be glory for ever." Now, if God were of any causes, internal or external, any principles antecedent or superior to him, he could not be so absolutely first and independent. Were he composed of parts, accidents, manner of being, he could not be first; for all these are before that which is of them, and therefore his essence is absolutely simple.

Secondly, God is absolutely and perfectly one and the same, and nothing differs from his essence in it: "The LORD our God is one LORD," Deut. vi. 4; "Thou art the same," Ps. cii. 27. And where there is an absolute oneness and sameness in the whole, there is no composition by an union of extremes. Thus is it with God: his name is, "I AM; I AM THAT I AM,” Exod. iii. 14, 15; "Which is," Rev. i. 8. He, then, who is what he is, and whose all that is in him is, himself, hath neither parts, accidents, principles, nor any thing else, whereof his essence should be compounded.

Thirdly, The attributes of God, which alone seem to be distinct things in the essence of God, are all of them essentially the same with one another, and every one the same with the essence of God itself. For, first, they are spoken one of another as well as of God; as there is his "eternal power" as well as his "Godhead." And, secondly, they are either infinite and infinitely perfect, or they are not. If they are, then if they are not the same with God, there are more things infinite than one, and consequently more Gods; for that which is absolutely infinite is absolutely perfect, and consequently God. If they are not infinite, then God knows not himself, for a finite wisdom cannot know perfectly an infinite being. And this might be farther confirmed by the particular consideration of all kinds of composition, with a manifestation of the impossibility of their attribution unto God; arguments to which purpose the learned reader knows where to find in abundance.

Fourthly, Yea, that God is, and must needs be, a simple act (which expression Mr B. fixes on for the rejection of it) is evident from this one consideration, which was mentioned before: If he be not so, there must be some potentiality in God. Whatever is, and is not a simple act, hath a possibility to be perfected by act; if this be in God, he is not perfect, nor all-sufficient. Every composition whatever is of power and act; which if it be, or might have been in God, he could not be said to be immutable, which the Scripture plentifully witnesseth that he is.

These are some few of the grounds of this affirmation of ours concerning the simplicity of the essence of God; which when Mr B. removes and answers, he may have more of them, which at present there is no necessity to produce.

From his being he proceeds to his subsistence, and expressly rejects his subsisting in three persons, name and thing. That this is no new attempt, no undertaking whose glory Mr B. may arrogate to himself, is known. Hitherto God hath taken thought for his own glory, and eminently confounded the opposers of the subsistence of his essence in three distinct persons. Inquire of them that went before, and of the dealings of God with them of old. What is become of Ebion, Cerinthus, Paulus Samosatenus, Theodotus Byzantinus, Photinus, Arius, Macedonius, etc.? Hath not God made their memory to rot, and their names to be an abomination to all generations? How they once attempted to have taken possession of the churches of God, making slaughter and havoc of all that opposed them, hath been declared; but their place long since knows them no more. By the subsisting of God in any person, no more is intended than that person's being God. If that person be God, God subsists in that person. If you grant the Father to be a person (as the Holy Ghost expressly affirms him

to be, Heb. i. 3) and to be God, you grant God to subsist in that person: that is all which by that expression is intended. The Son is God, or is not. To say he is not God, is to beg that which cannot be proved. If he be God, he is the Father, or he is another person. If he be the Father, he is not the Son. That he is the Son and not the Son is sufficiently contradictory. If he be not the Father, as was said, and yet be God, he may have the same nature and substance with the Father (for of our God there is but one essence, nature, or being), and yet be distinct from him. That distinction from him is his personality,-that property whereby and from whence he is the Son. The like is to be said of the Holy Ghost. The thing, then, here denied is, that the Son is God, or that the Holy Ghost is God: for if they are so, God must subsist in three persons; of which more afterward. Now, is this not to be found in the Scriptures? Is there no text affirming Christ to be God, to be one with the Father, or that the Holy Ghost is so? no text saying, "There are three that bear record in heaven; and these three are one?" none ascribing divine perfections, divine worship distinctly to either Son or Spirit, and yet jointly to one God? Are none of these things found in the Scripture, that Mr B. thinks with one blast to demolish all these ancient foundations, and by his bare authority to deny the common faith of the present saints, and that wherein their predecessors in the worship of God are fallen asleep in peace? The proper place for the consideration of these things will farther manifest the abomination of this bold attempt against the Son of God and the Eternal Spirit. For the divine circumincession, mentioned in the next place, I shall only say that it is not at all in my intention to defend all the expressions that any men have used (who are yet sound in the main) in the unfolding of this great, tremendous mystery of the blessed Trinity, and I could heartily wish that they had some of them been less curious in their inquiries and less bold in their expressions. It is the thing itself alone whose faith I desire to own and profess; and therefore I shall not in the least labour to retain and hold those things or words which may be left or lost without any prejudice thereunto.

