Sermon Concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of our Blessed Savior, Sermon 6

Sermon Concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of our Blessed Savior · Sermon 6

p. 241SERMON VI. Concerning the Ʋnity of the Divine Nature, and the B. Trinity, &c.

1 TIM. II. 5.

For there is one God.

THE Particle for leads us to the conſideration of the Context and Occaſion of theſe words, which in ſhort is this. The deſign of this Epiſtle is to direct Timothy, to whom St. Paul had committed the Government of the Church of Epheſus, how he ought to demean himſelf in that great and weighty Charge. And at the beginning of this Chapter he gives direction concerning Publick Prayers in the Church; that Prayers and Thankſgiving p. 242he made for all men, and for all Ranks and Orders of men; eſpecially for Kings and all that are in Authority, that under them Chriſtians might lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlineſs and honeſty.

And this he tells us was very ſuitable to the Chriſtian Religion, by which God deſigned the Salvation of Mankind; and therefore it muſt needs be very acceptable to him that we ſhould offer up Prayers and Thankſgivings to him in behalf of all men: For this, ſaith the Apoſtle, is good and acceptable in the ſight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be ſaved, and to come to the knowledge of the Truth.

And then it follows in the next words, For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Chriſt Jesus, who gave himſelf a Ranſome for all: As if he had ſaid, this univerſal Charity of Chriſtians, in praying for all men, muſt needs be very acceptable to Him to whom we put up our Prayers, God the Father, who ſent p. 243his Son for the Salvation of all men: And to Him likewiſe by whom we offer up our Prayers to God, and is among us Chriſtians the only Media or between God and Men, in virtue of that Price and Ranſom which he paid for the Redemption of all Mankind, I ſay, for this reaſon it muſt needs be very acceptable to Him that we ſhould pray for all men, becauſe he died for all men, and now that he is in Heaven at the right hand of God intercedes with him for the Salvation of thoſe for whom he died: There is One God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Chriſt Jeſus, who gave himſelf a Ranſome for all.

Which words, though they be brought in to prove more immediately that it is acceptable to God our Saviour, that we ſhould put up Prayers to Him for all men, becauſe he deſires the Salvation of all men, and hath ſent his Son to purchaſe the Salvation of all men, by the Sacrifice of himſelf; p. 244and in virtue of that Sacrifice to be the only Mediator between God and us: I ſay, though this be the immediate ſcope and deſign of theſe words, yet they are likewiſe a direction to us, unto whom we ought to addreſs our Prayers, namely, to God; and by whoſe mediation and interceſſion we ought to put up our Prayers to God the Father, namely, by his Son Jeſus Chriſt, who is conſtituted the only Mediator between God and Men.

There are ſeveral Propoſitions contained in this and the following verſe; but I ſhall at preſent confine my ſelf to the firſt, namely, That there is One God, 1 Cor. 8. 4.1 Cor 8:4that is, but One, as St. Paul elſewhere expreſſeth it, There is none other God but One. And Moſes lays this as the Foundation of the Natural Law, as well as of the Jewiſh Religion,Deut. 4. 35.Deut 4:35 The Lord he is One God, and there is none beſides him, that is, beſides Jehovah, whom the People of Iſrael did worſhip as the only true p. 245God. And this the Prophet Iſaiah perpetually declares in oppoſition to the Polytheiſm and variety of Gods among the Heathen. Iſai. 44. 6.Isa 44:6I am the firſt, and I am the laſt, and beſides me there is no God. v. 8.And again, Is there any God beſides me? there is no God, I know not any: He, who hath an infinite knowledge and knows all things, knows no other God. And our B. Saviour makes this the Fundamental Article of all Religion, and the knowledge of it neceſſary to every man's Salvation; This, ſays He, is life eternal, to know thee the only true God.

The Unity of the Divine Nature is a Notion wherein the greateſt and the wiſeſt part of Mankind did always agree, and therefore may reaſonably be preſumed to be either natural, or to have ſprung from ſome Original Tradition delivered down to us from the firſt Parents of Mankind: I mean, that there is One Supreme Being, the Author and Cauſe of all p. 246things, whom the moſt ancient of the Heathen Poets commonly called the Father of Gods and men. And thus Ariſtotle in his Metaphyſicks defines God, the eternal and moſt excellent, or beſt of all Living Beings. And this Notion, of One Supreme Being, agrees very well with that exact Harmony which appears in the Frame and Government of the World, in which we ſee all things conſpiring to one End, and continuing in one uniform Order and Courſe; which cannot reaſonably be aſcribed to any other but a conſtant and uniform Cauſe; and which to a conſidering man does plainly ſhew that all things are made and governed by that One powerful Principle, and great and wiſe Mind which we call God.

But although the generality of Mankind had a Notion of One Supreme God, yet the Idolatry of the Heathen plainly ſhews that this Notion, in proceſs of time, was greatly degenerated, p. 247and corrupted into an apprehenſion of a Plurality of Gods; though in reaſon it is evident enough, that there can be no more Gods than One; and that One, who is of infinite Perfection, is as ſufficient to all purpoſes whatſoever, as ten thouſand Deities, if they were poſſible, could poſſibly be; as I ſhall ſhew in the following Diſcourſe.

