In order to explain in what sense three persons may be one God, we should first enquire, whether these personalities be intrinsic to godhead or no. A late ingenious writer maintains, that though the scripture plainly reveals the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, to be three distinct persons, and to be one God, yet that the scripture does no where determine, that these three are distinct persons in the divine essence itself. He supposes also, that the Son and Spirit may have inferior natures, but being intimately united to the godhead of the Father, they may be said so far to participate of deity as to have all divine names, titles, and characters, ascribed to them, without the supposition of any manner of intrinsic distinctions in the godhead itself.See the Scripture Trinity intelligibly explained by a Divine of the Church of England, Dr. Thomas Burnet, Prebendary of Salisbury," particularly pages 139–145.

Though the hypothesis of this author is formed with much ingenuity, and has some plausible appearances in it, yet I cannot give up my assent to it, for I freely declare it is my opinion, that the A and the II, that is, the Word and the Spirit in scripture are described as properly divine in their own natures, and yet in their divine characters are distinguished from God the Father.

There is another reason also, why I cannot give in to this hypothesis, and that is, we know from scripture that the Son has a nature inferior to godhead, but there is no sufficient evidence that the blessed Spirit has any such inferior nature, even while it is granted there are several economical inferiorities ascribed to him. The Spirit never seems to be represented as a complex being, or person formed of God and a creature united, though the Son be thus exhibited to us.

Though there be not therefore any express assertion in scripture, that there are three distinct personalities in the godhead itself, yet I cannot hitherto find any method of explication sufficient to adjust all the parts of this sacred doctrine according to scripture without supposing some distinctions in the divine nature. Then the enquiry follows, what sort of distinction is sufficient to answer the scriptural account of the blessed Three?

The distinctions, or differences which we can suppose in the godhead, are these which follow:

1. A distinction of names, and external relations derived from creatures; this is drawn from God's relation to the works of his hands, as when the same divine essence, or God is called the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier, because of the different operations and relations of God to men. By this some have explained the holy Trinity.

2. A distinction of names, and internal relations, which is drawn from different relative properties in the divine nature itself,

as they are usually called; thus the Father Son, and Spirit, are described by some as a threefold repetition of the self-same divine essence, with some inconceivable internal relations to each other which are called paternity, filiation, and spiration.

3. A distinction of modes, or properties, as when the different attributes of the divine nature, viz. power, wisdom and goodness, are represented as a sacred Trinity.

Note, Those who suppose the sacred doctrine of the Trinity to be sufficiently explained by either of these three distinctions, are called modal Trinitarians.

4. Another distinction is that of divine powers, as when the divine essence, with its two different powers of mind and will, or principles of knowledge and efficiency, are represented as the blessed three, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. May I not call this real in some sense, since there is a plain reality in the distinction, though it arise not to distinct substances?

5. A real and substantial distinction; as when the Father, Sou and Spirit, are supposed literally to be three proper, dis tinct, conscious agents, or three real, intelligent natures, which some have called three substances, three infinite minds, united to compose one godhead. And, indeed, if they are three distinct conscious principles, or have a different consciousness, I know not how to form any other idea of them than as of three conscious minds, though some writers are not so free in their expressions as to speak what the notion plainly intends. Those who explain the Trinity in this manner are called real Trinitarians.

If I might be permitted to speak with freedom my senti ments of these several opinions, I would say, that the three first of these distinctions do scarce seem to afford a sufficient difference for the various ascriptions which are given to the Father, the Word, and Spirit, in scripture; and as for the second distinction, it has this further inconvenience, that it seems to be made up of words rather than ideas.

The fifth distinction, so far as my ideas of it reach, represents the godhead as containing in it three real, proper, distinct, intelligent agents, three natures, or three conscious minds. The fear of approaching to the doctrine of tritheism, or three Gods, withholds my assent, at present, from that scheme.

Ameng all these distinctions, and differences, therefore, in my opinion, the fourth seems to come nearest to the scriptural representation of things, which describes God and his nature to us by an analogy to our own intellectual natures, or our own souls. This distinction of the divine essence, with its two eternal powers of mind and will, is the greatest real distinction, and the most solid difference that we can conceive in one Spirit: And therefore I rather incline to it, because the doctrine of the sacred

three, as represented in scripture, seems to require the greatest distinction that can be conceived in a consistence with the unity of God, who is the infinite and eternal spirit.

If there be some distinctions, or differences, in the divine natute, greater than that of relations, modes, or attributes, and less than that of substances, I know not what name to give it better, than that of divine powers. Let us therefore suppose the great and blessed God to be one infinite Spirit, one conscious being, who possesses real, distinct, or different powers, which in sacred language are called the Word and the Spirit: And though this difference, or distinction, be not so great as to allow of different consciousnesses, or to make distinct Spirits, yet these two powers may be represented in scripture in a figurative manner, under distinct personal characters, as hath been shewn in the foregoing dissertations.

SECT. II.-A general Proposal of the Analogy between God and a Human Soul.

That we may go on step by step, and make regular advances towards the design in hand, let us consider, that whatsoever clear ideas we frame of God by the light of nature, we derive them from an inward reflexion on our own souls, and their various properties and powers of understanding and will, &c. supposing still the transcendent superiority of God above ourselves.

Let us consider also, that the clearest and noblest ideas by which God reveals himself to us in scripture, are derived froin the same notions which we have of our souls as spiritual beings: It is by this way of analogy that we learn and understand what God is, when he tells us he is a Spirit, and when he speaks of bis knowledge, his wisdom, his will, &c. Thus divine revelalation happily agrees with human reason, in teaching us who, or what God is, by a resemblance of his incomprehensible nature and powers to the ideas we have of our own souls and their faculties.

