of the Trinity and some other Tracts upon the same Subject against the Arians He I confess frequently and particularly in Book 4. de Trinit p. 36. Basil. Edit 1570. calls the Three Divine Persons Tres Substantias but it is evident that he took Substantia in the same sence with Subsistentia or Hypostasis forasmuch as he else where often affirms that which must of necessity infer this to be his meaning As for instance in his Book de Synodis contra Arianos Page 223. he tells us That Nullam diversitatem aut dissimilitudinem admittit Geniti Gignentis Essentia And again That there is Indifferens in Patre Filio divinitatis substantia p. 224 And nulla differentis Essentiae discreta Natura ibid. And nulla Originalis substantiae diversitas ibid. And that there is between them nulla diversitas Essentiae p. 225. None of all which Propositions could possibly be true if the Divine Persons were three distinct Substances according to the proper sence and signification of the Word Substance And therefore the Learned Forbesius in his Historico-Theological Instructions Book 1. Chap. 2. quoting the aforesaid Passage after the Words Tres substantias subjoyns these of his own Eo nempe sensu quo Graeci dicebant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And accordingly St. Hilary explaining himself further in his fore-cited Book de Synodis contra Arianos p. 226. says That though between the Father and the Son there was nulla diversitas Essentiae yet they did respuere Personalium Nominum Unionem ne Unus Subsistens sit qui Pater dicatur Filius Which Words manifestly infer That the Father is said to be a Father and the Son to be a Son by a distinct Subsistence proper to each of them And again speaking of those Fathers who opposed the Heresie of Sabellius says of them Idcircò Tres Substantias esse dixerunt Subsistentium Personas per Substantias edocentes non substantiam Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti diversitate dissimilis essentiae separantes p. 228. By which Words he speaks all that the Greeks meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Latines of the following Times by Subsistentia For which reason it is that the Learned Collator and Editor of this Father's Works uses now and then to such Passages as these to add an Explicatory Marginal Note to this purpose as in Page 36. Book 4. de Trinitate he puts in the Margin Tres Substantiae id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in this Book de Synodis c. p. 227. he remarks in the side Trina in Divinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which manifestly shews what the Judgment of Learned Men was concerning St. Hilary's sence in the use of the words Tres Substantioe with reference to the Divine Persons From St. Hilary we pass to St. Ierome who indeed scrupled the use of the Word Hypostasis as applyed to the Divine Persons in Epistle 57. to Pope Damasus But that he did only scruple it and not absolutely refuse or reject it is evident from several other Passages in that Epistle which shewed his Judgment to be that there was nothing of it self ill and hurtful in the use of it For had he judged otherwise surely he would not have told Damasus that he was ready to own the Expression of Tres Personas Subsistentes And moreover That if Damasus would command the use of the Term Hypostasis he would use it But his Exception against it for it was not the Word Person as a great Man mistakes it but the Word Hypostasis which St. Ierome demurred to the use of was built upon these Two grounds both expressed in the same Epistle First That Hereticks abused or made an ill use of this Term to deceive and impose upon the Minds of Weak and Unwary Persons And in good earnest that must be a very extraordinary Word indeed which is uncapable of being one way or other abused by some and misunderstood by others Secondly The other ground which as there is great reason to believe was the main and principal cause of St. Ierome's dislike of this Term was its being imposed by an Incompetent Authority viz. That some of the Greek Church would needs command him and him a very warm Man too who was of the Latin Communion to the use of that which the Latin Church had not obliged him to And Calvin in Lib. 1. Chap 13. of his Institutions Sect. 5. shrewdly intimates the peculiar Pique which St. Ierome bore to the Eastern Bishops to have been the chief if not the sole cause of his Exception against this Word adding withal that it was not fairly done of him which Calvin was a very Competent Judge of to Assert as in that Epistle he does that in omnibus Scholis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was nihil aliud quà m Hypostasis which Calvin there says Communi tritóque usu passim refellitur But after all it seems St. Ierome could relent from his stiffness and reconcile himself to this so much scrupled Expression For in his Epistle or Discourse ad Paulam Eustochium de assumptione Beatoe Marioe speaking of our Saviour's exercising Two distinct kinds of Operation according to his Two Natures combining in one Person has these Words Per hoc quod audiérant quod viderant quod tractârant viz. Apostoli verbam vitoe erat nihil aliud ex duabus Naturis quà m Unum juxta Subsistentiam vel Personam Hieronym Tom. 9. p. 113. Edit Paris apud Nivellium 1579. So that I am in good hopes that for the future St. Ierome's Authority will not be alledged against expressing the Divine Persons by Hypostases till it be proved that there cannot be a Greek and a Latin Word for one and the same Thing For what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in the Greek That it is certain Subsistentia signifies and declares to us in the Latin As for St. Austin though he looks upon the Word Hypostasis or Subsistentia as new and