Briefly; by the barbarous term of "mutual circumincession," the schoolmen understand that which the Greek fathers called iμmagixúgnois, whereby they expressed that mystery, which Christ himself teaches us, of "his being in the Father, and the Father in him," John x. 38, and of the Father's dwelling in him, and doing the works he did, chap. xiv. 10,— the distinction of these persons being not hereby taken away, but the disjunction of them as to their nature and being.

The eternal generation of the Son is in the next place rejected, that he may be sure to cast down every thing that looks towards the assertion of his deity, whom yet the apostle affirms to be "God blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5. That the Word, which" in the beginning was" (and therefore is) "God," is "the only begotten of the Father," the apostle affirms, John í. 14. That he is also "the only begotten Son of God" we have other plentiful testimonies, Ps. ii. 7; John iii. 16; Acts xiii. 33; Heb. i. 4-6;—a Son so as, in comparison of his sonship, the best of sons by adoption are servants, Heb. iii. 5, 6; and so begotten as to be an only Son, John i. 14; though, begotten by grace, God hath many sons, James i. 18. Christ, then, being begotten of the Father, hath his generation of the Father; for these are the very same things in words of a diverse sound. The only question here is, whether the Son have the generation so often spoken of from eternity or in time,-whether it be an eternal or a temporal generation from whence he is so said to be "begotten." As Christ is a Son, so by him

66

the "worlds were made," Heb. i. 2, so that surely he had his sonship before he took flesh in the fulness of time; and when he had his sonship he had his generation. He is such a Son as, by being partaker of that name, he is exalted above angels, Heb. i. 5; and he is the "first begotten before he is brought into the world, verse 6: and therefore his "goings forth" are said to be "from the days of eternity," Micah v. 2; and he had glory with the Father" (as the Son) "before the world was," John xvii. 5. Neither is he said to be "begotten of the Father" in respect of his incarnation, but conceived by the Holy Ghost, or formed in the womb by him, of the substance of his mother; nor is he thence called the "Son of God." In brief, if Christ be the eternal Son of God, Mr B. will not deny him to have had an eternal generation: if he be not, a generation must be found out for him suitable to the sonship which he hath; of which abomination in its proper place.

This progress have we made in Mr. B.'s creed: He believes God to be finite, to be by us comprehended, compounded; he believes there is no trinity of persons in the Godhead,-that Christ is not the eternal Son of God. The following parts of it are of the same kind :—

The eternal procession of the Holy Ghost is nextly rejected. The Holy Ghost being constantly termed the "Spirit of God," the "Spirit of the Father," and the "Spirit of the Son" (being also " God," as shall afterward be evinced), and so partaking of the same nature with Father and Son (the apostle granting that God hath a nature, in his rejecting of them who " by nature are no gods"), is yet distinguished from them, and that eternally (as nothing is in the Deity that is not eternal), and being, moreover, said izogeusoda, or to "proceed" and " go forth" from the Father and Son, this expression of his "eternal procession" hath been fixed on, manifesting the property whereby he is distinguished from Father and Son. The thing intended hereby is, that the Holy Ghost, who is God, and is said to be of the Father and the Son, is by that name, of his being of them, distinguished from them; and the denial hereof gives you one article more of Mr B.'s creed, namely, that the Holy Ghost is not God. To what that expression of "proceeding" is to be accommodated will afterward be considered.

