Q. What then is that kind of Assent, which is called Faith?

A. ‘When any thing pro­pounded to us is neither appa­rent [Page 9] to our Sense, nor evident to our Understanding in and of it self; neither certainly to be collected from any clear and necessary Connexion with the Cause from which it proceed­eth, or the Effects which it na­turally produceth; nor is taken up upon any real Arguments or Relations to other acknow­ledged Truths; and yet not­withstanding appeareth to us true, not by a Manifestation but Attestation of the Truth; and so moveth us to assent, not of it self, but by virtue of the Testimony given to it.’ In plain terms; When we therefore acknowledge a thing to be true, for this only reason, because we [Page 10] are told that it is so: Then, and in such a Case we do properly believe it. And the Assent that we give to such a Truth thus at­tested, is neither Science nor Opi­nion, but Faith. Id. Ib.

Q. The nature of Faith in ge­neral being thus explained, I am now prepared to be instructed by you in this important Question; Why do you believe the Doctrine of the Tri­nity?

A. Though this Doctrine of the Trinity, viz. That there are Three distinct Persons in One and the same undivided Divine Essence, is neither apparent to my Sense, nor evident to my Understand­ing (for being a great Mystery, [Page 11] I could never have known it, unless it had been Revealed; and now it is Revealed, I am not able to comprehend it) yet since it is testified and declared by an All-knowing, and most just and faithful God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, I do therefore give my Assent unto it, as a most credible Truth, and as such, I do firmly believe it.

Now that God, who is infi­nite in Wisdom and Knowledge, doth fully know himself, and perfectly understand his own Nature: And also, that He who is infinitely Good and Faithful cannot deceive us ( for it is im­possible [Page 12] for God to Lye) this I shall not pretend to prove, but can fairly suppose it, as being granted by the Socinians them­selves. The only thing there­fore for us to prove, and which they deny, is this, viz. That the Doctrine of the Trinity is Reveal­ed by Almighty God. For if we can make it appear, that an infi­nitely Wise and Faithful God hath Revealed it; we shall then easi­ly convince them, That there is the highest Reason to be­lieve it.

Q. How then do you prove that God hath Revealed it? Where hath God told us, That there are Three distinct Persons, in the same un­divided [Page 13] Divine Essence and Na­ture?

A. Were I to Discourse an Atheist, or a Deist, then, since all Conviction must be ex con­cessis, I ought to prove these Two Things,

• 1. The Possibility and Necessity of Divine Revelation.
• 2. That the Books of the Old and New Testament, which by way of Eminency we call the Scrip­tures, do contain this Divine Re­velation. And that in these Books God hath Revealed so much of his own Nature, as is necessary for us to know in order to our Salva­tion.

[Page 14]But since these Unitarians do profess themselves Christians, and consequently to believe the Holy Scriptures, I shall have so much Charity for▪ them at pre­sent, as to suppose it: And shall treat them as such. And then the only thing I am to prove, is this, viz. That the Doctrine of the Trinity is Revealed in the Scriptures.

Q. But neither the word Tri­nity, nor the word Person are to be found in Scripture. How then can you pretend to prove a Trini­ty of Persons from the Scrip­tures?

A. ‘Though neither the word Trinity, nor perhaps Person, in [Page 15] the Sense in which it is used by Divines when they treat of this Mystery, be any where to be met with in Scripture; yet it cannot be denied but that Three are there spoken of by the Names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in whose Name every Christian is Baptized, and to each of whom the highest Titles and Properties of God are in Scripture attributed. And these Three are spoken of with as much distinction from one another, as we use to speak of Three several Per­sons.’

‘So that though the word Trinity be not found in Scri­pture, yet these Three are there [Page 16] expresly and frequently men­tioned. And Trinity is no­thing but Three of any Thing. And so likewise though the word Person be not there expresly applied to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; yet it will be very hard to find a more conveni­ent word whereby to express the distinction of these Three. For which reason I could ne­ver yet see any just Cause to quarrel at this Term. For since the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture hath thought fit in speaking of these Three to di­stinguish them from one ano­ther, as we use in common Speech to distinguish▪ Three several Persons, I cannot [Page 17] see any reason why in the Explication of this Mystery, which purely depends upon Divine Revelation, we should not speak of it in the same manner as the Scripture doth. And though the word Person is now become a Term of Art, I see no cause why we should decline it, so long as we mean by it neither more nor less than what the Scripture says in other words.’ V. Archbishop Tillotson's Sermon on 1 Tim. 2. 5. p. 19.

‘Here then I fix my foot: That there are Three Differen­ces in the Deity, which the Scripture speaks of by the Names of Father, Son, and [Page 18] Holy Ghost, and every where speaks of them as we use to do of Three distinct Persons. And therefore I see no reason why in this Argument we should nicely abstain from using the word Person.’ Id. Sermon II. on John 1. 14. p. 120.

Q. You confess then that the word Trinity is not to be found in Scripture. However, (may these Unitarians reply) Have you not found it in the Athanasian Creed? And because the Church of England hath owned this Creed, by taking it into her Liturgy, that you may ap­prove your Selves true Sons of the Church, therefore, say they, you [Page 19] are resolved to Defend it. V. Pref. to Mr. Milb. p. 7.

A. ‘ We assert Three Persons in the Godhead, Not because we find them in the Athanasian Creed; but because the Scri­pture hath Revealed that there are Three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to whom the Divine Nature and Attributes are given. This we verily Be­lieve, that the Scripture hath Revealed; and that there are a great many Places, of which we think no tolera­ble Sense can be given with­out it, and therefore we as­sert this Doctrine on the same Grounds, on which we believe [Page 20] the Scriptures. And if there are Three Persons which have the Divine Nature attributed to them; what must we do in this Case? Must we cast off the Unity of the Divine Essence? No, that is too fre­quently and plainly asserted for us to call it into Questi­on. Must we reject those Scriptures which attribute Di­vinity to the Son and Holy Ghost, as well as to the Fa­ther? That we cannot do, unless we cast off those Books of Scripture, wherein those things are contained.’ V. Bishop Stillingfleet's Vind. of the Trinity, p. 112.