strange to the Latines in the sence in which it was used by the Greeks yet he is so far from a bridging the Greeks in their way of speaking that he very amicably allows even of those Latines also who chose to follow the Greek Expression as to this Particular in his 5th Book de Trin. Chap. 8 9. where he tells us Qui hoec tractant Groeco eloquio dicunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latinè ista tractantes cùm alium modum aptiorem non invenirent quo enuntiarent verbis dicunt Unam Essentiam vel Substantiam Tres autem Personas ibid. By which this Father manifestly shews That the Latines indeed undestood the very same Thing by Persona which the Greeks did by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that they really rendered one by the other though they were not generally so ready to use the Term. And here I suppose the Reader will easily perceive that my Intent is not to establish the use of the
should expect to hear no more from him And if withal this Socinian be but able to handle him at such a Rate as that close Reasoner has done I dare undertake for him that he shall go out of the World the most baffled Person that ever lived in it But why for God's sake must the Socinians Reasoning Abilities which his great Lord and Patron has given so high so signal and so peculiar an Encomium of all of a suddain fail them upon this Author's Publication of his Book What can the meaning of this be Why the meaning of it is this Hic vir hic est c. according to the words by which Virgil pointed out Augustus Caesar. This This is the Man This is that Incomparable Mighty and Irrefragable Divine who has wrote more convincingly and effectually against the Socinians if you will believe him than all that ever wrote against them before put together For notwithstanding all that has been wrote by those great Men who from time to time have appear'd in this Controversie the Controversie is still alive and the Socinians continue writing and reasoning still And even by this Author's confession once at least to some Purpose For otherwise how could he say of his Socinian Adversary That he would never be able to reason to any purpose in this cause again if he had never reasoned so at all But so far are the Socinians from being put out of Countenance and much less out of Heart by what this Man has wrote against them That I assure him they look upon him as an Opponent according to their Hearts desire as having play'd a fairer Game into their hands than ever was dealt into them before So that next to their wishing all the World their Friends they wish they may always have such Adversaries And therefore if they should resolve to reason against him no more he will have great cause to thank either their Inadvertency for over-looking the great advantage given them or their good Nature for not taking it For the Book called by him a Vindication of the Trinity is certainly like a kind of Pot or Vessel with handles quite round it turn it which way you will you are sure to find something to take hold of it by And the truth is upon a strict impartial comparing of things together I cannot see any new Advantage that he has got over the Socinians unless it be That he thinks his Three Gods will be too hard for their One. And perhaps it is upon Presumption of this That he discharges that clap of Thunder at them in his Preface where he tells us That having dipp'd his Pen in the Vindication of so glorious a Cause by the grace of God he will never desert it while he can hold Pen in hand In which words methinks I see him ready Armed and Mounted with his Face towards the West and brandishing his Sword aloft all wreaking with Socinian blood and with the very darts of his Eyes looking his poor forgotten Friends through and through For in good earnest the Words sound very terribly to these Men but most terribly of all to the Article it self which is like to suffer most by his Vindication For thus to threaten that he will never leave off vexing it as long as he can hold Pen in hand which I dare say will be as long as he can tell Money with it This I say again sounds very dreadfully Nevertheless as fierce and formidable as these words may represent him he has yet like a merciful Enemy very great reserves of compassion For otherwise how come so many Socinian Pieces wrote against him to lie so long unanswered He has indeed lately wrote an Apology for writing against the Socinians but where is the Apology for writing in such a prevaricating way against them at first and for never writing against them since For has he lost his daring Polemick Pen Or has he lost the use of his Hand Or has he run himself out of Breath If this last be his case as by some Asthmatick Symptoms one would think it is he will do well to call in his old Friend and Defender the Foot-man to second him Especially since the Contention which now seems most likely to be is who shall run fastest from the Enemy and keep furthest from Him In the mean time I wonder that in the mannage of this Disputation he does not take the same course that other Learned Men in the like cases use to do For he frequently taxes his Adversary with Fallacies telling him that this is a Fallacy and that is a Fallacy But why does he not express to his Reader what the particular Fallacy is There being no Sophism or Fallacy incident to Speech or Argumentation but what falls under one of the Thirteen reckoned up by Aristotle Moreover while he is Animadverting upon the History of the Unitarians he will I believe hardly get clear of a scurvy lapse in that History himself For concerning the Exposition given by the Socinians of that Text in the 3. Iohn 13. where our Saviour tells the Iews That he came down from Heaven He writes thus Did Socinus find it so easie a Thing to reconcile this Text to his Darling Opinion when he was forced to Fast and Pray for it and to pretend Revelation because he wanted Reason to support it viz. That Christ before he entred on his Prophetick Office was taken into Heaven to be instructed in the Gospel and then came down from Heaven again to publish it to the World pag. 143. l. 19. c. Now the Person here spoken of and intended by this Author must needs have been Faustus Socinus and I believe he will not pretend that he meant any other which being supposed This Remark of his will appear to have been a very great mistake For neither was this the Text about which this Praying and Pretence of Revelation was for Fasting is a word of this Author 's putting in nor was Faustus Socinus the Person who did any of these Things upon this occasion But the Text was that in Iohn 8. 