Now this multitude of Deities; which the fond Superſtition and vain Imagination of Men had formed to themſelves, were by the Wiſer ſort, who being forced to comply with the Follies of the People endeavoured to make the beſt of them, ſuppoſed to be either Parts of the Univerſe which the Egyptians, as Plutarch tells us, thought to be the ſame with God; but then the more conſiderable parts of the Univerſe they parcelled out into ſeveral Deities; and as the Ocean hath ſeveral Names, according to the ſeveral p. 248Coaſts and Countries by which it paſſeth; ſo they gave ſeveral Names to this One Deity according to the ſeveral Parts of the World which ſeveral Nations made the Objects of their Worſhip.

Or elſe, they adored the ſeveral Perfections and Powers of the One Supreme God under ſeveral Names and Titles, with regard to the various Bleſſings and Benefits which they thought they received from Him.

Thus the Indian Philoſophers, the Brachmans, are ſaid to have worſhipped the Sun as the Supreme Deity; and he certainly is the moſt Worſhipful of all ſenſible Beings, and bids faireſt for a Deity; eſpecially if he was, as they ſuppoſed, animated by a Spirit endued with knowledg and underſtanding. And if a man, who had been bred in a dark Cave, ſhould all on the ſudden be brought out at Noon-day to behold this viſible World; after he had viewed and conſider'd it a while, he would in p. 249all probability pitch upon the Sun as the moſt likely, of all the things he had ſeen, to be a Deity. For if ſuch a man had any Notion of a God, and were to chuſe one upon ſight, he would without diſpute fix upon the Sun, and fall down before Him and worſhip Him.

And Macrobius manageth this as his main Plea for the Idolatry of the Heathen; that under all the ſeveral Names of their Gods they Worſhipped the Sun: And this diverſity of Names was but a more diſtinct conception and acknowledgment of the many Bleſſings and advantages which mankind received from Him, and a more particular and expreſs Adoration of the ſeveral Powers and Perfections which were in Him. And this was the very beſt defence, and all the tolerable ſenſe which the Wiſeſt among the Heathen could make of the multitude of their Deities.

p. 250And yet whilſt they generally owned One Supreme Being that was the Principle and Original of all things, they worſhipped ſeveral ſubordinate Deities as really diſtinct from one another. Some of theſe they fancied to be ſuperior to the reſt and to have their reſidence in Heaven; by which Marſilius Ficinus ſuppoſes Plato to mean no more but the Chief of the Angels. Theſe were called foreign, Dii Superi and Dij Caeleſtes, ſuperior and heavenly Gods: The Scripture terms them the Hoſt of Heaven, meaning the Sun, Moon and Stars, which they ſuppoſed to be animated, or at leaſt to be inhabited by Angels, or glorious Spirits, whom they called Gods.

Other of their Deities were accounted much inferior to theſe, being ſuppoſed to be the Souls of their deceaſed Heroes; who for their great and worthy Deeds, when they lived upon Earth, were ſuppoſed after Death to be tranſlated into the p. 251number of their Gods. And theſe were called Semidei and Deaſtri, that is, half Gods and a ſort of Gods: And as the other were Celeſtial, ſo theſe were foreign a kind of Terreſtrial Spirits that were Preſidents and Procurators of Human affairs here below, that is, a middle ſort of Divine Powers that were Mediators and Agents between God and Men, and did carry the Prayers and Supplications of Men to God, and bring down the Commands and Bleſſings of God to Men.

But in the midſt of all this Crowd and confuſion of Deities, and the various Superſtitions about them, the Wiſer Heathen, as Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Ariſtotle, Tully, Plutarch and others, preſerved a true Notion of One Supreme God, whom they defined an infinite Spirit, pure from all Matter and free from all imperfection: And all the variety of their Worſhip was, as they pretended in excuſe of it, but a more particular p. 252owning of the various repreſentations of the Divine Power and Excellencies which manifeſted themſelves in the World, and of the ſeveral communications of Bleſſings and Favours by them imparted to Men: Adverſus Marcionem, I. 1. c. 10.and Tertullian obſerves, that even when Idolatry had very much obſcured the Glory of the Sovereign Deity, yet the greater part of Mankind did ſtill in their common Forms of Speech appropriate the Name of God in a more eſpecial and peculiar manner to One, ſaying, If god grant, If God pleaſe, and the like.

So that there is ſufficient ground to believe that the Unity of the Divine Nature, or the Notion of One Supreme God, Creator and Governor of the World, was the Primitive and general belief of Mankind: And that Polytheiſm and Idolatry were a corruption and degeneracy from the Original Notion which Mankind had concerning God; as the Scripture-Hiſtory doth declare and teſtify.

p. 253And this account which I have given of the Heathen Idolatry doth by no means excuſe it. For whatever may be ſaid by way of extenuation in behalf of ſome few of the wiſer and more devout among them, the generality were groſsly guilty both of believing more Gods, and of worſhipping falſe Gods.