[Page 21] Q. But is it not trifling to prove a Doctrine by Scripture, which ( as the Socinians pretend) is contrary to Reason? It being a known Rule (which I shall ex­press in the words of Bishop Stil­lingfleet) That, ‘Whatever speaks a direct Repugnancy to any of the Fundamental Dictates of Nature, cannot be of Divine Revelation.’ V. Orig. Sacr. p. 172. ‘For the Law of Nature, and of Right Reason, imprinted in our hearts, is as truly the Law and Word of God, as is that which is printed in our Bibles.’ V. Bi­shop Sanderson's Ser. 4. ad Cl. p. 78. And therefore since Truth is never contrary to it self, is it not impertinent to prove this Do­ctrine [Page 22] of the Trinity by the Scri­ptures, which is not only above Reason, but plainly contrary to it?

A. ‘As to its being above Reason, which they are loth to admit any thing to be; this I think will bear no great Dispute: Because if they would be pleased to speak out, they can mean no more by this, but that our Reason is not able fully to comprehend it. But what then? Are there no My­steries in Religion? That I am sure they will not say, because God, whose Infinite Nature and Perfections, are the very foun­dation of all Religion, is cer­tainly the greatest Mystery of [Page 23] all other, and the most in­comprehensible. But we must not, nay they will not for this reason deny, that there is such a Being as God. And there­fore if there be Mysteries in Religion, it is no reasonable Objection against them, that we cannot fully comprehend them: Because all Mysteries, in what kind soever, whether in Religion, or in Nature, so long, and so far as they are Mysteries, are for that very reason incomprehensible.’ Vid. Archbishop Tillotson, Serm. II. on Joh. 1. 14. p. 117.

‘I desire it may be consi­dered, That it is not repug­nant to Reason to believe [Page 24] some things which are incom­prehensible by our Reason; provided that we have suffici­ent ground and reason for the belief of them: Especially if they be concerning God, who is in his Nature Incomprehensi­ble; and we be well assured that he hath revealed them. And therefore it ought not to offend us, that these Diffe­rences in the Deity are incom­prehensible by our finite Un­derstandings; because the Di­vine Nature it self is so, and yet the belief of that is the Foundation of all Religion.’

‘There are a great many things in Nature which we cannot comprehend, how they [Page 25] either are, or can be.’ Id. Ser. on 1 Tim. 2. 5. pag. 22.

‘For my own part, I con­fess it to be my Opinion, that we converse every day with very many things, none of which we comprehend. Who is he that comprehends either the Structure, or the Reason of the Powers of Se­minal Forms or Seeds? Or how the Parts of Matter hold together? Or how, being in their own nature Lifeless and Sensless, they do (for all that) in some Positures and Textures, acquire Life, Sen­sation, and even Volition, Memory and Reason? Or how the Sun and other vast [Page 26] Heavenly Fires subsist for so many Ages, without any Nou­rishment or Fuel; which Fire, of all other Bodies, most re­quires? Or how, when the Sun arrives at the Tropicks, he never goes further, either Northward or Southward, but returns towards the Equator, and thereby preserves the World by his Vital Warmth?’ V. Consider. on the Trinity, to H. H. p. 4.

‘There are many things likewise in our Selves, which no man is able in any mea­sure to comprehend, as to the manner how they are done and performed. As the Vital Union of Soul and Body. Who [Page 27] can imagine by what device or means a Spirit comes to be so closely united, and so firmly link'd to a Material Body, that they are not to be parted without great force and violence offer'd to Na­ture? The like may be said of the Operations of our se­veral Faculties of Sense and Imagination, of Memory and Reason, and especially of the Liberty of our Wills. And yet we certainly find all these Fa­culties in our selves, though we cannot either comprehend or explain the particular man­ner in which the several Ope­rations of them are perform­ed.’

[Page 28] ‘And if we cannot com­prehend the manner of those Operations, which we plain­ly perceive and feel to be in our Selves, much less can we expect to comprehend things without us; and least of all can we pretend to comprehend the infinite Nature and Perfecti­ons of God, and every thing belonging to him.’

‘Thus you see, by these In­stances, that it is not repug­nant to Reason to believe a great many things to be, of the manner of whose Exi­stence we are not able to give a particular and distinct ac­count. And much less is it repugnant to Reason to be­lieve [Page 29] those things concerning God, which we are very well assured he hath declared con­cerning himself, though these things by our Reason should be incomprehensible.’

‘And this is truly the Case as to the matter now under de­bate. We are sufficiently as­sured that the Scriptures are a Divine Revelation, and that this Mystery of the Trinity is therein declared to us. Now that we cannot comprehend it, is no sufficient Reason not to believe it. For if it were a good Reason for not be­lieving it, then no Man ought to believe that there is a God, because his Nature is most [Page 30] certainly incomprehensi­ble. But we are assured by many Arguments that there is a God; and the same natural Reason which assures us, that He is, doth likwise assure us that He is incomprehensible; and therefore our believing him to be so, doth by no means overthrow our Belief of his Be­ing.’

‘In like manner, we are as­sured by Divine Revelation of the truth of this Doctrine of the Trinity: and being once assured of that, our not be­ing able fully to comprehend it, is not reason enough to stagger our belief of it. A Man cannot deny what he [Page 31] sees, though the necessary con­sequence of admitting it, may be something which he can­not comprehend. One can­not deny the frame of this World which he sees with his eyes, though from thence it will necessarily follow, that either that or something else must be of it self: Which yet is a thing, which no man can comprehend how it can be.’