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Person of whom this was pretended was Laelius Socinus the Unkle of Faustus who interpreted this Text to this sence Antequà m Abramus factus fuerit Abrahamus that is from the Father of the Faithful enclosed within the Church of the Iews should become the Father of the Faithful diffused through many Nations Christ was to preach his Gospel to the World and by so doing enlarge the Church from the limits of one People to all Nations throughout the World So that to the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to supply the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importing Christ's Enlightning the World by the Publication of his Doctrine This was Laelius's Interpretation of this Text which together with the Interpretation of the first Chapter of St. Iohn were the Two Scriptures which he first set
Earth in gentle Showres c. for it must be granted That it is much easier to change like the Weather than to understand it and moreover though he is pleased to say That he who thinks he understands these matters would make a Man question Whether he has any sense at all which is his usual Complement to most whom he deals with yet all this confident Talk will neither clear him from the Absurdity and Paradox of the forementioned General Position laid down by him nor convince such as are conversant in the experimental part of Natural Philosophy but that a very true rational and satisfactory Account may be given of all the fore-mentioned Phaenomena in Nature which this Man with so much Confidence or rather Insolence says No Man of unquestion'd Sence will pretend to give the Reason or Philosophy of Accordingly I will direct him to some who took the boldness to give a Philosophical Account of his Unresolvable Problems As for instance That of the congealing of Water by Cold into such a solid Body as Ice he will find excellently and rationally accounted for by the Learned Mr. Boyl in his Treatise of Cold containing new Experiments and Observations touching it and an Experimental History of it begun Likewise a reason of the same given by those Learned French-men the Authors of the Philosophia Vetus Nova commonly called the Colbertine Philosophy in the 2 Vol. p. 213 214 215 216. And then for the Descent of heavy Bodies or Stones falling to the Ground he will find the cause of it assigned by Galileo in his Systema Cosmicum Collat. 1. 2. And since by Gassendus in his Accurate Tract de motu impresso à motore translato As also an Account of the Gravitation or Descent of such Bodies judiciously given by Claudius Berigardus Professor of Philosophy first in Pisa and then in Padua in his Circulus Pisanus 3d part and the 6 Dial. p. 291 292. in the Person of Aristaeus And last of all in the Causes of Gravitation briefly but ingeniously given by Isaac Vossius in his Observationes variae p. 201 c. In like manner he will find a Philosophical and Historical Account of Winds by that great Man the Lord Bacon in his Treatise upon that Subject which I am sure is as difficult an one as any mentioned by this Author And as for what he here says of the Ascent of Vapours which is easily accounted for from the Sun and other Celestial Bodies and their Descent again in Showres which might easily be stated upon their own Gravity being combined into bigger Bodies as is lively exemplified in an Alembick this Author in this seems to give us some Philosophical Account of Rain and consequently for presuming so to do ought to bear his share in the same Reproach which upon the like account he hath so insolently fastned upon others But as touching Rain and Vapours Snow and Frost and innumerable more such Subjects there is not a Natural Philosopher whether Peripatetick Gassendian or Cartesian of any note but professeth to give a Philosophical Reason of the Nature of them both as to what they are and how and by what means they are caused Concerning all which Learned Men who have avowedly travelled and imployed themselves in such Studies and that with great Applause of all the Learned World I desire his Haughtiness to speak out and declare freely whether he taketh them to have been such Persons as a Man would question Whether they had any Sense or no For as these famous Men were far from denying their Senses in Complement to their Understanding so they were as far from passing such a Complement upon their Senses as to own That their Understanding could look no farther and that where Sense had started the Game Reason might not follow it and by a diligent and sagacious pursuit at length overtake it The Things treated of by these mighty Searchers into Nature I acknowledge to be very difficult but every thing that is difficult is not therefore impossible even to him that thinks it so And therefore as to the ignorance of such like matters let our Author in God's Name and others like him pronounce each Man for himself and