And this muſt needs be a very great Crime, ſince the Scripture every where declares God to be particularly jealous in this Caſe, and that he will not give his glory to another, nor his praiſe to graven Images. Nay, we may not ſo much as make uſe of ſenſible Images to put us in mind of God, leſt devout Ignorance, ſeeing the Worſhip which Wiſe men paid towards an Idol, ſhould be drawn to terminate their Worſhip there, as being the very Deity it ſelf; which was certainly the Caſe of the greateſt part of the Heathen World.

And ſurely thoſe Chriſtians are in no leſs danger of Idolatry, who pay p. 254a Veneration to Images by kneeling down and praying before them; and in this they are much more inexcuſable, becauſe they offend againſt a much clearer Light; and yet when they go about to juſtify this Practice are able to bring no other nor better Pleas for themſelves than the Heathen did for their worſhipping of Images, and for praying to their inferior Deities, whom they looked upon as Mediators between the Gods in Heaven and Men upon Earth.

There is but one Objection, that I know of, againſt the general Conſent of Mankind concerning the Unity of God; and it is this, That there was an ancient Doctrine of ſome of the moſt ancient Nations, that there were two Firſt Cauſes or Principles of all things; the one the Cauſe of all Good, and the other of all the Evil that is in the World: The reaſon whereof ſeems to have been, that they could not apprehend how things of ſo contrary a nature, p. 255as Good and Evil, could proceed from one and the ſame Cauſe.

And theſe two Principles in ſeveral Nations were called by ſeveral Names. Plutarch ſays that among the Greeks the Good Principle was called God, and the Evil Principle foreign or the Devil. In conformity to which ancient Tradition the Manichees, a Sect which called themſelves Chriſtians, did advance two Principles, the one infinitely Good, which they ſuppoſed to be the Original Cauſe of all the good which is in the World; the other infinitely Evil, to which they aſcribed all the evils that are in the World.

But all this is very plainly a corruption of a much more ancient Tradition concerning that old Serpent the Devil, the Head of the fallen Angels, who by tempting our Firſt Parents to tranſgreſs a poſitive and expreſs Law of God brought Sin firſt into the World and all the Evils conſequent upon it; of which the Scripture p. 256gives us a moſt expreſs and particular account.

And as to the Notion of a Being infinitely Evil, into which this Tradition was corrupted, after Idolatry had prevailed in the World, beſides that it is a Contradiction, it would likewiſe be to no purpoſe to aſſert two oppoſite Principles of infinite, that is of equal force and Power, for two Infinites muſt of neceſſity be equal to one another; becauſe nothing can be more or greater than infinite, and therefore if two infinite Beings were poſſible they would certainly be equal, and could not be otherwiſe.

Now that the Notion of a Principle infinitely Evil is a Contradiction will be very plain, if we conſider that what is infinitely Evil muſt in ſtrict Reaſoning, and by neceſſary conſequence, be infinitely imperfect; and therefore infinitely weak, and for that reaſon, though never ſo malicious and miſchievous, yet being p. 257infinitely weak and fooliſh, could never be in a capacity either to contrive miſchief or to execute it.

But if it ſhould be admitted that a Being infinitely miſchievous could be infinitely knowing and powerful, yet it could effect no Evil; becauſe the oppoſite Principle of infinite Goodneſs, being alſo infinitely Wiſe and Powerful, they would tye up one another's hands. So that upon this ſuppoſition the Notion of a Deity muſt ſignify juſt nothing, becauſe by virtue of the eternal oppoſition and equal conflict of theſe two Principles they would keep one another at a perpetual Baye; and being juſt an equal Match to one another, the one having as much mind and power to do good as the other to do evil, inſtead of being two Deities they would be but two Idols, able to do neither good nor evil.

And having, I hope, now ſufficiently cleared this Objection, I p. 258ſhall proceed to ſhew how agreeable this Principle, that there is but one God, is to the common Reaſon of Mankind, and to the cleareſt and moſt eſſential Notions which we have of God: And this will appear theſe two ways.

Firſt, By conſidering the moſt eſſential Perfections of the Divine Nature.

Secondly, From the repugnancy and impoſſibility, the great abſurdity and inconvenience of ſuppoſing more Gods than One.