‘And by the same Reason a man must not deny what God says, to be true; though he cannot comprehend many things which God says: As particularly concerning this My­stery of the Trinity. It ought [Page 32] then to satisfy us that there is sufficient Evidence, that this Doctrine is delivered in Scrip­ture, and that what is there declared concerning it, doth not imply a Contradiction. For why should our finite Un­derstandings pretend to com­prehend that which is infinite, or to Know all the real Dif­ferences that are consistent with the Unity of an Infinite Being; or to be able fully to explain this Mystery by any similitude or resemblance taken from fi­nite Beings?’ V. Archbishop Tillotson's Serm. on 1 Tim. 2. 5. p. 23.

‘Great Difficulty I acknow­ledge there is in the explica­tion [Page 33] of it, in which the fur­ther we go, beyond what God hath thought fit to reveal to us in Scripture concerning it, the more we are entangled; and that which men are pleased to call an explaining of it, does, in my apprehension, often make it more obscure, that is, less plain than it was before. Which does not so very well agree with a pretence of Ex­plication.’ Id. Ser. on Joh. 1. 14. p. 119.

‘And therefore, though some Learned and Judicious Men may have very commendably attempted a more particular Explication of this great My­stery by the strength of Reason, [Page 34] yet I dare not pretend to that, knowing both the diffi­culty and danger of such an Attempt, and mine own insuf­ficiency for it.’

‘All that I ever designed up­on this Argument, was to make out the Credibility of the Thing from the Authority of the Holy Scriptures; with­out descending to a more par­ticular explication of it than the Scripture hath given us: Lest by endeavouring to lay the Difficulties which are alrea­dy started about it, new ones should be raised, and such as may, perhaps, be much hard­er to be removed, than those we have now to grapple withal. [Page 35] Nor indeed do I see that it is any ways necessary to do more; it being sufficient that God hath declared what he thought fit in this matter, and that we do firmly believe what he says concerning it to be true, though we do not perfectly compre­hend the meaning of all that he hath said about it.’ Id. Ser. on 1 Tim. 2. 5. p. 17.

Q. But these Unitarians do urge the matter much further, and pretend; That this Mystery of the Trinity, now under debate, is not only above Reason, but plainly contrary to Reason. For thus they expostulate with the Bi­shop of Worcester.

[Page 36] ‘He utterly mistakes ( to give you their own words) in Think­ing, that we deny the Arti­cles of the New Christianity, or Athanasian Religion, because they are Mysteries, or because we do not comprehend them; we deny them, because we do com­prehend them; we have a clear and distinct perception, that they are not Mysteries, but Contra­dictions, Impossibilities, and pure Nonsense.’ V. Consid. on Expl. of the Trinity, in a Letter to H. H. p. 4.

Now what Reply hath his Lord­ship made to this?

A. ‘This is a very bold Charge, and not very be­coming the Modesty and De­cency [Page 37] of such, who know at the same time that they op­pose the Religion publickly established, and in such things which they look on as some of the principal Articles of the Christian Faith.’ V. Vind. of the Trinity. p. 54.

‘These words contain in them so spiteful, so unjust, and so unreasonable a Charge upon the Christian Church in ge­neral, and our own in parti­cular, that I could not but think my self concerned, es­pecially since they are Addres­sed to me, to do what in me lay (as soon as my uncertain State of Health would per­mit) towards the clearing the [Page 38] Fundamental Mystery of the Athanasian Religion, as they call it, viz. The Doctrine of the Trinity, which is chiefly struck at by them.’ V. Pref. p. 2.

Q. 'Tis a seasonable Service to the Christian Church in general, and our own in particular, that a Person so eminent for Learning and Prudence, hath at this jun­cture undertaken the Defence of the B. Trinity. But in what man­ner doth his Lordship propose to Defend it?

A. ‘Without running into any new Explications, or lay­ing aside any old Terms, for [Page 39] which he could not see any just occasion.’

‘For however thoughtful Men may think to escape some par­ticular Difficulties better, by going out of the common Roads; yet they may meet with others, which they did not foresee, which may make them as well as Others judge it, at last, a wiser and safer course to keep in the same way, which the Christian Church hath used ever since it hath agreed to express her Sense in such Terms, which were thought most proper for that purpose.’

‘Why then are new Explica­tions started, and Disputes rai­sed [Page 40] and carried on so warmly about them? We had much better satisfy our selves with that Language which the Church hath received▪ and is expressed in the Creeds, than go about with new Terms, to raise new Ferments, especially at a time, when our united Forces are most necessary a­gainst our common Adversa­ries. No Wise and Good Men can be fond of any new In­ventions, when the Peace of the Church is hazarded by them. And it is a great pity, that any new Phrases, or Ways of Expression, should cause un­reasonable Heats among those who are really of the same [Page 41] Mind.’ Vtd. Pref. p. 2. and 31. and Vind. p. 106.

Q. But how can these Uni­tarians pretend, that the Do­ctrine of the Trinity is contra­ry to Reason? How, and in what manner have they attempted to prove it? What Grounds have they for such a Charge as this, of Contradiction and Impossibi­lity?

A. I shall draw up the Charge in their own Words:

‘ Theirs, they say, is an Ac­countable and Reasonable Faith, but that of the Trinitarians is absurd, and contrary both to Reason and to it self; and there­fore not only false but impossible.’ [Page 42]But wherein lies this Impossi­bility? That they soon tell us. ‘ Because we affirm that there are Three Persons, who are se­verally and each of them true God, and yet there is but One true God. Now, say they, this is an Error in counting or numbring, which when stood in, is of all others the most Brutal and inexcusable; and not to dis­cern it, is not to be a Man.’ V. Hist. of the Unit. p. 9. n. 7. ‘ For we cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three; We are most certain that One is not Three, and Three are not One.’ V. Def. of Hist. of Unit. p. 7. ‘ So that here is an Arithmetical, as well as Grammatical Contradiction. [Page 43] For, in▪saying, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, yet not Three Gods, but One God; a man first distinctly numbers Three Gods, and then in summing them up, brutishly says, not Three Gods, but one God. V. Acts of Athanasius, p. 13. Which is plainly, as if a man should say, Peter, James, and John being three Persons, are one Man; and One Man is these Three distinct Persons, Peter, James and John. Is it not now a ridi­culous Attempt, as well as a bar­barous Indignity, to go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind, un­der pretence of teaching them a Creed?’ V. Notes on Athanasius's Creed, p. 11.