not undertake for others For there may be several things which one Man may not know and yet others may As for instance It may sometimes so fall out That a Man may not know himself and yet others may know him very well Which is an Observation I conceive not unworthy of this Author's Remark But to go on Whereas he is very positive and decretory That the Essences of things cannot be known I very much question and allow him if he pleases to question my Sense also for so doing whether this be absolutely true For a thing may be known more ways than one and if it be perfectly known any one way according to the utmost extent of that way it cannot be truly said not to be known Now if by knowing he means the knowledge of a thing by a direct Apprehension and Intuition of it so as to have an exact Idea or resemblance of it thereby imprinted upon the mind I pretend not that the Essences of things are by any Human Intellect so known But then this is still but one way of knowledge and what is not known one way may for all that be very well known another But if on the other side by knowing a thing be meant the knowing it to be of such or such a Nature by such peculiar Properties such peculiar Effects and Operations as discriminate it from other things and that to know it thus be truly to know it Then I affirm That the Natures or Essences of things may be truly and one way at least perfectly known And accordingly I think it a very good Account of the Essence of any thing to say That it is such a thing as always and necessarily has such Properties such Operations and produces such Effects For this is an Answer not only to that Question that enquires Whether there be such a thing or Essence or no But also and much more properly to the Question that enquires What kind of Nature or Essence such a thing is of For when that is askt to say in reply to it That the Essence or Nature of that thing is a certain Principle always attended with such Properties and always or generally operating in such a manner and producing such effects is a full and satisfactory Answer to that Question If now this Author replys here that he grants That the Properties of things may be known I Answer That sometimes indeed he grants it and sometimes again he positively denies it as I have shewn But if in the issue he will stand by the Concession of it then he must stand by the Consequence of that Concession too and grant That Properties are declaratory of the Quality of the Essence they flow from and belong to For I hope he will grant that the
simply and absolutely plain And in this sense also it can admit of none and much less of Infinite degrees of plainer and plainer since that which excludes all doubts certainly can exclude no more Or 2dly The word may be taken in a Lax Popular and Improper sense for that which is so Plain as to have no considerable doubt or difficulty remaining about it But now the Notion which Men have of God or of the Trinity can never be truly said to be Plain in either of these Senses and therefore not at all For in the first to be sure it cannot No nor yet in the second For let Men know never so much of any Object yet if there remains more of that Object actually unknown than either is or can be known of it such a knowledge can never render or denominate the Notion of that Object even in the common sense of the word Plain And so I hope our Author will allow it to be in the knowledge Men have of God and the Blessed Trinity And whereas he lays no small stress upon this That Men may write plainer and plainer of these matters every day I must here remind him of two Things 1. That he would be pleased to tell us How Men can write plainer and plainer of the Trinity every Day after his new Notion of it has solved all the Difficulties about it as in the forecited Page 85. line 27. he positively tells us it does For as I take it where there remains no difficulty there must be the utmost degree of Plainness and withal when Men are once come to the utmost of any Thing they can then go no further 2. I must remind him also That the word Plainer in the Comparative Degree does not couch under it the positive signification of Plain but denotes only a less degree of difficulty and signifies no more than That a Thing or Notion is not quite so difficult or obscure as it was before which it may very well be and yet be far from being Plain in either of the two foregoing senses laid down by us And therefore tho' we should admit That Men might write plainer and plainer of the Trinity every Day yet I affirm notwithstanding that the Notion of a Trinity in Unity can in no sense be truly said to be plain and easie and much less very plain and easie nay so very plain as to have all the Difficulties of it solved as this Author has expresly affirmed So that if this be a Scandalous Imputation it is easie to judge to whom the Scandal of it must belong But besides all this I see no cause to grant this Author that which he so freely takes for granted for I think it very questionable viz. That Men may write plainer and plainer of the Trinity every Day For so far as the Writers of the Church have informed us about this great Mystery the Catholick Church for above these 1200 Years past has not only had and held the same Notion of a Trinity but has also expressed it in the same way and words with the Church at this very day And for so much of this Mystery as Divines could give no Account of then neither have they given any clearer Account of it ever since nor has the Church hitherto advanced one step further in this Subject Which is an evident demonstration that it has already proceeded as far in it as the Reason of Man could or can go And as for any further Discoveries of it which this Author pretends to from two