Why do you select only three modes or relations, when, I presume, you will acknowledge with us, that there are more?

Why do you give to them the appellation of a trinity, when you find no such word in the Scriptures?

Why do you designate them persons?

As they have reference only to creatures, why call them co-equal, co-eternal persons?

A creator implies something created, a redeemer something redeemed, a sanctifier something made holy. Is there any sense or meaning in the expression, that redemption was produced of creation from all eternity, and sanctification of redemption?

And, as a last question, Why do you worship the modes of a being, and not the being in whom they dwell?-Is this to the honour of God?

2d. The natural consequence of this explanation being perceived, Dr. Sherlock* opposed it, and gave the following; that "the Divine Persons are three beings,

* Dean of St. Paul's, 1691. Father to Dr. Sherlock, Bishop of London.

three minds, three spirits, all of them living, subsisting, and conscious to each other; that these three minds, spirits, or beings, are but one God, because they are universally conscious to each other's thoughts.” Is this satisfactory? But how is it possible that a consciousness of each other's thoughts, should make three beings into one? I am often conscious of the thoughts of a child when it has no inclination to communicate them; but does that make any alteration in the nature either of the child or of me? Each being remains as perfectly distinct from either of the others as if there were no mutual consciousness. Each being is a full and perfect God. And when you worship any one of the persons you worship him as in himself an independent Deity. They must be three Gods. So evident is this. that Dr. South, speaking of this explanation of the Trinity exclaims, "This is a treacherous and false defence of that mystery, a notion that immediately and unavoidably infers three Gods."

3d. How then does Dr. South* himself

Public Orator at Oxford, 1660, Prebend of Westminster 1663, Canon of Christ Church 1670.

explain it ? "The personalities," says this eminent divine," by which the Godhead stands diversified into three distinct persons, are called and accounted modes. Therefore for understanding the mystery of the Trinity, we must declare what is properly a mode or manner of being. It is not a substance nor an accident, which two make the adequate division of real beings; but a mode is properly a certain habitude of some being, essence, or thing : and according to this account a mode, in things spiritual and immaterial, hath the like reference to such beings, as a posture hath to a body. In a word, a mode is not properly a being, whether substance or accident, but a certain affection cleaving to being."

Do you acknowledge this to be a clear exposition? Then allow me, before I proceed to make a reflection upon it, to ask you one question-Do you really contend that the belief of this is necessary to salvation? Do you really think that I must without doubt perish everlastingly, if I cannot admit this into my creed?Remember, that if you do not believe it,

yet every time you attend a place of worship where, by authority, it is announced as a fundamental article, you sanction the opinion, and virtually denounce eternal perdition upon all who disbelieve it.

This third explanation you perceive differs but little from the first, except in the definition of the word mode. According to Dr. South then and his adherents, two persons in the Trinity are neither substance nor accident, not real beings, but habitudes, postures, affections of the Deity. If you take this for granted, I ask, Was the second habitude of the Trinity produced by the first ?-Did the third posture proceed from the second?-and are these affections in themselves omnipotent, omniscient, independent?—If so, they are distinct Gods.-If not, why do you worship them, rather than angels, or departed saints, or some other affections of the Deity? Is it not absurd to worship habitudes and postures and affections, in contra-distinction from the being in whom they are found?

The 4th explanation I shall offer to your notice is that of the intellectual Dr.

66

Cudworth.* He says, that the three persons in the Godhead are indeed, three distinct beings, essences or substances, but that they are one God, because they are not three principles but one; the essence of the Father being the root and fountain of the Son and Spirit; and because the three persons are gathered together under one head or chief." He then adds, that "if they were co-ordinate, that is, equal in dignity and power, they would not be one but three Gods."-If they were equal in dignity and power, they would not be one but three Gods!! How does this agree with "the Father is Amighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty?" How does this agree with the assertion, that their "glory is equal, their majesty co-eternal; such as is the Father, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost the Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate?!"

I also ask again, By what authority do you pay divine adoration to beings inferi

Author of the Intellectual System of the Universe. One of the Committee, appointed by Parliament, in 1657, to consult about the English Translation of the Bible.