Firſt, By conſidering the moſt eſſential Perfections of the Divine Nature. Abſolute Perfection which we aſcribe to God, as the moſt eſſential Notion which Mankind hath always had concerning Him, does neceſſarily ſuppoſe Unity; becauſe this is eſſential to the Notion of a Being that is abſolutely Perfect, that all Perfection meets and is united in ſuch a Being: But to imagine more Gods, and ſome Perfections p. 259to be in one and ſome in another, does deſtroy the moſt eſſential Notion which men have of God, namely, that He is a Being abſolutely Perfect, that is, as perfect as is poſſible: Now to ſuppoſe ſome Perfections in one God which are not in another, is to ſuppoſe ſome poſſible Perfection to be wanting in God, which is a Contradiction to the moſt natural and the moſt eaſie Notion which all men have of God, that He is a Being in whom all Perfections do meet and are united: But if we ſuppoſe more Gods, each of which hath all Perfections united in Him, then all but One would be ſuperfluous and needleſs; and therefore by juſt and neceſſary conſequence not only may, but of neceſſity muſt be ſuppoſed not to be; ſince neceſſary exiſtence is eſſential to the Deity; and therefore if but One God be neceſſary, there can be no more.

p. 260Secondly, From the repugnancy and impoſſibility, the great abſurdity and inconvenience of the contrary. For ſuppoſe there were more Gods, two for example; and if there may be two there may be a Million, for we can ſtop no where: I ſay, ſuppoſe two Gods; either theſe two would be in all Perfections equal and alike, or unequal and unlike: If equal and alike in all things then, as I ſaid before, one of them would be needleſs and ſuperfluous, and if one why not as well the other? they being ſuppoſed to be in all things perfectly alike; and then there would be no neceſſity at all of the being of a God; and yet it is granted on all hands that neceſſary exiſtence is eſſential to the Notion of a God: But if they be unequal, that is, one of them inferior to and leſs perfect than the other, that which is inferior and leſs perfect could not be God, becauſe he would not have all perfection. So that which way ſoever p. 261we turn the thing and look upon it, the Notion of more Gods than One is by its own repugnancy and ſelf-contradiction deſtructive of it ſelf.

Before I come to apply this Doctrine of the Unity of God, I muſt not paſs by a very conſiderable Difficulty, which will moſt certainly ariſe in every mans mind, without taking particular notice of it, and endeavouring to remove it, if I can. And it is the Doctrine of the B. Trinity, or of three real Differences or diſtinct Perſons in One and the ſame Divine Nature.

And though this be not a Difficulty peculiar only to the Chriſtian Religion, as by the generality of thoſe who urge this Objection againſt Chriſtians hath been inconſiderately thought; for it is certain, that long before Chriſtianity appeared in the World, there was a very ancient Tradition, both among Jews and p. 262Heathen, concerning three real Differences or Diſtinctions in the Divine Nature, very nearly reſembling the Chriſtian Doctrine of the Trinity, as I ſhall have occaſion more fully to ſhew by and by: Yet it cannot be denied, but that this Difficulty doth in a more eſpecial manner affect the Chriſtian Religion; the generality of Chriſtians, who do moſt firmly believe the Trinity, believing likewiſe at the ſame time, more ſtedfaſtly if it be poſſible, that there is but One God. To us, 1 Cor. 8. 6.1 Cor 8:6ſaith St. Paul, that is, to us Chriſtians, there is but One God. But how can this poſſibly conſiſt with the common Doctrine of Chriſtians concerning the Trinity, God the Father, Son, and H. Ghoſt, to each of whom they Attribute, as they verily believe the Scripture does, the moſt incommunicable Properties and Perfections of the Divine Nature? And what is this leſs in effect than to ſay, That there are three Gods?

p. 263For the clearing of this Difficulty I ſhall, with all the brevity I can, offer theſe following Conſiderations; which I hope, to an impartial and unprejudiced Judgment, will be ſufficient to remove it, or at leaſt to break the main force and ſtrength of it.

I. I deſire it may be well conſidered, Ithat there is a wide difference between the nice Speculations of the Schools, beyond what is revealed in Scripture, concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity, and what the Scripture only teaches and aſſerts concerning this Myſtery. For it is not to be denied but that the Schoolmen, who abounded in wit and leiſure, though very few among them had either exact skill in the H. Scriptures, or in Eccleſiaſtical Antiquity and the Writings of the ancient Fathers of the Chriſtian Church: I ſay, it cannot be denied but that theſe Speculative and very acute men, who wrought a p. 264great part of their Divinity out of their own Brains as Spiders do Cobwebs out of their own bowels, have ſtarted a thouſand ſubtleties about this Myſtery, ſuch as no Chriſtian is bound to trouble his head withal; much leſs is it neceſſary for him to underſtand thoſe niceties which we may reaſonably preſume that they who talk of them did themſelves never thoroughly underſtand; and leaſt of all is it neceſſary to believe them. The modeſty of Chriſtians is contented in Divine Myſteries to know what God hath thought fit to reveal concerning them, and hath no curioſity to be wiſe above that which is written. It is enough to believe what God ſays concerning theſe matters; and if any man will venture to ſay more, every other man ſurely is at his liberty to believe as he ſees reaſon.

IIII. I deſire it may in the next place be conſidered, that the Doctrine p. 265of the Trinity, even as it is aſſerted in Scripture, is acknowledged by us to be ſtill a great Myſtery, and ſo imperfectly revealed as to be in a great meaſure incomprehenſible by Human Reaſon. 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, 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 H. 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 p. 266than thoſe which we have now to grapple withal. And this I hope I have in ſome meaſure done in one of the former Diſcourſes. Serm. II.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.