I grant, that God has been pleased to condescend so far to the lowest capacities, as to describe his powers to us, sometimes by analogy to the powers and parts of our bodies, such as, eyes, ears, face, hands, breath, voice, word, &c. But these are not the clearest or nearest similitudes, nor the sublimest likenesses he has given us of himself. And therefore when we are endeavouring to form our highest and most spiritual conceptions of God, we look rather upon that analogy to our own souls in which he has been pleased to exhibit himself to us.

Since reason and scripture agree to teach us the nature of God, and inform us, who, or what God is, by this analogy, I think in our enquiries on this sacred subject we ought to follow

this analogy so far as reason and scripture allow us. Now it is evident, that a human soul, in its nature, is one conscious mind; and it is utterly inconsistent with the nature of it to have two or three distinct conscious principles, or natures in it, that is, to include two or three different conscious beings; and since we are told, that God is one, and God is a spirit, it would be something strange if we must believe that God is two or three spirits.

And as the nature of our souls teaches us to conceive the nature of God, so the powers of our souls, by the same dictates of nature and scripture, teach us to conceive the powers of God. Since the human soul has two distinct powers, viz. the knowing power, called the mind, and the active power, called the will, why may we not suppose the blessed God to have two distinct powers, called the Word, and the Spirit,* the one cognoscitive, and the other active?

Or, as the human soul has in it intelligence, volition, and a power of moving the body, so if there were any single term which signified both intelligence and volition together, I would chuse to apply that to the divine Wordt: And if any single term signified the power of operation, or moving the body, I would apply that to the Holy Spirit; because I think this analogy and resemblance would come something nearer to the scriptural ideas of the Word and Spirit; the one being represented rather as an intelligent, volitive power, the other as an intelligent effective power. But since we have no such terms ready made, and since my design here is not so presuming, as to express what the powers of deity are in themselves, but only to exhibit a sort of distant human resemblance of them, I shall content myself with the terms mind and will to express this analogy and resemblance, always supposing the term will to imply an active efficient faculty.

Here let it be observed, that in explaining these distinctions in the divine nature itself, I chuse to call the second person the Word, rather than the Son; for as some late writers suppose, that the sonship of Christ rather refers to his human nature, or

Though the names Word and Spirit, or speech and breath, are borrowed originally, some from the body, and some from the soul of man, yet the divine ideas which are represented by these names in scripture, are entirely spiritual, and therefore we must derive our best conceptions of them by their analogy to our own souls.

то

The Logos, or divine Word, in scripture, sometimes signifies a word of knowledge, or manifestation, and sometimes a word of command or volition, and therefore if we had one single term for the intellect and will in a human soul, perhaps it would more exactly represent the divine Logos. Let it be noted also, that some of the ancient fathers call the Logos, the To Dɛanua, or will of God, as well as the Zopia, or wisdom. And Calvin, in his commentary on the first verse of the gospel of St. John, says, "The Son of God is called the Logos, sermo, that is, word or speech, because he is first the eternal wisdom, and will of God, “Dei sapientia et voluntas," and then the express image of his counsel.

to his mediatorial office, than to his godhead, so I must declare, I am much inclined to that sentiment.

Let it be also observed that I use the name Word in this dissertation in his divinest sense, viz. to signify a power in the divine nature as, I think, it is several times used in scripture, and not in that inferior sense, for the soul of the Messiah, as it seems to have been used by some Jewish writers, and, perhaps, with some countenance from scripture also.

Though we must not imagine, that the Word and Spirit in the divine nature are exactly the same, as mind and will, or intelligence and power, in a created spirit, yet this is not a mere arbitrary illustration, or a similitude invented by fancy, for there seems to be a reasonable and sufficient foundation for it in the sacred writings; this will appear if we consider what follows:

The second person in the Trinity is supposed by learned writers to be represented in several places in scripture under the name of divine wisdom, or understanding, and that not only in that glorious chapter; Prov. viii. where it is generally agreed to have this sense, but also in the ninth chapter, where "Wisdom built her house, sends forth her maidens, and crieth to the simple, turn in hither." There are also other texts applied by some interpreters to Christ, or the divine Word, viz. Jer. x. 12. and li. 15. and Prov. iii. 19, 20. where God is said to form or establish the world by his understanding or wisdom, as in other places, "God created all things by his Word;" John i. 3. or by Jesus Christ; Eph. iii. 9. And our Saviour himself is supposed to call himself the wisdom of God, referring to his pre-existent state; Luke xi. 49. "Therefore said the wisdom of God, I will send prophets, &c. And again, referring to his incarnate state; Luke vii. 34, 35. "The Son of man came eating and drinking, and ye say, behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, &c. But wisdom is justified of all her children."

Let it be noted too, that the ancient Jews represented the word of God, and the wisdom of God, in such a personal manner, as appears in the books of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, in the Apocrypha, which some divines have applied to the Messiah. See more in the discourse on the Logos.

It is manifest also, that the Spirit of God is represented as a divine active power. Luke i. 35. "The Spirit of God shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." And our Saviour is said to be anointed with the Spirit, which is explained; Acts x. 38. "Jesus was anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power." And whereas in some texts it is said, Christ wrought his miracles by the Spirit of God; in other places it is called the finger of God. And Luke v. 17. when Christ wrought miraculous cures, it is said the power of the Lord was present to heal. So the apostle preached; 1 Cor. ii.