[Page 44] ‘This is their Charge. And 'tis very freely spoken, with re­spect, not merely to our Church, but the Christian World; which owns this Creed to be a just and true Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity. But there are some Creatures as remarkable for their untoward Kicking, as for their Stupidity.’ V. Bishop of Worcester's Defence of the Trinity, p. 101.

‘It is strange boldness in men to talk thus of Monstrous Con­tradictions in things above their reach. But some have so used themselves to the Language of Jargon, Nonsense, Contradiction, Impossibility, that it comes from them, as some men swear, [Page 45] when they do not know it.’ Id. p. 76.

But that the Rudeness of these Unitarians, in thus condemning the Christian Church, may more fully appear, let us proceed ve­ry distinctly to examine this matter. Do you therefore, First, give their Objection its full strength, and then, through Di­vine Assistance, I'll return you my Answer.

Q. Are not Peter, James, and John, Three distinct Humane Per­sons?

A. 'Tis granted.

[Page 46] Q. Are not Peter, James, and John, Three distinct different Men?

A. Who doubts it?

Q. Is it not a Contradiction to say, That Peter is James, or that James and John are Peter?

A. This likewise must be ac­knowledg'd.

Q. Is it not a Contradiction to affirm, That Peter, James and John, being Three Men, are but One Man? And is it not equally absurd to Declare, That One Man is these Three Men?

A. Sure I cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three. But am most certain, That One [Page 47] is not Three, and Three are not One. But what of all this?

Q. Observe what follows. Are not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (according to the A­thanasian Creed) Three distinct different Divine Persons?

A. I firmly believe it.

Q. And if these Three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are Three Gods, is it not a Contradiction to say, there is but One God?

A. To say, there are Three Gods, and yet but One God, is doubtless a Contradiction. But who affirms, There are Three Gods?

[Page 48] Q. Doth not the Athanasian Creed?

A. No. That Creed expresly saith, There are not Three Gods, but One God.

Q. If you will not renounce your Reason, I do thus prove it to you. The Father is God, There is One. The Son is God, There is Two. The Holy Ghost is God, There is Three. Are not here Three Gods? Do you think me such a Fool, that I cannot count, One, Two, and Three?

A. Thus indeed the Unitarians do wisely argue. ‘But can these [Page 49] Men of Sense and Reason think, that the Point in Con­troversy ever was, Whether in Numbers, One could be Three, or Three One? If they think so, I wonder they do not think of another thing; which is, the begging all Trinitarians for Fools; because they cannot count One, Two and Three; and an Unitarian Jury would certainly cast them. One would think such Writers had never gone beyond Shop-books; for they take it for granted, that all depends upon Counting. But these terrible Charges were some of the most common and trite Objections of Infidels. St. Augustin mentions it as such [Page 50] when he saith; The Infidels some­times Interrogant enim nos aliquando Infi­deles, & dicunt, Pa­trem quem dicitis, Deum dicitis? Re­spondemus Deum. Filium quem dicitis, Deum dicitis? Re­spondemus Deum. Spiritum Sanctum quem dicitis, Deum dicitis? Responde­mus Deum. Ergo inquiunt, Pater & Filius, & Spiritus Sanctus tres sunt Dii. Respondemus, Non. Turbantur, quia non illuminan­tur, cor clausum ha­bent quia clavem fidel non habent. Aug. in Job. Tr. 39. ask us, What do you call the Father? we an­swer, God. What the Son? we an­swer, God. What the Holy Ghost? we answer, God. So that here the Infidels make the same Ob­jection, and draw the very same Inference. Then, say they, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are three Gods. But what saith St. Augustin to [Page 51] this? Had he no more skill in Arithmetick, than to say, there are Three, and yet but One? He saith plainly that there are not three Gods. The Infidels are troubled, because they are not In­lightned; their heart is shut up, because they are without Faith. By which it is plain, he look'd on these as the proper Obje­ctions of Infidels, and not of Christians.’

‘But St. Augustin doth not give it over so. When you begin Ubi cogitare coe­peris, incipis nume­rare: Ubi numera­veris, quid nume­raveris, non potes respondere. Pater, Pater est; Filius Fi­lius; Spiritus San­ctus, Spiritus San­ctus est. Quid sunt isti Tres? non tres Dii? Non. Non tres Omnipotentes? Non, sed Unus Om­nipotens. Hoc solo numerum insinuant, quod ad invicem sunt, non quod ad se sunt. Id. Ib. to count, saith he, you go on; One, Two and Three. But when you have reckon'd [Page 52] them, what is it you have been counting? The Father is the Fa­ther, the Son the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost. What are these Three? Are they not Three Gods? No. Are they not Three Almighties? No. They are capable of Num­ber as to their Relation to each other; but not as to their Essence, which is but one.’ V. Bishop Stillingfleet's Vindic. of the Trin. p. 58.

‘Will men never learn to di­stinguish between Numbers and the Nature of Things? For [Page 53] Three to be One is a Contradi­ction in Numbers; but whether an Infinite Nature can com­municate it self to Three diffe­rent Subsistences, without such a Division as is among Created Beings, must not be determin­ed by bare Numbers, but by the Absolute Perfections of the Divine Nature; which must be owned to be above our Comprehension.’ Id. Serm. on 1 Tim. 1. 15. p. 16.

