deliciis Therefore I believe the Considerator will be so ingenuous as to perceive he hath in this part of his Discourse grosly overshot or undershot or shot wide of his own Mark if indeed he had any or did not letting his Bolt fly too soon shoot at Rovers before he had taken steady aim at any thing In short all this Dust could be rais'd but with design only because he could not enlighten his Readers to blind them But now when he should come by solid Argument to disprove the Hypothesis by shewing that three individual Divine Natures or Essences can possibly have no Nexus so as to become one entire Divine Nature and at the same time which this Hypothesis supposes remain still three individual Divine Natures and Essences he thinks fit to leave it to another to do it for him who he says if he cannot prove this can prove nothing And when we see that Proof it will be time enough to consider it In the mean time I cannot here but note what I will neither in Charity call Forgery in the Considerator nor in Civility Ignorance but it cannot be less than great Oversight his talk of these Three so united as to become One the Enquirer never spake nor dreamt of their becoming One but of their being naturally necessarily and eternally so Then he comes to put the Question as he says it is between the Enquirer and the Socinians And he puts it thus How three distinct several individual Divine Beings Essences or Substances should remain three several individual Substances and yet at the same time be united into One Divine Substance called God One would have thought when he had so newly wav'd the former Question as wherein he meant not to be concern'd he should presently have put a new One upon which he intended to engage himself But we have the same over again even with the same ill look of an equivalent Phrase unto becoming united into One to insinuate to his Reader as if his Antagonist thought these Three were de novo united not in but into One. Which he knew must have a harsh sound and as well knew it to be most repugnant to the Enquirer's most declared Sentiment Nor will it be any presumption if I take the liberty to set down the Question according to the Enquirer's Mind who have as much reason to know it as he and I am sure it will be more agreeable to the tenour of his Discourse now referr'd to Whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Divine Being may not possibly for ought we know contain three Natures or Essences under the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost so far distinct as is necessary to found the distinct Predications or Attributions severally given them in the Holy Scriptures and yet be eternally necessarily naturally vitally so united as notwithstanding that remaining distinction to be One God And let us now see what he hath to say First To the Enquirer's Illustrations of it as possible Secondly What he brings to prove it impossible As to the former part He first falls upon what the Enquirer had said concerning the vegetative sensitive and intellective Natures in our selves And upon this he insists so operously as if the whole weight of the Cause had been laid upon it and seems to think the Enquirer had forgot the Question when he mentioned it because he says those are only distinct Faculties not Persons or Substances tho Persons were not in his Question without ever taking any notice of the Enquirers waving it with these words That he would content himself with what was more obvious But this is is all Art To raise a mighty posse and labour to seem to those that he believed would read what he writ only not what the other did most effectually to expugne what he saw was neglected tho not altogether useless as we shall see anon In the mean time it is observable how needlesly he slurs himself in this his first brisk Onset He says No Man ever pretended That the vegetative sensitive and intellective Faculties or Powers are so many distinct individual Persons Substances or Essences we grant c. What did no Man ever pretend that these three distinct Natures the vegetative sensitive intellective were in Man three distinct Substances or Souls concurring by a certain subordination in him What necessity was there that to heighten his Triumph in the Opinion of his credulous Followers he should with so glorious a Confidence put on the vain and false shew of having all the World on his side and herein either dissemble his Knowledge or grosly bewray his Ignorance in the meer History of Philosophy And most imprudently suppose all his Readers as ignorant as he would seem What did he never hear of an Averroist in the World Doth he not know that Physician and Philosopher and his Followers earnestly contended for what he says no Man ever pretended to Or that divers other Commentators upon Aristotle have some abetted others as vehemently oppos'd them in it Not to insist also that some thought the Intellectus Agens and Patiens to be distinct Substances belonging to the Nature of Man as others had also other Conceits about the former And if he look some hundreds of Years back as far as the time and extant Work of Nemesius Bishop and Philosopher as he writes himself of the Nature of Man who liv'd in the Time of Gregory Nazianzen as appears by an Epistle of his writ to him and prefixt