For in this and the like Caſes I take an Implicite Faith to be very commendable, that is, to believe whatever we are ſufficiently aſſured God hath revealed, though we do not fully underſtand his meaning in ſuch a Revelation. And thus every man who believes the H. Scriptures to be a truly Divine Revelation does implicitely believe a great part of the Prophetical Books of Scripture and ſeveral obſcure expreſſions in thoſe Books, though he do not particularly p. 267underſtand the meaning of all the Predictions and expreſſions contained in them. In like manner, there are certainly a great many very good Chriſtians who do not believe and comprehend the Myſteries of Faith nicely enough to approve themſelves to a Scholaſtical and Magiſterial Judge of Controverſies, who yet if they do heartily embrace the Doctrines which are clearly revealed in Scripture and live up to the plain Precepts of the Chriſtian Religion, will I doubt not be very well approved by the Great and Juſt, and by the infallibly Infallible Judge of the World.

III. Let it be further conſidered, IIIThat though neither the word Trinity, nor perhaps Perſon, in 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 p. 268Father, Son, and H. 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 expreſly and frequently mentioned; and a Trinity is nothing but three of any thing. And ſo likewiſe though the word Perſon be not there expreſly applied to Father, Son, and H. 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 H. 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 p. 269Perſons, I cannot 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 …erm 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.

IV. It deſerves further to be conſidered, IVThat there hath been a very ancient Tradition concerning three real Differences or Diſtinctions in the Divine Nature; and theſe, as I ſaid before, very nearly reſembling the Chriſtian Doctrine of the Trinity.

Whence this Tradition had its original is not eaſie upon good and certain grounds to ſay; but certain it is that the Jews anciently had this Notion: And that they did diſtinguiſh the Word of God, and the H. Spirit of p. 270God, from Him who was abſolutely called God, and whom they looked upon as the Firſt Principle of all things; as is plain from Philo Judaeus, and Moſes Nachmanides, L. 5.and others cited by the Learned Grotius in his incomparable Book of the Truth of the Chriſtian Religion.

And among the Heathen, Plato; who probably enough might have this Notion from the Jews, did make three Diſtinctions in the Deity by the Names of eſſential Goodneſs, and Mind, and Spirit.

So that whatever Objections this matter may be liable to, it is not ſo peculiar a Doctrine of the Chriſtian Religion as many have imagined, though it is revealed by it with much more clearneſs and certainty: And conſequently, neither the Jews nor Plato have any reaſon to object is to us Chriſtians; eſpecially ſince they pretend no other ground for it but either their own Reaſon, or an ancient Tradition from their Fathers: p. 271whereas we Chriſtians do appeal to expreſs Divine Revelation for what we believe in this matter, and do believe it ſingly upon that account.

V. It is beſides very conſiderable, VThat the Scriptures do deliver this Doctrine of the Trinity without any manner of doubt or queſtion concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature: And not only ſo, but do moſt ſtedfaſtly and conſtantly aſſert that there is but One God: And in thoſe very Texts, in which theſe three Differences are mentioned, the Unity of the Divine Nature is expreſly aſſerted; as where St. John makes mention of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, the Unity of theſe Three is likewiſe affirmed, There are Three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and theſe Three are One.

VI. It is yet further conſiderable, VIThat from this Myſtery, as delivered p. 272in Scripture, a Plurality of Gods cannot be inferred without making the Scripture groſly to contradict it ſelf; which I charitably ſuppoſe the Socinians would be as loth to admit as we our ſelves are. And if either Councils, or Fathers, or Schoolmen, have ſo explained this Myſtery as to give any juſt ground, or ſo much as a plauſible colour for ſuch an Inference, let the blame fall where it is due, and let it not be charged on the H. Scriptures; but rather, as the Apoſtle ſays in another Caſe, Let God be true, and every Man a liar.

VIIVIIthly and Laſtly, I deſire it may be conſidered, That it is not repugnant to Reaſon to believe 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 p. 273them. 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 either are, or can be: As the Continuity of Matter, that is, how the parts of it do hang ſo faſt together, that they are many times very hard to be parted; and yet we are ſure that it is ſo, becauſe we ſee it every day. So likewiſe how the ſmall Seeds of things contain the whole Form and Nature of the things from which they proceed and into which by degrees they grow; and yet we plainly ſee this every year.

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 p. 274and performed: As the vital union of Soul and Body: Who 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.

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 p. 275thing belonging to Him. For God himſelf is certainly the greateſt Myſtery of all other, and acknowledged by Mankind to be in his Nature, and in the particular manner of his Exiſtence, incomprehenſible by Human Underſtanding. And the reaſon of this is very evident, becauſe God is infinite, and our knowledge and underſtanding is but finite: And yet no ſober man ever thought this a good reaſon to call the Being of God in queſtion.