This is plain and convincing to all Modest Unprejudiced Per­sons. But it seems our Unitari­ans are not thus to be con­vinced: Who do further Object; That it is as ridiculous to affirm; That the Father, the Son, and [Page 54] the Holy Ghost, being Three Per­sons, are One God; as it is to say, that Peter, James, and John, being Three Persons, are One Man.

Q. If I rightly apprehend them, their Argument is this. Three Hu­man Persons are Three Men, Therefore Three Divine Persons are Three Gods. And this they repeat with great Triumph in se­veral of their Pamphlets. What Answer therefore can you return to this?

A. ‘How can any Man of Sense be satisfied with such kind of Arguments as these? One would think, they wrote only for such as would take [Page 55] their words; they join so much Confidence with so very little appearance of Reason. For is not this great skill in these Mat­ters, to make such a Parallel between three Persons in the God­head, and Peter, James and John? Do they think there is no Dif­ference between an infinitely perfect Being, and such finite limited Creatures as Individuals among Men are? Do they sup­pose the Divine Nature capable of such Division and Separation by Individuals, as Human Na­ture is?’

Q. No, they may say, but ye who hold three Persons must think so.

[Page 56] A. ‘For what reason? We do assert Three Persons, but it is on the account of Divine Re­velation, and in such a man­ner, as the Divine Nature is capable of it. For it is a good Rule of Boethius, Talia sunt praedicata, qualia subjecta permiserint. We must not say that there are Persons in the Trinity, but in such a man­ner as is agreeable to the Di­vine Nature; and if that be not capable of Division and Se­paration, then the Persons must be in the same undivided Es­sence.’ Id. Vind. p. 102.

‘So that herein lies the true Solution of the Difficulty, by considering the difference be­tween [Page 57] the Humane and Divine Nature. The Humane Na­ture, being finite, is capable of Division, Multiplication and Separation. But the Divine Nature, being Infinite, is not capable of any Division, Multiplication and Separa­tion.’

‘Now the Divine Essence is that alone which makes God; that can be but One, and therefore there can be no more Gods than One. But because the same Scripture, which as­sures us of the Unity of the Divine Essence, doth likewise join the Son and Holy Ghost in the same Attributes, Ope­rations and Worship, therefore [Page 58] as to the mutual Relations, we may reckon Three, but as to the Divine Essence, that can be no more than One.’

Here then is the true Reason why we affirm; That Three Human Persons, Peter, James, and John, are Three Men; and yet Three Divine Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are but One God, ‘ Be­cause, The Divine Essence is not capable of such Division and Separation, as the Hu­man Nature is.’ Id. p. 64, & 76.

Q. This is full, and to the pur­pose; and hath given great Satis­faction [Page 59] to my Self, as well as others.

But is there nothing further Objected against the Doctrine of the B. Trinity, wherein I may be instructed by you?

A. There is an Objection lately started; and I wonder you have not charged me with it.

Q. Pray let me hear it?

A. 'Tis this.

Three Divine Substances are Three Gods.

But Three Divine Persons, are Three Divine Substances.

[Page 60]Therefore, Three Divine Per­sons are Three Gods.

This hath most insultingly been repeated by our Unita­rians, and hath made no little noise in their late Papers and Pamphlets.

Q. Who revived this old Ob­jection, and how came it now to be brought again upon the Stage?

A. ‘To understand this mat­ter rightly, we must consider that when the Socinian Pam­phlets first came abroad, some years since, a Learned and Worthy Person of our Church, [Page 61] who had appeared with great Vigour and Reason against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome in the late Reign (which ought not to be for­gotten) undertook to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity a­gainst the History of the Uni­tarians, and the Notes of the Athanasian Creed: But in the warmth of Disputing, and out of a desire to make this matter more intelligible, he suffer'd▪ himself to be carried beyond the ancient Methods▪ which the Church hath used to express her Sense by, still retaining the same Fundamen­tal Article of three Persons in one undivided Essence, but ex­plaining [Page 62] it in such a manner, as to make each Person to have a peculiar and proper Sub­stance of his own.’ V. Bishop of Worcester's Pref. to Vind. of Trin. p. 20.

Q. Let me hear the Opinion of that Learned Person more di­stinctly.

A. ‘In short it is this: That the same Author asserts, (1.) That it is gross Sabel­lianism to say, That there are not three Personal Minds, or Spirits, or Substances. (2.) That a distinct substantial Person must have a distinct Substance of his own, proper and peculiar to his [Page 63] own Person. But he owns, that although there are three di­stinct Persons, or Minds, each of whom is distinctly and by him­self God, yet there are not three Gods, but One God, or one Di­vinity. Which he saith, is in­tirely, and indivisibly, and inse­parably in three distinct Persons or Minds. That the same one Divine Nature is wholly and in­tirely communicated by the Eternal Father, to the Eternal Son, and by the Father and Son to the Eternal Spirit, without any Di­vision or Separation; and so it remains one still.’ V. Modest Exam. p. 15, 17, 29, 30.

[Page 64] ‘This is the substance of this new Explication, which hath raised such Flames, that In­junctions from Authority were thought necessary to suppress them.’ V. Pref. p. 25.

Q. Pray tell me your Thoughts with freedom. Is this Explication of the Trinity, by Three distinct Infinite Minds and Substances, Orthodox, or not?

A. ‘Now to deal as impar­tially in this matter as may be, I do not think our Un­derstandings one jot helped in the Notion of the Trinity by this Hypothesis; but that it is [Page 65] liable to as great Difficulties as any other.’

Q. You begin then to suspect his Explication.

A. ‘None ought to be fond of it; Or to set it against the general Sense of others, and the currant Expressions of Divines about these Mysteries: Nor to call the different Opinions of others Heresy or Nonsense, which are provoking Words, and tend very much to inflame Mens Passions, because their Faith and Understanding are both call'd in question, which are very tender Things.’ V. Pref. p. 41.

[Page 66] Q. Is it then your Opinion, that this Hypothesis, of Three distinct Substances in the Trinity, can scarce be Defended?