Phantastick words found out by himself it will not be long before they shall be throughly weighed in the Balance and found as inconsiderable as the Dust of it But there is one thing more which I must not pass over and it is this That in the Passage I transcribed from him he lays down that for a certain Principle which is indeed an Intolerable Absurdity viz. That where the Object is infinite there must be infinite degrees of knowledge Now it is most true That nothing but Insinite knowledge can adequately comprehend an insinite Object For which reason God alone can comprehend himself and he does it by one simple indivisible act uncapable of Parts or Degrees But as for Degrees of any sort whether of knowledge or any thing else nothing but a Finite Being is capable of them and therefore for this Man to assert infinite degrees of knowledge when Uncreated knowledge is uncapable of Degrees and Created knowledge uncapable of Infinite Degrees is a gross thick piece of Ignorance in the first and commonest Rudiments of Philosophy But to return to his Absurdities about the plainness and easiness of the Notion of a Trinity in Unity and therein to be as short with him as I can I shall only demand of him Whether he does in this Apology retract and renounce all that in his Vindication he has Asserted quite contrary to what he has since delivered in his Apology If he does let him declare so much and I have done but till then no regard at all ought to be had to his Apology as serving for nothing else but to shew That according to his accustomed way and known Character he has denied some things in one of his Books which he had positively and expresly affirmed in another and consequently proving That the Apology which denies a Trinity in Unity to be comprehensible and easie and the Vindication which forty times over affirms it to be plain and easie nay very plain and easie ought to pass for the genuine undoubted Works of this Author though they had never born his Name Wherefore upon the Result of all what shall we or what can we say to the fore-cited Particulars which with so much positiveness over and over assert the plainness and intelligibility of the Notion of a Trinity Which yet has hitherto amazed and nonplus'd the whole Christian Church For if it be really so plain and intelligible as this Author tells us it must to my Apprehension unavoidably follow either that a Mystery is a very plain intelligible Notion or that the Trinity is no Mystery I shall not here presume to take this Author 's beloved word out of his Mouth and cry Nonsence and Contradiction But certainly if the Trinity be a Mystery and a Mystery in the nature of it imports something hidden abstruse and by bare reason not to be understood then to say we may have a plain as well as an intelligible Notion of it nay plain even to a demonstration this to say no more is as like a Contradiction as ever it can look But really our Author has shewn himself very kind and communicative to the World For as in the beginning of his Book he has vouchsafed to instruct us how to judge of Contradictions so in the Progress of his Work he has condescended to teach us if we will but learn how to speak and write Contradictions too There remains therefore only one favour more viz. That
much at present That the Greek Writers in expressing the Godhead or Divine Nature whensoever they do not use the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constantly express it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were commonly used in the same sense And likewise the Latins where they express not the same by Deitas or Divinitas do as constantly express it by Natura and Substantia which words stand now particularly condemned by this Presuming Man and that not only in Defiance of all the Ancients but also of the Church of England Her Self which has set her Authorizing Stamp upon those Two Words Substance and Person by applying them to this Subject both in her Articles and Liturgy In the first of them teaching us That in the Unity of the Godhead there are three Persons of one Substance Power and Eternity Artic. 1. And in her Liturgy rendring the Athanasian Creed by the same words Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance As likewise that Passage in the Nicene Creed by the Son 's being of one Substance with the Father And again in the Doxology at the Communion on Trinity Sunday it gives us these full and notable words One God one Lord not one onely Person but three Persons in one Substance After all which with what face can this strange Anomalar Son of the Church while he is sucking her Breasts and at the same time poysoning the Milk with which she should feed her Children I say with what Face can he aver to the World That this word Substance thus embraced owned and used by her ought to be thrown away as the Direct Cause of all the Errours Men are apt to fall into about this great Mystery And that we can have no Notion of Substance but what implies in it something gross and material Which were it so can any one imagine that the Church of England would ever have made use of such a word as could serve for nothing but a Snare and a Trap to betray the Understandings and Consciences of Men into such Errours as may cost them their Souls This is so fouly Reflexive upon her that I would have any Man living give me a good Reason Why this Author should not be call'd upon by Publick Authority to give the Church satisfaction for the Scandal given to all the Orthodox Members of it by the Contumely and Reproach which he has passed upon those Terms and Words which She has thought fit so solemnly to express her Faith and her Devotions by But some Men such is the Regard had to her Laws and Discipline will venture to utter and write any