The ſame may be ſaid of God's certain knowledge of future Contingencies which depend upon the uncertain Wills of free Agents: It being utterly inconceivable how any Underſtanding, how large and perfect ſoever, can certainly know beforehand that which depends upon the free Will of another, which is an arbitrary and uncertain Cauſe.

And yet the Scripture doth not only attribute this Foreknowledge to God, but gives us alſo plain Inſtances p. 276of God's foretelling ſuch things, many Ages before it happened, as could not come to paſs but by the Sins of Men, in which we are ſure that God can have no hand; though nothing can happen without his permiſſion: Such was that moſt memorable Event of the Death of Chriſt who, as the Scripture tells us, was by wicked hands crucified and ſtain; and yet even this is ſaid to have happened according to the determinate foreknowledge of God, and was punctually foretold by Him ſome hundreds of years before. Nay, the Scripture doth not only aſcribe this power and perfection to the Divine Knowledge, but natural Reaſon hath been forced to acknowledge it, as we may ſee in ſome of the wiſeſt of the Philoſophers. And yet it would puzzle the greateſt Philoſopher that ever was, to give any tolerable account how any Knowledge whatſoever can certainly and infallibly foreſee an Event through uncertain p. 277and contingent Cauſes. All the reaſonable ſatisfaction that can be had in this matter is this, that it is not at all unreaſonable to ſuppoſe that infinite Knowledg may have ways of knowing things which our finite Underſtandings can by no means comprehend how they can poſſibly be known.

Again, There is hardly any thing more inconceivable than how a thing ſhould be of it ſelf, and without any Cauſe of its Being; and yet our Reaſon compels us to acknowledge this; Becauſe we certainly ſee that ſomething is, which muſt either have been of it ſelf and without a Cauſe, or elſe ſomething that we do not ſee muſt have been of it ſelf and have made all other things: And by this reaſoning we are forced to acknowledge a Deity, the mind of Man being able to find no reſt but in the acknowledgment of one eternal and wiſe Mind as the Principle and firſt Cauſe of all other p. 278things; and this Principle is that which Mankind do by general conſent call God. So that God hath laid a ſure foundation of our acknowledgment of his Being in the Reaſon of our own Minds: And though it be one of the hardeſt things in the world to conceive how any thing can be of it ſelf, yet neceſſity drives us to acknowledge it whether we will or no: And this being once granted, our Reaſon, being tired in trying all other ways, will for its own quiet and eaſe force us at laſt to fall in with the general apprehenſion and belief of Mankind concerning a Deity.

To give but one Inſtance more; There is the like Difficulty in conceiving how any thing can be made out of nothing; and yet our Reaſon doth oblige us to believe it: Becauſe Matter, which is a very imperfect Being and merely paſſive, muſt either always have been of it ſelf; or elſe, by the infinite Power of a p. 279moſt perfect and active Being, muſt have been made out of nothing: Which is much more credible, than that any thing ſo imperfect as Matter is ſhould be of it ſelf: Becauſe that which is of it ſelf cannot be conceived to have any bounds and limits of its Being and Perfection; for by the ſame reaſon that it neceſſarily is and of it ſelf, it muſt neceſſarily have all perfection, which it is certain Matter hath not; and yet neceſſary Exiſtence is ſo great a Perfection, that we cannot reaſonably ſuppoſe any thing that hath this Perfection to want any other.

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 thoſe things concerning God which we are very well aſſured he hath declared concerning Himſelf, p. 280though 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 this were a good Reaſon for not believing it, then no man ought to believe that there is a God, becauſe his Nature is moſt 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 likewiſe 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 p. 281once 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 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 itſelf; which yet, as I ſaid before, 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 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 p. 282our 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?

But before I leave this Argument, I cannot but take notice of one thing which they of the Church of Rome are perpetually objecting to us upon this Occaſion. And it is this, That by the ſame reaſon that we believe the Doctrine of the Trinity, we may and muſt receive that of Tranſubſtantiation. God forbid: Becauſe of all the Doctrines that ever were in any Religion, this of Tranſubſtantiation is certainly the moſt abominably abſurd.

However, this Objection plainly ſhews how fondly and obſtinately they are addicted to their own Errors, how miſhapen and monſtrous ſoever; inſomuch that rather than p. 283the 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 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; except only by the Socinians, who yet are hearty Enemies to Tranſubſtantiation, and have expoſed the abſurdity of it with great advantage.

But I ſhall endeavour to return a more particular Anſwer 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 p. 284either for the receiving or for the rejecting of theſe two Doctrines of the Trinity and Tranſubſtantiation.