A. ‘I fear it will be impossi­ble to clear this Hypothesis as to the reconciling Three Indi­vidual Essences with One indivi­dual Divine Essence; which looks too like asserting, That there are Three Gods, and yet but One.’ Id. p. 31.

Q. Will you please to explain this more fully, that I may better understand it?

A. ‘Can One whole entire indivisible Substance be actu­ally [Page 67] divided into Three Sub­stances? For if every Person must have a peculiar Sub­stance of his own, and there be Three Persons, there must be Three peculiar Substances. And how can there be Three peculiar Substances, and yet but One entire and indivisible Substance? I do not say, there must be Three divided Sub­stances in Place, or separate Substances; but they must be divided as three Individuals of the same kind, which must introduce a Specifick Divine Na­ture, which I think very incon­sistent with the Divine Perfe­ctions.’ Ib. p. 29.

[Page 68] Q. But every Person must have his own proper Substance, and so the Substance must be divided if there be Three Persons.

A. ‘That every Person must have a Substance to support his Subsistence is not denied. But the Question is; Whether that Substance must be divided, or not? We say, where the Sub­stance will bear it, as in Crea­ted Beings, a Person hath a separate Substance; that is, the same Nature diversified by Accidents, Qualities, and a separate Existence. But where these things cannot be, there the same Essence must remain [Page 69] undivided; but with such Relative Properties as cannot be confounded.’ V. Vind. p. 105.

‘When we speak of Finite Substances and Persons, we are certain that distinct Per­sons do imply distinct Sub­stances, because they have a distinct and separate Exi­stence. But this will not hold in an Infinite Substance, where necessary Existence doth be­long to the Idea of it.’ Id. p. 261.

Q. But say our Unitarians, ‘A Person is an Intelligent Be­ing: and therefore, Three Per­sons must needs be three In­telligent [Page 70] Beings. So true it is, that whosoever acknowledges Three Persons in the Godhead (if he takes the word in its pro­per sense)▪ must admit Three Gods. Which the Learned Doctor cannot avoid, who says they are Three distinct Minds, Three Substantial Beings, Three In­telligent Beings: Therefore un­avoidably Three Gods.’ V. De­fence of Hist. of Unit. p. 5.

A. ‘The full and adequate Definition of a Person (from which the Learned Doctor doth. draw his Argument, and the Unitarians their Objection) is not this, as they suppose, viz. A Person is an Intelligent Sub­stance. [Page 71] For this is but part of the Definition. But the full and adequate Definition of a Person is this. A Person is a compleat Intelligent Substance, with a peculiar manner of Sub­sistence. So that, An Individual Intelligent Substance, is rather supposed to the making of a Person, than the proper Defi­nition of it. For a Person re­lates to something which doth distinguish it from another In­telligent Substance in the same Nature: and therefore the Foundation of it lies in the peculiar manner of Subsistence, which agrees to One, and to none else of the kind; and this is it which is called Per­sonality. [Page 72] Which doth not con­sist, I say, in a meer Intelli­gent Being, but in that pecu­liar manner of Subsistence in that Being, which can be in no other. So that the proper Reason of Personality, where­by one Person is constituted and distinguished from ano­ther, it is the peculiar manner of Subsistence, whereby one Per­son hath such Properties as are incommunicable to any other.’ V. Vind. p. 260, & 72.

From these Premises we are instructed, Why in the Blessed Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are Three Persons, and yet but One God. The Reason is this,

[Page 73]God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are but One God; because the Di­vine Essence, Nature, and Sub­stance, which alone makes God, is intirely One, and is not ca­pable of any Separation, Mul­tiplication or Division. There­fore, there can be no more Gods than One. But since these Three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, have each of them a pe­culiar manner of Subsistence; That is, each of these Three hath a peculiar Property, incommunicable to any other; Therefore as to their mutual Relations and Per­sonalities they are Three, but as to the Divine Essence and Godhead, they are but One. [Page 74] And this is so far from being contrary to Reason, as the Soci­nians pretend, that it is highly Rational to Believe, a Trinity in Unity. That is, Three di­stinct Persons, and yet but One God.

As I hope hath been fully proved, and that to your Satis­faction.

Q. Before you talk too much of Satisfaction, you must Answer me a Question.

A. What is it?

Q. Do you believe Transubstan­tiation?

[Page 75] A. No, I do not. But what's this to the purpose? Will you not allow me to believe the Tri­nity, unless I will believe Tran­substantiation? And must I re­nounce the Trinity, because I re­ject Transubstantiation?

Q. The Unitarians pretend that the Case is parallel.

A. Pray give me their Obje­ction in their own words; and then I shall instruct you, what Answer to return to these Men of Sense and Reason.

Q. ‘I find that the Belief of a Trinity does Contradict Rea­son [Page 76] as much as Transubstantia­tion. Now who should not scru­ple an Opinion perfectly parallel with Transubstantiation, and equally fruitful in Incongruities and Contradictions? Well then, if the Trinity implies no less Contradiction than Transubstan­tiation; why can't we say, that it cannot be contained in Scrip­ture? We say, Transubstantia­tion cannot be found in Scrip­ture, because it is a plain Con­tradiction to our Reason; but if the Trinity be also a plain Con­tradiction to our Reason, why shan't we be allowed to say, that it cannot be contained in Scrip­ture? V. Def. of Brief Hist. of Unit. p. 4, and 6. But oh! [Page 77] were the Press as free for the Unitarians, as 'tis for other Protestants; how easily would they make it appear, that the Follies and Contradictions so just­ly charged on Transubstantiati­on; are neither for Number, Consequence, nor Clearness, any way comparable to those implied in the Athanasian Creed; and that the Trinity hath the same, and no other, Foundation with Transubstantiation? So that we must of necessity admit Both, or neither.’ V. Acts of Athanasius, p. 16.