66

The incarnation of Christ (the Deity and Trinity being despatched) is called into question, and rejected. By "incarnation" is meant, as the word imports, a taking of flesh (this is variously by the ancients expressed, but the same thing still intended'), or being made so. The Scripture affirming that "the Word was made flesh," John i. 14; that "God was manifest in the flesh,” 1 Tim. iii. 16; that "Christ took part of flesh and blood," Heb. ii. 14; that " he took on him the seed of Abraham," chap. ii. 16; that he was "made of a woman," Gal. iv. 4, 5; sent forth" in the likeness of sinful flesh," Rom. viii. 3; " in all things made like unto his brethren," Heb. ii. 17,—we thought we might have been allowed to say so also, and that this expression might have escaped with a less censure than an utter rejection out of Christian religion. The Son of God taking flesh, and so being made like to us, that he might be the "captain of our salvation," is that which by this word (and that according to the Scripture) is affirmed, and which, to increase the heap of former abominations (or to " carry on the work of reformation beyond the stint of Luther or Calvin"), is here by Mr B. decried.

1

Of the hypostatical union there is the same reason. Christ, who as

Ενσάρκωσις· ἐνσωμάτωσις· ἐνανθρώπησις· ἡ δεσποτικὴ ἐπιδημία· ἡ παρουσία· ἡ οἰκονομία· ἡ διὰ σαρκὸς ὁμιλία· ἡ δι' ἀνθρωπότητος φανέρωσις· ἡ ἔλευσις· ἡ κένωσις· ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπι φάνεια· ἡ συγκατάβασις· ἡ περιχώρησις.

"concerning the flesh" was of the Jews, and is God to be blessed for ever, over all, Rom. ix. 5, is one person. Being God to be blessed over all, that is, God by nature (for such as are not so, and yet take upon them to be gods, God will destroy), and having "flesh and blood as the children" have, Heb. ii. 14, that is, the same nature of man with believers, yet being but one person, one mediator, one Christ, the Son of God, we say both these natures of God and man are united in that one person, namely, the person of the Son of God. This is that which Mr B. rejects (now his hand is in), both name and thing. The truth is, all these things are but colourable advantages wherewith he laboureth to amuse poor souls. Grant the deity of Christ, and he knows all these particulars will necessarily ensue; and whilst he denies the foundation, it is to no purpose to contend about any consequences or inferences whatever. And whether we have ground for the expression under present consideration, John i. 14, 18, xx. 28; Acts xx, 28; Rom. i. 3, 4, ix. 5; Gal. iv. 4; Phil. ii. 5-8; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 John i. 1, 2; Rev. v. 12-14, with innumerable other testimonies of Scripture, may be considered. If "the Word, the Son of God, was made flesh, made of a woman, took our nature," wherein he was pierced and wounded, and shed his blood, and yet continues " our Lord and our God, God blessed for ever," esteeming it "no robbery to be equal with his Father," yet being a person distinct from him, being the "brightness of his person," we fear not to say that the two natures of God and man are united in one person; which is the hypostatical union here rejected.

The communication of properties, on which depend two or three of the following instances mentioned by Mr B., is a necessary consequent of the union before asserted; and the thing intended by it is no less clearly delivered in Scripture than the truths before mentioned. It is affirmed of "the man Christ Jesus" that he "knew what was in the heart of man," that he "would be with his unto the end of the world," and Thomas, putting his hand into his side, cried out to him, "My Lord and my God," etc., when Christ neither did nor was so, as he was man. Again, it is said that "God redeemed his church with his own blood," that the "Son of God was made of a woman," that "the Word was made flesh," none of which can properly be spoken of God, his Son, or eternal Word, in respect of that nature whereby he is so; and therefore we say, that look what properties are peculiar to either of his natures (as, to be omniscient, omnipotent, to be the object of divine worship, to the Deity; to be born, to bleed, and die, to the humanity), are spoken of in reference to his person, wherein both those natures are united. So that whereas the Scriptures say that "God redeemed his church with his own blood," or that he was "made flesh;" or whereas, in a consonancy thereunto, and to obviate the folly of Nestorius, who made two persons of Christ, the ancients called the blessed Virgin the Mother of God,-the intendment of the one and other is no more but that he was truly God, who in his manhood was a son, had a mother, did bleed and die. And such Scripture expressions we affirm to be founded in this "communication of properties," or the assignment of

1 "Non ut Deus esset habitator, natura humana esset habitaculum: sed ut naturæ alteri sic misceretur altera, ut quamvis alia sit quæ suscipitur, alia vero quæ suscipit, in tantam tamen unitatem conveniret utriusque diversitas, ut unus idemque sit Filius, qui se, et secundum quod unus homo est, Patre dicit minorem, et secundum quod unus Deus est, Patri se profitetur æqualem."-Leo Serm. iii. de Nat.