Firſt, There is not equal reaſon for the belief of theſe Two Doctrines. This Objection, if it be of any force, muſt ſuppoſe that there is equal evidence and proof from Scripture for theſe two Doctrines: But this we utterly deny, and with great reaſon; becauſe it is no more evident from the words of Scripture that the Sacramental Bread is ſubſtantially changed into Chriſt's natural Body by virtue of thoſe words, This is my Body, than it is that Chriſt is ſubſtantially changed into a natural Vine by virtue of thoſe words,Joh, 15, 1. I am the true Vine; or than that the Rock in the Wilderneſs, of which the Iſraelites drank, was ſubſtantially changed into the Perſon of Chriſt, becauſe it is expreſly ſaid, That Rock was Chriſt; or than that the Chriſtian Church is ſubſtantially changed into the natural Body of Chriſt, becauſe it is in expreſs p. 285terms ſaid of the Church, That it is his Body.Eph. 1. 23.Eph 1:23

But beſides this, ſeveral of their own moſt learned Writers 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 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, tho 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. And if this be their meaning, though we underſtand not Tranſubſtantiation, yet we very well underſtand what they would p. 286have, but cannot grant it; becauſe there is not equal reaſon to believe two things, for one of which there is good proof, and for the other no proof at all.

Secondly, Neither is there equal reaſon for the rejecting of theſe two Doctrines. This the Objection ſuppoſes, which yet cannot be ſuppoſed but upon one or both of theſe two grounds: Either becauſe theſe two Doctrines are equally incomprehenſible, or becauſe they are equally loaded with Abſurdities and Contradictions.

The Firſt is no good ground of rejecting any Doctrine, merely becauſe it is incomprehenſible; as I have abundantly ſhew'd 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 p. 287to 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 man at liberty to deny the moſt plain and evident Truths of Chriſtianity, if he may not be humor'd 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.

2dly. Nor are theſe two Doctrines loaded with the like Abſurdities and Contradictions: 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 p. 288with all imaginable Abſurdity and Contradiction. And their own Schoolmen have ſufficiently expoſed it; eſpecially Scotus, and he deſigned to do ſo, as any man that attentively reads him may plainly diſcover: For in his Diſputation about it he treats this Doctrine with the greateſt contempt, as a new Invention of the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent Ill. To the Decree of which Council concerning it he ſeems to pay a formal ſubmiſſion, but really derides it as contrary to the common Senſe and Reaſon of Mankind, and not at all ſupported by Scripture; as any one may eaſily diſcern that will carefully conſider his manner of handling it and the reſult of his whole Diſputation about it.

And now Suppoſe there were ſome appearance of Abſurdity and Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is delivered in Scripture, muſt we therefore believe a Doctrine which is not at all revealed p. 289in Scripture, and which hath certainly in it all the abſurdities in the World, and all the Contradictions to Senſe and Reaſon; and which once admitted, doth at once deſtroy all Certainty? Yes, ſay they, why not? ſince we of the Church of Rome are ſatisfied that this Doctrine is revealed in Scripture; or, if it be not, is defined by the Church, which is every whit as good. But is this equal, to demand of us the belief of a thing which hath always been controverted, not only between us and them, but even among themſelves, at leaſt till the Council of Trent? And this upon ſuch unreaſonable terms, that we muſt either yield this Point to them or elſe renounce a Doctrine agreed on both Sides to be revealed in Scripture.

To ſhew the unreaſonableneſs of this proceeding, Let us ſuppoſe a Prieſt of the Church of Rome preſſing a Jew or Turk to the belief of p. 290Tranſubſtantiation, and becauſe one kindneſs deſerves another, the Jew or Turk ſhould demand of him the belief of all the Fables in the Talmud, or in the Alchoran; ſince none of theſe, nor indeed all of them together, are near ſo abſurd as Tranſubſtantiation: Would not this be much more reaſonable and equal than what they demand of us? Since no Abſurdity, how monſtrous and big ſoever, can be thought of, which may not enter into an Underſtanding in which a Breach hath been already made wide enough to admit Tranſubſtantiation. The Prieſts of Baal did not half ſo much deſerve to be expoſed by the Prophet for their Superſtition and folly, as the Prieſts of the Church of Rome do for this ſenſleſs and ſtupid Doctrine of theirs with a hard Name. I ſhall only add this one thing more, That if this Doctrine were poſſible to be true, and clearly prov'd to be ſo; yet it would be evidently uſeleſs p. 291and to no purpoſe. For it pretends to change the ſubſtance of one thing into the ſubſtance of another thing that is already and before this change is pretended to be made. But to what purpoſe? Not to make the Body of Chriſt, for that was already in Being; and the Subſtance of the Bread is loſt, nothing of it remaineth but the Accidents which are good for nothing, and indeed are nothing when the Subſtance is deſtroy'd and gone.

All that now remains is to make ſome practical Inferences from this Doctrine of the Unity of the Divine Nature. And they ſhall be the ſame which God himſelf makes by Moſes, which Text alſo is cited by our Saviour, Hear, Deut. 6▪ 4.Deut 6:4O Iſrael, the Lord thy God is one Lord; and thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, Mark 12. 2… ▪ 30, 3…Mark 12:2Mark 12:30Mark 12:3and with all thy ſoul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy ſtrength: And thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thy ſelf. So p. 292that according to our Saviour the whole Duty of Man, the love of God and of our neighbour is founded in the Unity of the Divine Nature.