This is the Sum of what they Object. To which I expect an Answer according to your Pro­mise.

[Page 78] A. As preparatory to a just Answer, I cannot but observe, how exactly these Socinians do Symbolize with the Papists. ‘For as on the one hand, they of the Church of Rome are so fondly and obstinately addict­ed to their own Errors, how mishappen and monstrous so­ever, that rather than the Di­ctates of their Church, how absurd soever, should be cal­led in question, they will que­stion the truth even of Chri­stianity it self: and if we will not take in Transubstantiation, and admit it to be a necessary Article of the Christian Faith, they grow so sullen and despe­rate [Page 79] that they matter not what becomes of all the rest: And rather than not have their Will of us in that which is Controverted, they will give up that which by their own confession is an undoubted Ar­ticle of the Christian Faith, and not controverted on ei­ther Side:’ In like manner; These Unitarians are so imper­tinently zealous in their de­signs against the Trinity, that rather than admit that Funda­mental Article of the Christian Faith, they will plead for Tran­substantiation; and this even contrary to the Light and Di­ctate of their own Conscience. ‘For the Socinians are hear­ty [Page 80] Enemies to Transubstan­tiation, and have exposed the Absurdity of it with great ad­vantage.’ V. Arcbishop Til­lotson' s Serm. on 1 Tim. II. 5. p. 30.

Q. Have you nothing further to say in this matter?

A. You must give me leave to add; ‘I did not expect to have found this Parallel so often insisted upon, without an Answer to Two Dialogues purposely written on that Sub­ject, at a time when the Do­ctrine of the Trinity was used as an Argument to bring in Transubstantiation, as that is now [Page 81] now alledged for casting off the other.’

‘But I must do them that right to tell the World, That at that time a Socinian Answer was written to those Dialogues, which I saw, and wished it might be Printed, that the World might be satis­fied about it and them. But they thought fit to forbear. And in all their late Pamphlets where this Parallel is so often repeated, there is but once, that I can find, any notice taken of those Dialogues, and that in a very superficial manner: for the main Design and Scope of them is past over.’ V. Vind. of Trinit. p. 287.

[Page 82]And I must needs remind these Unitarians, that it is not fair nor Scholar-like, so insultingly to repeat the Parallel between the Trinity and Transubstantia­tion, which hath been so fully confuted in those Two Dia­logues.

Q. You promised an Answer, and you bring me a Challenge: Which I shall send to the Unitarians. Who indeed are obliged, in point of Honour, to give Satisfaction, by a just Reply to those Two Dia­logues.

A. If they would consult their Reputation, and credit their Cause, they ought not to defer [Page 83] it. For those Two Dialogues were writ by an Author, ‘ Who (to give you the very words of an Unitarian) hath all the Pro­perties, for which an Adversary may be either feared, or Reve­renced. He understands perfectly the Doctrine of the Church; and the Points in Question. He will commit no oversights through Ig­norance, Hast, or Inadversion. He is too experienced and Judi­cious to hazard his Cause, as others have lately done, on the Success of a Half-thought Hy­pothesis, a Crude Invention, a pretty New Querk. In a word, we can only say of him, since there is no Remedy, Contenti simus hoc Catone.’ V. Con­sid. [Page 84] &c. in a Letter to H. H. p. 3.

Such an Adversary as this is worthy the Pens of their Ablest Writers. If therefore at this Jun­cture, when the Press is open, these Unitarians shall not An­swer those Dialogues, I must with freedom tell them, It is not because they dare not, but because they cannot.

Q. Leaving these Unitarians to defend their Parallel at their lea­sure; let me now hear your An­swer which you were pleased to Promise.

A. ‘I shall endeavour to re­turn a more particular Answer [Page 85] to this Objection; and such a One as I hope will satisfy eve­ry considerate and unprejudi­ced Mind, that after all this confidence and swaggering of theirs, there is by no means equal Reason either for the re­ceiving, or for the rejecting of these two Doctrines of the Tri­nity and Transubstantiation.’ Vid. Archbishop Tillotson's Serm. on 1 Tim. II. 5. p. 30.

Q. First; Let us examine, whether there be equal Reason for the Belief of these Two Do­ctrines?

A. ‘If this Suggestion of theirs be of any force, we [Page 86] must suppose that there is equal Evidence and Proof from Scripture for these Two Doctrines.’

Q. How do you prove there is not?

A. ‘From the Confession of our Adversaries themselves. For several Learned Writers of the Church of Rome have free­ly acknowledged, that Tran­substantiation can neither be di­rectly proved, nor necessarily concluded from Scripture. But this the Writers of the Christian Church did never acknowledge concerning the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ; but have [Page 87] always appealed to the clear and undeniable Testimonies of Scripture for the Proof of these Doctrines. And then the whole force of the Objection amounts to this; That if I am bound to Believe what I am sure God says, though I cannot Comprehend it; then I am bound by the same rea­son to believe the greatest Ab­surdity in the World, though I have no manner of assurance of any Divine Revelation con­cerning it.’

Q. You think then, that as there is not equal reason for the Be­lieving, so neither is there equal reason for the rejecting of these Two Doctrines.

[Page 88] A.

Q. As to the First; Is not the Trinity as Incomprehensible as Tran­substantiation, and as such equally to be rejected?

[Page 89] A. ‘It is not good ground of rejecting any Doctrine, merely because it is Incomprehensible; as I have abundantly shewed already. But besides this, there is a wide difference be­tween plain matters of Sense, and Mysteries concerning God. And it does by no means follow, that if a man do once admit any thing concerning God which he cannot com­prehend, he hath no reason af­terwards to Believe what he himself Sees. This is a most unreasonable and destructive way of arguing, because it strikes at the Foundation of all Certainty, and sets every [Page 90] Man at Liberty to deny the most plain and evident Truths of Christianity, if he may not be humoured in having the absurdest things in the World admitted for true. The next step will be to persuade us, that we may as well deny the Being of God, because his Nature is incomprehensible by our Reason, as deny Tran­substantiation because it evi­dently contradicts our Senses.’ Id. Ib. p. 32.