Thing that the Bookseller will pay them for though they throw their Conscience and Religion into the Bargain But God himself who resisteth the Proud seems to have took the Matter into his own Hands and to shew his Controlling Providence over the Minds and Hearts of Men has at length brought this Scornful Man to eat his own words the hardest Diet certainly that a proud Person can be put to and after all the black Dirt thrown by him upon the School-men and their Terms to lick it off again with his own Tongue So that after he had passed such a Terrible Killing Doom upon these words Essence Substance Subsistence Suppositum Person and the like here in his Vindication all on a suddain in a relenting Fit he graciously reaches out his Golden Scepter of Self-Contradiction and Restores them to Life again in his Apology And that the Reader may behold both sides of the Contradiction the more clearly I think it the best and fairest way to give him the Sense of this Author if it may be so call'd in his own Words Vindication I Have not troubled my Reader with the different signification of Essence Hypostasis Subsistence Persons Existence Nature c. which are Terms very differently used by the Greek and Latin Fathers and have very much obscured this Doctrine instead of explaining it P. 101. l. 12. The School-men have no Authority where they leave the Fathers whose sense they sometimes seem to mistake or to clog it with some peculiar Niceties and Distinctions of their own P. 138. l. 28. The Truth is that which has confounded this Mystery viz. of the Trinity has been the vain endeavour to reduce it to Terms of Art such as Nature Essence Substance Subsistence Hypostasis and the like Pag. 138. l. the last P. 139. l. 1. And speaking of the Ancient Fathers in the same Page he tells us They nicely distinguished between Person and Hypostasis and Nature and Essence and Substance that they were three Persons but one Nature Essence and Substance But that when Men curiously examined the signification of these words they found that upon some account or other They were very unapplicable to this Mystery Hereupon he asks the following Questions in an upbraiding manner viz. What is the Substance and Nature of God How can three distinct Persons have but one Numerical Substance And What is the distinction between Essence and Personality and Subsistence And Lastly At the end of the same Page He confesses that some tolerable Account of the School-Terms and Distinctions might be given but that it would be a work of more difficulty than use Apology HE viz. the melancholy Stander-by is very angry with the School-Doctors as worse Enemies to Christianity than either Heathen Philosophers or Persecuting Emperours Pray what hurt have they done I suppose he means the corruption of Christianity with those barbarous terms of Person Nature Essence Subsistence Consubstantiality c. which will not suffer Hereticks to lie concealed under Scripture-Phrases But why must the School-men bear all the blame of this Why does he not accuse the Ancient Fathers and Councils from whom the School-men learn'd these Terms Why does he let St. Austin escape from whom the Master of the Sentences borrowed most of his Distinctions and Subtleties But suppose these unlucky Wits had used some new Terms have they taught any new Faith about the Trinity in Unity which the Church did not teach And if they have only guarded the Christian Faith with an Hedge of Thorns which disguised Hereticks cannot break through is this to wound Christianity in its very Vitals No no They will only prick the Fingers of Hereticks and secure Christianity from being wounded and this is one great Cause why some Men are so angry with the School-Doctors tho' the more General Cause is because they have notIndustry enough to Read or understand them Apology P. 4 5. I have to prevent all exceptions given the Reader the whole Paragraph in which the last Clause strikes Home indeed tho' in such Cases some think this Author would do well to take heed of striking too Home and Hard for fear the Blow should rebound back again and do execution where
would have kindled such a Fire for them as would have torrified them with a vengeance But as he has stocked the Church with such plenty of New Hereticks and all of his own making so could he by a sway of Power as Arbitrary as his Divinity provide for them also such a Furnace as that of Nebuchadnezzar whom in his Imperious Meen and Humour he so much resembles yet he must not think That the Sound and Iingle of Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness how melodiously soever they may tinkle in his own Ears will ever be able to Charm Me◠over to the Worship of his Idol or make them Sacrifice their Reason and Religion either to Him or to the New Notions which he has set up And indeed I cannot but here further declare that to me it seems one of the most preposterous and unreasonable things in Nature for any one first to assert Three Gods and when he has so wel furnished the World with Deities to expect that all Mankind should fall down and Worship Him CHAP. VI. In which is Considered What this Author pretends to from the Authority of the Fathers and School men in behalf of his Hypothesis and shewn in the first place That neither do the Fathers own the Three Divine Persons to be Three Distinct Infinite Minds nor Self-Consciousness to be the Formal Reason of their Distinction I Have in the foregoing Chapters debated the Point with this Author upon the Reason and Nature of the Thing it self But that is not all which he pretends to defend his Cause by endeavouring to countenance it also with great Authorities and that in these positive and remarkable words This is no New Notion says he but the constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools Page 101. These are his very words and I desire the Reader carefully to consider and carry them along with him in his Memory For as they are as positive as Confidence can make them so if they are not made good to the utmost they ought severely to recoil upon any one who shall presume to express himself at such a Rate And now that we may do him all the right that may be The way to know whether this Author's Hypothesis be the Constant Doctrine of the Fathers and Schools is in the first place truly and fairly to set down what this Author's Doctrine is and wherein it does consist as we shall declare what the received Doctrine of the Fathers and Schools is in our Eighth Chapter Now we shall find That the whole Doctrine delivered by him concerning the Blessed Trinity is comprehended under and reducible to these four Heads First That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits Secondly That Self-Consciousness is the Formal Reason of Personality and consequently that each of the Divine Persons is such by a distinct Self-Consciousness properly and peculiarly belonging to him Thirdly That the Three Divine Persons being thus distinguished from one another by a distinct Self-Consciousness proper to each of them are all United in one and the same Nature by one Mutual Consciousness Common to them all And Fourthly and Lastly That a Trinity in Unity and an Unity in Trinity by this Explication and Account given of it is a very Plain Easie and Intelligible Notion These four Heads or Particulars I say contain in them a full and fair representation of this Author 's whole Hypothesis concerning the Oeconomy of the Blessed Trinity And I am well assured That the knowing and Impartial Reader neither will nor can deny that they do so In the next place therefore that we may see how far our Author makes good all the said Particulars by the Authority of the Fathers as he has peremptorily promised and undertook to do I think it requisite to consider how the Fathers expressed themselves upon this Subject and how this Author brings the said Expressions to his purpose For surely the natural way of knowing any Writer's Mind is by the Words and Expressions which he pretends to deliver his Mind by But concerning these we have our Author declaring First That he has not troubled his Reader with the signification of Essence Hypostasis Substance Subsistence Person Existence Nature c. Pag. 101. and some of his Readers could give him a very good Reason why though I fear too true for him to be pleased with But the Reasons which he himself alledges for his not troubling his Readers either with these Terms or the Explication of them are First That they were very differently used by the Fathers themselves Page 101. And be it so yet still for all that used by them they were and that not so very differently neither the chief difference having been about the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which yet was fairly accorded and well high setled between the Greeks and the Latines before the end of the 6th Century as shall be further made to appear in our Eighth Chapter And his next Reason for his not troubling his Reader forsooth with these Terms is Because they have as he tells us very much obscured the Doctrine of the Trinity instead of explaining it Page 101. which being one of the chief Things which he might conclude would assuredly be disputed with Him for Him thus to presume it before he had proved it is manifestly to beg the Question In the mean time certain it is That these and these only were the Terms which the Father 's used in their Disputes about the Trinity and by which they managed them and consequently were they never so Ambiguous Faulty or Improper as they are much the contrary yet whosoever will pretend to give the Sence of the Fathers must have recourse to them and do it by them and to do otherwise would be to dispute at Rovers or as the word is to speak without Book which may much better become our Author in the Pulpit than in the management of such a Controversie And now let the Reader whom he is so fearful of troubling with any Thing that is to the Purpose judge Whether this Man has not took a most extraordinary way of proving his Doctrine the very same with the Fathers For neither in the first place does he set down what the Doctrine of the Fathers concerning the Trinity was which yet one would have thought was absolutely necessary for the shewing how his own Doctrine agreed with it which he professed to be his design Nor in the next place does he either use or regard or offer to explain those Terms which the Fathers all along delivered that their Doctrine in but is so far from it That he reproaches explodes and utterly rejects them as serving only to obscure this Doctrine instead of explaining it Which in my poor Judgment is such a way of proving the Fathers on his side as perhaps the World never heard of before and will be amazed at now But it is his way and it will