to that little Book of his he will find that Author takes notice there were divers that took Man to consist of Mind Soul and Body and that some did doubt whether the Mind super vening to the Soul as one to the other did not make the latter intelligent And in several other parts of that Work easy if it were necessary to be recited he speaks it as the Judgment of some That the unreasonable Nature in Man did exist by it self as being of it self an unreasonable Soul not a part of the reasonable accounting it one of the greatest Absurdities that the unreasonable Soul should be a part of that which is reasonable And he carries us yet much farther back referring us to Plotinus in whom any that will may read much more to that purpose in many places It matters not whether this Opinion be true or false but a great mistake or misrepresentation it was to say no Man ever pretended to it And be that as it will if all the Readers will suspend their Judgments That a Trinity in the Godhead is impossible till the Considerator shall have prov'd by plain demonstration the concurrence of three such Spirits a vegetative sensitive and intellective vitally united in the Constitution of Man is a thing simply impossible I believe he will not in haste have many Proselytes I for my part as his own Eyes might have told him laid no stress upon it but only mentioned it in transitu as
can be added thereto or be without its compass much less can there be another Infinite added to the former I only now say you talk confidently in the dark you know not what And so as to involve your self in Contradictions do what you can 1. In saying nothing can be added to what is infinite 2. In pretending to know if any thing can be added how much or how little can 1. In saying nothing can be added to or be without the compass of what is infinite For then there could be no Creation which I cannot doubt him to grant Before there was any was there not an infinitude of Being in the eternal Godhead And hath the Creation nothing in it of real Being Or will you say the Being of the Creature is the Being of God I know what may be said and is elsewhere said to this and 't will better serve my purpose than his 2. In pretending to know what can or cannot be added Or that in the way of necessary eternal Emanation there cannot be an infinite addition tho not in the way of voluntary or arbitrary and temporary production The reason of the difference is too obvious to need elucidation to them that can consider But for your part I must tell my Antagonist you have concluded your self even as to that which carries the greatest appearance of impossibility come off as you can You say a Body of an Inch square is not only not infinite in extension but is a very small Body yet it hath this infinite power to be divisible to infinity So I suppose you must say of half that Inch or a quarter or the thousandth part of it much more of two or twenty or a thousand Inches You say indeed this Body it self is not infinite Nor will I insist upon the trite and common Objection against you How can any thing be divisible into parts which it hath not in it Which yet Men have not talkt away by talking it often over Still haeret lateri Nor of an infinite Power 's being lodged in a finite and so minute a Subject But in the mean time here are Infinites upon Infinites an infinite Power upon an infinite Power multiplyed infinitely and still these infinite Powers greater and less than other as either the Inch is augmented or diminished And he saith the Mind of Man hath the Property of infinite or eternal duration Therefore so many Minds so many Infinites And he must suppose the infinite duration of some Minds to be greater than of others unless he think his own Mind to be as old as Adam's or do not only hold their preexistence but that they were all created in the same moment Which if he do I am sure he can never prove And so for ought he knows there may not only be many Infinites but one greater than another What therefore exceeds all limits that are assignable or any way conceivable by us as we are sure the Divine Being doth it is impossible for us to know what differences that vast Infinitude contains And we shall therefore but talk at random and with much more presumption than knowledg when we take upon us to pronounce it impossible there should be three infinite Hypostases in the Godhead Especially considering that most intimate vital Union that they are supposed to have each with other in respect whereof the Son is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inexisting in the Father as Athanasius's Phrase is agreeably to the Language of Scripture Joh. 14. 11. and elsewhere And which by parity of Reason is to be conceiv'd of the Holy Ghost too who is also said to search all things even the deep things of God 1 Cor. 2. 