Q. As Transubstantiation evi­dently contradicts our Senses; So these Unitarians pretend, that the Trinity as evidently contradicts our Reason. And then, say they, [Page 91] are not these Two Doctrines load­ed with the like Absurdities and Contradictions?

A. ‘So far from this, that the Doctrine of the Trinity, as it is delivered in the Scri­ptures, and hath already been explained, hath no Absurdity or Contradiction either invol­ved in it, or necessarily conse­quent upon it. But the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation is big with all imaginable Ab­surdity and Contradiction.’ As the Unitarians themselves do acknowledge: And therefore I am not now concerned to prove it.

[Page 92] Q. However you are concern­ed to defend the Trinity. The Contradictions and Absurdities of which (as these Unitarians pre­tend) are as great as those of Transubstantiation.

A. I cannot help their Pre­tences. But if their Prejudices will allow them to examine my Reasons, I shall yet fur­ther endeavour their Convi­ction. And that I may do it the more effectually, I shall desire You (as their Advocate, and in their Name) to pro­duce those Absurdities which appear the most dreadful.

[Page 93] Q.

‘ For the First, it seems very absurd, that there should be Three Persons really distinct, whereof every one is God, and yet there should not be Three Gods. For nothing is more Con­tradictious, than to make Three not to be Three; or Three to be but One.’

[Page 94] A. ‘I hope now you will give me leave to make an Answer to your Difficulty, as distinct as possible.’

‘It is very true, that ac­cording to Arithmetick, Three cannot be One, nor One Three. But we must distinguish be­tween the bare Numeration, and the Things numbred. The repetition of three Units, certainly makes three distinct Numbers; but it doth not make Three Persons to be Three Natures. And therefore as to the Things themselves, we must go from the bare Numbers to consider their Na­ture.’

[Page 95] ‘We do not say, that Three Persons are but One Person, or that One Nature is Three Natures; but that there are Three Persons in One Nature. If therefore One Individual Nature be communicable to Three Persons, there is no appearance of Absurdity in this Doctrine. And on the other side, it will be impossible there should be three Gods, where there is one and the same Individual Nature. For Three Gods must have Three several Divine Natures, since it is the Divine Essence which makes a God.’ V. Two Dial. Part. II. p. 24.

[Page 96]But of this there hath been given so full an Account in this Collection, that those who shall seriously and attentively consider it, will, I hope, through God's Blessing, receive Satis­faction.

Q. ‘But yet you have not Answer'd the other great Diffi­culty in Point of Reason, viz. That those Things which a­gree or disagree in a Third, must agree or disagree One with the Other. And therefore if the Father be God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God; then the Father must be Son and Holy Ghost, and the Son and Holy Ghost must be the [Page 97] Father. If not, then they are really the same, and really di­stinct; the same as to Essence, distinct as to Persons; and so they are the same, and not the same, which is a Contra­diction.’

A. ‘Now I think you have drawn out the most refined Spirits of Socinianism, to make the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation parallel, because, you say, it implies a Contradiction; Which is the nearest Parallel you have yet offered at. But this ter­rible Argument is grounded on this mistaken Supposition, viz. That the Divine Essence is [Page 98] no more capable of communicating it self to Three distinct Per­sons, than any Created Being is. The Reason of that Axiom be­ing, That Created Things, by reason of their finite Nature, cannot diffuse or communicate themselves to more than one; and therefore those which agree in a Third, must agree together. But supposing it possible that the same finite Nature could extend it self to several Indi­viduals, it would be presently answered; The Axiom did hold only, where they did adequate­ly and reciprocally agree, and not where they did agree on­ly in Essence, but differ'd in the manner of Subsistence. For [Page 99] where a different manner of Subsistence is supposed possible, in the same Individual Na­ture, the Agreement in that cannot take away that Diffe­rence which is consistent with it; which we attribute to the unlimitedness and perfection of the Divine Nature.’

Q. ‘But you can bring no other Instance but the thing in Question; and therefore this is a Petitio Principii, or taking that for granted which is in Dispute.’

A. ‘I do not think it to be so, where the Reason is as­signed from the peculiar Pro­perties of the Divine Nature, [Page 100] to which there can be no Pa­rallel. And I think it very unreasonable in the Socinians, to send us to Created Beings for the Rules and Measures of our Judgment, concerning a Being acknowledg'd to be In­finite.’

Q. ‘Are not the Divine Per­sons Infinite, as well as the Di­vine Nature? And therefore as Created Persons do take in the whole Nature, so Infinite Per­sons will do the Infinite Na­ture.’

A. ‘No question, but the Persons are Infinite in regard of the Nature which is so; but if [Page 101] an Infinite Nature be commu­nicable to more Persons than One, every such Person cannot appropriate the whole Nature to it self.’

Q. ‘If the Difference be on the account of Infinity, then there must be an infinite number of Persons in the Divine Essence.’

A. ‘I answer; that infinite­ness of Number is no Perfe­ction; and as to the Number of Persons, we follow not our own Conjectures, nor the Au­thority of the Church; but Divine Revelation, which hath assured us, that there is but One God, and yet there are [Page 102] Three that are One. Which depends not merely on the Place of St. John, but the Form of Baptism is remark­able to this purpose; which joyns together the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; with­out any other distinction be­sides that of Order and Rela­tion: And it is against the Fundamental Design of Chri­stianity, to joyn any Created Beings together with God in so solemn an Act of Religi­on. And St. Paul joyns them together in his Benediction: The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Love of God▪ and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen. [Page 103] 2 Cor. 12. 14. From whence the Christian Church hath al­ways believed a Trinity of Per­sons in the Unity of the Divine Nature.’ V. Two Dial. Part II. p. 31.