I. The love of God; The Lord thy God is One Lord, therefore thou ſhalt love Him with all thy heart, &c. this is the firſt and great Commandment: And it comprehends in it all the Duties of the first Table as naturally flowing from it. As that we ſhould ſerve him only, and pay no Religious Worſhip to any but to Him. For to pay Religious Worſhip to any thing is to make it a God and to acknowledge it for ſuch: And therefore God being but One, we can give Religious Worſhip to none but to Him only. And among all the parts of Religious Worſhip none is more peculiarly appropriated to the Deity than ſolemn Invocation and Prayer. For he to whom men addreſs their Requeſts, at all times, and in all places, muſt be ſuppoſed to be always every where preſent, p. 293to underſtand all our deſires and wants, and to be able to ſupply them; and this God only is, and can do.

So likewiſe from the Unity of the Divine Nature may be inferr'd, that we ſhould not worſhip God by any ſenſible Image or Repreſentation: Becauſe God being a ſingular Being there is nothing like Him, or that can without injuring and debaſing his moſt ſpiritual and perfect and immenſe Being be compared to Him: As He himſelf ſpeaks in the Prophet, Iſa 46. 5.Isa 46:5To whom will ye liken me, ſaith the Lord, and make me equal? And therefore with no Diſtinction whatſoever can it be lawful to give Religious Worſhip, or any part of it, to any but God: We can pray to none but to Him, becauſe He only is every where preſent,1 Kings 8. 39.1 Kgs 8:39 and only knows the Hearts of all the children of men; which Solomon gives as the reaſon why we ſhould addreſs our Supplications to God only, who dwelleth in the Heavens.

p. 294So that the Reaſon of theſe two Precepts is founded in the Unity and Singularity of the Divine Nature, and unleſs there be more Gods than One, we muſt worſhip Him only, and pray to none but Him: Becauſe we can give Invocation to none but to Him only whom we believe to be God; as St. Paul reaſons,Rom. 10. 14.Rom 10:14 How ſhall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?

II. The love likewiſe of our Neighbour is founded in the Unity of the Divine Nature, and may be inferr'd from it: Hear, O Iſrael, the Lord thy God is One Lord, therefore thou ſhalt love thy Neighbour as thy ſelf. And the Apoſtle gives this reaſon why Chriſtians ſhould be at unity among themſelves;Eph. 4. 6.Eph 4:6 There is One God and Father of all, and therefore we ſhould keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace, that is, live in mutual love and peace. The Prophet likewiſe aſſigns this reaſon why all Mankind ſhould be upon good terms with one p. 295another, and not be injurious one to another,Mal. 2. 10.Mal 2:10 Have we not all One Father? hath not One God created us? Why do we then deal treacherouſly every man againſt his brother?

And therefore when we ſee ſuch hatred and enmity among Men, ſuch diviſions and animoſities among Chriſtians, we may not only ask St. Paul's queſtion, Is Chriſt divided? that we cannot agree about ſerving him; either all to ſerve him in one way, or to bear with one another in our differences: I ſay we may not only ask St. Paul's queſtion, Is Chriſt divided? but may ask further, Is God divided? Is there not One God, and are we not all his Offspring? Are we not all the Sons of Adam, who was the Son of God? So that if we trace our ſelves to our Original, we ſhall find a great nearneſs and equality among men: And this equality that we are all God's creatures and Image, and that the One only God is the Father of us all, is a more p. 296real ground of mutual love, and peace, and equity in our dealings one with another, than any of thoſe petty differences and diſtinctions of ſtrong and weak, of rich and poor, of wiſe and fooliſh, of baſe and honourable, can be to encourage men to any thing of Inſolence injuſtice, and inequality of dealing one towards another. Becauſe that wherein we all agree, that we are the Creatures and Children of God and have all One common Father, is eſſential and conſtant; but thoſe things wherein we differ are accidental and mutable, and happen to one another by turns.

Thus much may ſuffice to have ſpoken concerning the firſt Propoſition in the Text, There is one God: To Him, Father, Son, and H. Ghoſt, be all Honour and Glory, Dominion and Power, now and for ever. Amen.

FINIS.

BOOKS Printed for B. Aylmer, and W. Rogers.

ARchbiſhop Tillotſon's Sermons and Diſcourſes, in Four Volumes, Octavo.

—Six Sermons concerning the Divinity of our B. Saviour. 8vo.

—Six Sermons. I. Of Stedfaſtneſs in Religion. II. Of Family-Religion. III. IV. V. Of the Education of Children. VI. Of the Advantages of an Early Piety. In 8vo. Price 3 s. In 12s. 1 s. 6d.

—Perſuaſive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 8vo. ſtitcht 3d. In 12s. bound, 6 d.

—Rule of Faith: Or an Anſwer to Mr. Sergeant's Book.

—Diſcourſe againſt Tranſubſtantiation, Octavo, alone, Price 3 d. Stitcht.