2 Τοὺς μὲν ταπεινοὺς λόγους τῷ ἐκ Μαρίας ἀνθρώπῳ, τοὺς δὲ ἀνηγμένους, καὶ θεοπρεπεῖς τῷ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντι λόγῳ.-Theod. Dial. Ασυγχ

8 Ταῦτα πάντα σύμβολα σαρκὸς τῆς ἀπὸ γῆς εἰλημμένης.—Iren. lib. iii. ad. Hæres. "Salva proprietate utriusque naturæ, suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a virtute infirmitas, ab æternitate modalitas."-Leo. Ep. ad Flavi.

that unto the person of Christ, however expressly spoken of as God or man, which is proper to him in regard of either of these natures, the one or other, God on this account being said to do what is proper to man, and man what is proper alone to God, because he who is both God and man doth both the one and the other. By what expressions and with what diligence the ancients warded the doctrine of Christ's personal union against both Nestorius and Eutyches, the one of them dividing his person into two, the other confounding his natures by an absurd confusion and mixture of their respective essential properties (Mr B. not giving occasion), I shall not farther mention.

And this is all Mr B. instances in of what he rejects as to our doctrine about the nature of God, the Trinity, person of Christ, and the Holy Ghost; of all which he hath left us no more than what the Turks and other Mohammedans will freely acknowledge. And whether this be to be a "mere Christian," or none at all, the pious reader will judge.

Having dealt thus with the person of Christ, he adds the names of two abominable figments, to give countenance to his undertaking, wherein he knows those with whom he hath to do have no communion, casting the deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost into the same bundle with transubstantiation and consubstantiation; to which he adds the ubiquity of the body of Christ, after mentioned, self-contradicting fictions. With what sincerity, candour, and Christian ingenuity, Mr B. hath proceeded, in rolling up together such abominations as these with the most weighty and glorious truths of the gospel, that together he might trample them under his feet in the mire, God will certainly in due time reveal to himself and all the world. The next thing he decries is original sin (I will suppose Mr B. knows what those whom he professeth to oppose intend thereby); and this he condemns, name and thing. That the guilt of our first father's sin is imputed to his posterity; that they are made obnoxious to death thereby, that we are "by nature children of wrath, dead in trespasses and sins, conceived in sin; that our understandings are darkness, so that we cannot receive the things that are of God; that we are able to do no good of ourselves, so that unless we are born again we cannot enter into the kingdom of God; that we are alienated, enemies, have carnal minds, that are enmity against God, and cannot be subject to him;"-all this and the like is at once blown away by Mr B.; there is no such thing. "Una litura potest." That Christ by nature is not God, that we by nature have no sin, are the two great principles of this "mere Christian's" belief.

Of Christ's taking our nature upon him, which is again mentioned, we have spoken before. If he was "made flesh, made of a woman, made under the law; if he partook of flesh and blood because the children partake of the same; if he took on him the seed of Abraham, and was made like to us in all things, sin only excepted; if, being in the form of God and equal to him, he took on him the form of a servant, and became like to us," he took our nature on him; for these, and these only, are the things which by that expression are intended.

1 Ουτος ἐστὶν ὁ τρόπος ἀντιδώσεως, εκατέρας φύσεως ἀντιδιδούσης τῆ ἐκατέρᾳ τὰ ἴδια, διὰ τὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως ταυτότητα, καὶ τὴν εἰς ἀλλήλα αὐτῶν περιχώρησιν.—Danas. de Orthod. Fide, lib. iii. cap. iv.

3 ̓Αληθῶς, τελέως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀσυγχύτως.—Vide Evagrium, lib. i. cap. ii. iii. ; Socrat. Hist. lib. vii. cap. xxix. xxxii. xxxiii.; Niceph. lib. xiv. cap. xlvii. 3 Vid. Ioh. Hen. Hotting. Hist. Oriental., lib. i. cap. iii. ex Alko. sura. 30. 4 Rom. v. 12, 15, 16, 19; Eph. ii. 1-3; Ps. li 5; John i. 5; Eph. iv. 18; 1 Cor. ii. 14; John iii. 5, 6; Eph. ii. 12; Col. i. 21; Rom. viii. 6-8. John i. 14; Gal. iv. 4, 5; Heb. ii. 14, 16, 17; Phil. ii. 6-8.