10. In respect of which Union and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may thence be collected whatever of real Perfection Wisdom Power Goodness c. is in any one is each ones as truly as any ones all being originally in the Father as the first and everliving fountain of all As was said Sober Enquiry p. 31 32. But whereas the Considerator urges If the Father be infinite in his Substance in his Wisdom his Power his Goodness he is God in the most adequate and perfect sense of the Word I say well and what then If therefore he mean the Son and the Holy Ghost must be excluded the Godhead let him prove his consequence if he can And he may find the answer to it Sob Enquiry pag. 53. I shall not transcribe nor love when I have writ a Book to write it over again His Notion may fit Pagans well enough or those who are not otherwise taught Christians are directed to understand that the Deity includes Father Son and Holy Ghost Their equality I acknowledg with the mentioned Athanasian Exception notwithstanding which that they equally communicate in the most Characteristick difference of the Deity from all Creatures viz. Necessity of Existence is conceivable enough To sum up all the Considerator I understand even by the whole management of his Discourse and specially by the conclusion of that part wherein the Enquirer is concern'd to have most entirely given up this Cause as ever did any Man The Enquirer's only Undertaking was to maintain the possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead in opposition to his former daring Assertion of its being impossible and nonsense He now in conclusion says the Enquirer saw there must be a Nexus intimating if there can that he hath gain'd his point but 't is added he durst not venture to say what it was To which I must say That this is most uncautiously said I will not say deceitfully tho I know 't is said untruly and he might have known or remembred too that he the Enquirer often spoke of it as a necessary natural eternal vital and most intimate Union He further says he only explains it by the Union of Soul and Body Which again 1. Is so great a Misrepresentation that I wonder he would say it here when he himself but two or three Pages off recites as the Enquirer's words If God could unite into one two such contrary Natures let any Man give me a reason why he might not much more first make and then unite two and if two why not three Spirits c. Is this only to explain it by the Union of Soul and Body But by the way that first make and then unite was none of the Enquirer's but appears thrust in to make what was manifestly possible seem impossible Sic notus Let two Substances be created entire with no natural Propension to each other they are capable of no natural Union without change of their Natures Who sees not it were a Contradiction to suppose them the same still and not the same But suppose them created with mutual aptitudes to Union and united what should hinder but they may continue united without being confounded 2. And 't is said impertinently as well as untruly for what if he had not explain'd it at all
one says The Son is not separated from the Father's Hypostasis The other We hold not the Son divided from the Father c. And upon the most impartial faithful and diligent search and consideration I do solemnly declare there needed nor more of rationality or intelligibleness in this Doctrine to keep it from being ridicul'd as contradictious and non-sense but only less prejudice and more modesty in the Opposers of it with more reverence of the Divine Majesty upon this obvious apprehension that if it be true it must be Sacred Divine Truth This Author would fain have me with him to the Play-House whither really I have no leasure to accompany him nor much temptation for I perceive it hath fill'd his Mind with Ideas not useful to my purpose nor I think to any good one of his own If there he learned to jest away that which should be the best part of himself and of which Socrates dying told his Friends it would be gone far enough out of their hands and for that which was left behind they might bury or do with it what they pleased If there he was taught to ridicule the Holy Apostle's distinction of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inner and an outer Man and when he hath thrown the former of these out of his Notion of himself for my part I must think of that which is left that the silly Indian is the less silly Creature of the two And besides as he is too much given to play to mind any thing of serious Discourse so I find he is not throughout honest in his Play neither but that even when he pretends to sit out and be but a Spectator only taking care that there be fair play he falls in himself and plays booty Nor do I find he hath any thing of Argument in his Discourse which hath not been considered already in the Discourse I have had with the Considerator I therefore take leave of them both together and of you too Sir being in great Sincerity Your Affectionate Humble Servant The Enquirer Errata Pag. 21. l. 20. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 51. l. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ADVERTISEMENT THE Letter to the Clergy of both Vniversities came not to my Sight or Notice till some hours after the last Sheet of this Discourse was brought me from the Press I have not time therefore to say much to it nor yet should say more than I do had I never so much The Author seems to think what he was now doing as to the Enquiry superfluous because he said it was so fully done by an abâ—er Hand c. In the mean time he was â—n ill case that he was neither able to write to any purpose nor be silent A most deplorable double Impotency But he hath notwithstanding his Modesty shown a double Ability to invent and make an Hypothesis of his own Fingers Ends and then most dexterously to combat that Shadow Three inadequate Gods is indeed to use his own Phrase his own Invention constantly disavow'd by the Enquirer who with the generality of Trinitarians calls the three Subsistents in the Godhead God being each of them necessarily existent but none of them alone exclusively a God What Art he hath is shewn in fighting this his own Figment As also that of Parts of the Deity other than conceptible which no Man can avoid So we have his Dream of a third part of a God about which he so learnedly raves in his Dream as to disprove as effectually any God at all For I appeal to what Sense he hath left himself whether Power alone be God exclusive of Wisdom and Goodness Then 't is an inadequate or a not compleat Notion of God then by his profound reasoning not eternal No more are Father Son and Holy Ghost Parts unless you be enamoured of the Bull impartible Parts that never were parted nor ever can be As what are necessarily united tho unconfounded cannot without Nonsense and Contradiction be said to be parted His Fiction that what is from the eternal Father by necessary Emanation cannot be eternal but must have a beginning is of the same stamp He did not need when he writ to have abandoned all Logick and common Sense that would have told him relata sunt simul naturâ His so confidently taking it for granted on all Hands that all Infinites are equal shews his little compass of Thought and how unacquainted he is with the Difficulties of a Controversy wherein yet he will be so over-meddlesome Qui pauca respicit c. But who so bold as I leave him to compound that Difference with his abler Considerator Whether one Inch and two Inches be equal and so bid him good night FINIS BOOKS written by the Reverend Mr. JOHN HOWE 1. THE Blessedness of the Righteous The Vanity of this Mortal Life on Psal. 17. ver 15. and Psal. 89. 47. 2. Delighting in God 3. Living Temple 4. Self-dedication discoursed in the Anniversary Thanksgiving of a Person of Honour for a great Deliverance 5. Of Thoughtfulness for the Morrow With an Appendix concerning the immoderate Desire of fore-knowing things to come 6. Of Charity in reference to other Mens Sins 7. The Redeemer's Tears wept over lost Souls in a Treatise on Luke 19. 41 42. With an Appendix wherein somewhat is occasionally discoursed concerning the Sin against the Holy Ghost and how God is said to will the Salvation of them that perish 8. A Funeral Sermon for that Faithful and Laborious Servant of Christ Mr. Richard Fairclough who deceased July 4. 1682. in the sixty first Year of his Age. 9. A Sermon directing what we are to do after a strict Enquiry whether or no we truly love God 10. A Funeral Sermon for Mrs. Esther Sampson the late Wife of Henry Sampson Dr. of Physick who died Nov. 24. 1689. 11. The Carnality of Religious Contention In two Sermons Preach'd at the Merchants Lecture in Broadstreet 12. A Calm and Sober Enquiry concerning the Possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead 13. A Letter to a Friend concerning a Postscript to the Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notion of the Trinity in Unity relating to the Calm and Sober Enquiry upon the same Subject BOOKS Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns the lower End of Cheapside A Body of Practical Divinity consisting of above one hundred seventy six Sermons on the lesser-Catechism composed by the Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster With a Supplement of some Sermons on several Texts of Scripture By Thomas Watson formerly Minister at St. Stephen's Walbrook London A Paraphrase on the New Testament with Notes Doctrinal and Practical By plainness and brevity fitted to the Use of Religious Families in their daily Reading of the Scriptures and of the younger and poorer sort of Scholars and Ministers who want fuller Helps With an Advertisement of Difficulties in the Revelations By the late Reverend Mr. Richard Baxter Six hundred of Select Hymns and Spiritual Songs collected out of the Holy Bible Together with a Catechism the Canticles and a Catalogue of Vertuous Women The Three last hundred of Select Hymns collected out of the Psalms of David By William Barton A. M. late Minister of St. Martins in Leicester Spiritual Songs Or Songs of Praise to Almighty God upon several Occasions Together with the Song of Songs which is Solomon's First turn'd then paraphased in English Verse By John Mason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 4. Jud. Antiq. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 16. Enn. 6. lib. 7. cap. 5 6 7 c. Quaestiones aliae Contra Sabellii Gregales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 1. p. 241. Edit Paris Tractat. de Definitionibus Tom. 2. 45. ubi vid. plura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sext. Empir adversus Mathematicos Lib. 8. Considerations on the Lord Bishop of Worcester's Sermon p. 7 8. These Considerations p. 31 32. Considerations pag. 8. Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liber Epist. ad Athan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rescript Ath. ad Liberium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