for maintaining that the Passages and Events of Providence are not the Rule which God will have us govern our Actions by but the Precepts and Prohibitions of his Law And what but the same malice could make him insinuate that the same Author was inclined to Popery and an Infallible Interpreter only for saying that one Text of Scripture was obscure and much controverted Which yet St. Peter had said of many Passages of St. Paul's Epistles 1 Pet. 3. 16. and yet without giving any wise Man the least occasion from thence to think that he was then providing an Argument for the Infallibility of his supposed Successor And Lastly what but the bitterest Rancour could make him charge his Adversary as if he had compared the swearing Allegiance to K. W. and Q. M. for the great and notorious Impiety of it with the Villanies foretold by the Prophet of Hazael only because he had told Him that as Hazael had changed his mind notwithstanding his confident Opinion of himself to the contrary so had this Author too For who but one of equal Virulence and Ignorance would have stretched the comparison which respected only the changing of Minds to a Comparison as to the merits of the Cause which it had no relation to at all Indeed no more than that Reply of Hazael Is thy Servant a Dog Was design'd to convince the Prophet That he had not four Legs and not rather only to clear himself from such a currish and belluine temper of mind as those Actions foretold of him must needs imply And I suppose when a certain Person speaking of the New Oath to a certain Bishop said My Lord I will be Crucified before I will take this Oath His meaning was not that he thought the taking it more Painful and Tormenting than a Crucifixion but that he had a greater unwillingness to take the one than to undergo the other And yet this was this Author's way of Treating a very Worthy Man an old Acquaintance and a fair Adversary I am not at all concern'd to espouse or abett the Cause defended by that Learned Person But this I do and ever shall averr That there is a Ius Belli in these Controversial as well as in Military Conflicts and consequently an obligation to Truth and Justice and common Ingenuity even in the exercise of the greatest Hostilities But this Man's usage of his forementioned Adversary is not more Senseless and Illogical than Disingenuous Barbarous and Unchristian And so let the Reader take this as a Specimen of his impotent Spleen and Malice After which let us shew him in his next good Quality his Insolence and first in that Branch of it which concerns his wonderful Opinion and Applause of Himself As to which we shall first of all see him as we have in some degree shewn him before preferring himself before all the Fathers as much happier in giving an explication of the Trinity than they were and this in such a fleering scoptical way scoptical I mean as to the Fathers but highly Commendatory of himself that it would even turn ones Stomach to read his fulsom Expressions For he tells us and that with the most profound humility no doubt p. 101. l. 1. c. If that explication which I have given be very consistent with nay be the true Interpretation of that account the Antients give of a Trinity in Unity I hope it will not be thought an unpardonable Novelty if I have expressed the same thing in other Words which give us a more clear and distinct apprehension of it c. And again p. 126. l. 2. I hope this is no fault neither to give an Intelligible explication of that which all the Fathers taught but were not equally happy in their explication of it No for his comfort no to excel and outdo all the Fathers if a Man can do it can be no fault at all But before this be allow'd him I do here require him to name and produce me but one who acknowledges a Trinity in the whole World besides his own modest self who ever preferr'd his explication of the Trinity for the Happiness and Intelligibility of it before that given by the Fathers I say let him produce me so much as one affirming this if he can So that in short the Comparison here stands between the Fathers and this Author And we see the Preheminence given him above all the Fathers by the sole and single Iudgment of one Doctor and that Doctor is Himself Nay and which is more to put the matter past all Comparison between him and them for the future He tells us as was also observed before in my 7th Chapter That the Fathers neither knew how to speak their own Thoughts of the Trinity nor indeed so much as to conceive of it aright by reason of the grossness of their Imaginations Whereas if they had as he adds but conceived of it and expressed themselves about it as he has done all would have been plain easie and intelligible And as for Gregory Nyssen from whom he had Quoted more than from all the rest of the Fathers together he gives him a cast of his Temper at last p. 119. l. 5. and sends him away with this rap over the Pate That he could not tell what to make of him and his Reasonings for that in his judgment he destroyed all Principles of Individuation And in this manner we have him Pluming himself clapping his Wings and crowing over all the Fathers for which and his quarrelsome domineering Nature together most think it is high time that his Comb were cut In the next place let us see what Elogies he bestows upon himself for his Atchievements in the Socinian Controversie Concerning which he tells the Men of that Persuasion That after his Vindication of the Trinity He believes they will talk more sparingly of Absurdities and Contradictions for the future pag. 153. But why I pray Is it because this Author has got the Monopoly of them and engrossed them all to himself And that therefore the Laws will be very severe upon such as invade his Property For as for any other Reason they have none that I know of to talk more sparingly of Absurdities and Contradictions than they used to do having so many more out of his Writings to talk of than ever they had before But he proceeds and closes his Work with this Triumph over his Antagonist and in him I suppose over all the rest of that Tribe pag. 272. That he is pretty confident that he will never be able to reason to any purpose in this cause again As for his confidence none doubts of it but as for his Prediction if he proves no better a Prophet in what he here foretels of his Socinian Opponent than in what he foretold of that Learned Person who answered both his Case of Allegiance and his Vindication of it viz. That if he would but well examine his Arguments before he answered them he