A seasonable vindication of the B. Trinity being an answer to this question, why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity? : collected from the works of the most Reverend, Dr. John Tillotson, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and the right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, now Lord Bishop of Worcester.

A seasonable vindication of the B. Trinity being an answer to this question, why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity? : collected from the works of the most Reverend, Dr. John Tillotson, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and the right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, now Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Table of contents

Title page

THE PREFACE.

A VINDICATION OF THE B. TRINITY.

THE CLOSE.

THE CONTENTS.

Catalogue of some Books Printed for B. Aylmer.

Now in the Press.

A VINDICATION OF THE B. TRINITY.

[Page]

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] 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] 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]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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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]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] 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]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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] ‘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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] ‘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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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]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] 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] ‘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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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]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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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]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] 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] 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]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] ‘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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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]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] 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] 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]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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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]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] 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] &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] 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] 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] 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] A.

This the Objection supposes; Which yet cannot be supposed but upon one or both of these Two Grounds. Either

1. Because these Two Doctrines are equally Incomprehensible. Or,

2. Because they are equally loaded with Absurdities and Contradictions.

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

[Page] 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] 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] 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] 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] Q.

I shall reduce all to these Two, which comprehend the rest.

1. How there can be Three Persons, and but One God.

2. How these can agree in a Third, and not agree among themselves.

‘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] 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] ‘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]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] 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]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] 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] 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] 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]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] 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.

§

[Page]

[Page]

A Seasonable VINDICATION OF THE B. Trinity.

Being an Answer to this Question, Why do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity?

Collected from the Works of the Most Reverend, Dr. John Tillotson, Late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. And the Right Reverend, Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, Now Lord Bishop of Worcester.

LONDON: Printed for B. Aylmer, at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill. MDCXCVII.

THE PREFACE.

[Page]

[Page]

OUR Modern Socinians (who are pleased to call themselves Unitarians) having not only Disputed, but most Blasphemously Ridiculed the Doctrine of the B. Trinity; for the Conviction of such Gainsayers, and the Confirmation of Others, it is thought fit to Publish the following Discourse, faithfully Collected from the Learned Works of Archbishop TILLOTSON, and Bishop STILLINGFLEET.

[Page]Concerning Bishop STILLINGFLEET, I shall say nothing, because he is alive to Answer for himself. But as to Archbishop TILLOTSON, I hope it will appear even from this Collection, ‘That his Grace was very far from being a Socinian; however his Memory hath been very unworthily Reproached in that, as well as other Respects, since his Death.’

THE CLOSE.

[Page]

‘THE Unitarians themselves cannot deny, that many Things certainly are, the particular manner of whose Existence we can neither Comprehend nor Explain. Therefore, though the particular Manner of the Existence of these Three Differences or Persons in the Divine Nature, expressed in Scripture by the Names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is [Page] incomprehensible by our finite Understandings, and inexplicable by us; that is, though the manner of the Union and Distinction between them, is above our Reach and Comprehension; yet considering the infinite Perfections of the Divine Nature, which are so far above our reach, God may justly oblige us to believe those Things concerning Himself, which we are not able to Comprehend.’

‘And of this, I hope, I have given a sufficient Account in the foregoing Discourse.’

FINIS.

THE CONTENTS.

[Page]

[Page]

THE Doctrine of the Trinity is a very Rational Doctrine. P. 1

What is meant by this Word Trinity, and what Doctrines concerning it are proposed to our Belief? 2

What is Faith or Belief in General? 5

Why we believe the Doctrine of the Trinity? 10

How it can be proved that God hath Revealed it? 12

Object. Neither the word Trinity, nor the word Person are to be found in Scripture. Answer'd. 14

Object. 'Tis the Doctrine of the Athanasian Creed, Therefore, the Clergy of the Church of England are resolved to Defend it. Answer'd. 19

[Page] Object. 'Tis above Reason. Answ. 22

'Tis not repugnant to Reason to believe some Things which are incomprehensible by our Reason. 24

Object. 'Tis contrary to Reason. Answ. 44

Object. Three Divine Persons, are Three Divine Substances, Therefore Three Gods. Answ. 59

The Parallel between the Trinity and Transubstantiation largely considered. 75

The Close. 104

Catalogue of some Books Printed for B. Aylmer.

[Page]

A Conference with an Anabaptist. Being a Defence of Infant-Baptism. In 8vo. Price 12 d.

A Theological Discourse of Last Wills and Testaments. In 8vo. Price 12 d.

A Discourse concerning a Death-Bed Repentance. Price 6 d.

A Seasonable Vindication of the B. Trinity. Being an Answer to this Question, Why do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity? Collected from the Works of the Most Reverend, Dr. John Tillotson, Late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. And the Right Reverend, Dr. Edward Stillingsteet, now Lord Bishop of Worcester. Price 12 d

A Short Exposition (of the Preliminary Questions and Answers) of the Church Catechism. Being an Introduction to a Defence of Infant-Baptism. Price 2 d.

Directions in order to the Suppressing of Debauchery and Prophaneneness. 2 d.

A Discourse against Blasphemy. Being a Conference with M. S. Concerning 1. The Rudeness of Atheistical Discourse. 2. The Certainty and Eternity of Hell-Torments. 3. The Truth and Authority of the Holy Scripture. 2 d.

A Discourse against 1. Drunkenness. 2. Swearing and Cursing. 2 d.

The Plain Man's Devotion. Part 1. Being a Method of Daily Devotion, fitted to the meanest Capacities. 2 d.

[Page]The Plain Man's Devotion. Part 2. Being a Method of Devotion for the Lord's-Day. 2 d.

These are the price of each of these small Books single; but for the encouragement of those that are so charitably inclined to give away some quantities of them, they may have them at Ten shillings a hundred, At Brab. Aylmer's, in Cornhill.

These above, all Writ by the Reverend William Assheton. D. D.

Six Sermons concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of Our Blessed Saviour; His Sacrifice and Satisfaction: And of the Unity of the Divine Nature in the B. Trinity. By his Grace, John, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. In 8vo.

Certain Propositions by which the Doctrine of the H. Trinity is so explained, according to the Ancient Fathers, as to speak it not contradictory to Reason.

A Second Defence of the Propositions.

Both by Edward, Lord Bishop of Glocester.

A Brief Exposition on the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and Ten Commandments. To which is added the Doctrine of the Sacraments. By Isaac Barrow, D. D. And late Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. This on the Creed never before Published: Being very different from the Volume of Sermons on it. In 8vo.

Now in the Press.

A Defence of the Blessed Trinity. By Isaac Barrow, D. D. Never before Printed. Price 1 s.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

A seasonable vindication of the B. Trinity being an answer to this question, why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity? : collected from the works of the most Reverend, Dr. John Tillotson, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and the right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, now Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.

Edition statement

1697

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2004-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A62586

ID [STC]

Wing T1221

ID [STC]

ESTC R10019

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

11815295

ID [OCLC]

ocm 11815295

ID [VID]

49529

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A62586)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 49529)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 553:8)

Source

— A seasonable vindication of the B. Trinity being an answer to this question, why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity? : collected from the works of the most Reverend, Dr. John Tillotson, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and the right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, now Lord Bishop of Worcester., Tillotson, John, 1630-1694., Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699., Assheton, William, 1641-1711..

Extent

[4], 105, [2] p.

Printed for B. Aylmer ...,. London :: 1697.. (Compiled by W. Assheton. Cf. BMC.) (Reproduction of original in the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign Campus). Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.