THE DOCTRINE OF THE Fathers and Schools CONSIDER'D Concerning the ARTICLES of A TRINITY of Divine Persons AND The UNITY of GOD. In ANSWER to the Animadversions on the Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever Blessed TRINITY IN Defence of those Sacred ARTICLES Against the Objections of the SOCINIANS and the Misrepresentations of the ANIMADVERTER PART the First By J. B. A. M. Presbyter of the Church of England LONDON Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet M.DC.XCV A Preface to the READER Concerning TRITHEISM Charg'd c. HAsty Births commonly are imperfect If so I have reason to fear the Imperfections of the following Papers which come out without the Second and most Essential Part concerning the Vnity of God My distance from the Press denies me the Priviledge of Correcting one single Sheet with my own Eyes or indeed of comparing them since their Printing with my own Copy Since the Printing of more than half the following Papers a Second Part of the Animadversions came to my hands under this Title viz. Tritheism charged upon Dr. Sherlock 's New Notion of the Trinity c. By the Contents I presently saw that the Animadverter had resumed the Debate I first consulted those Places which I judged most nearly to concern me and since read over the whole I was sorrowful that the Press was so far gone and in so much haste to finish by the end of this Term that I could not add an Appendix to those few things which the Animadverter has added However I was on the other hand pleased that as yet I found no reason to recant one sentence of what I had advanced in my Answer to the Animadversions The Debate betwixt the Reverend Dean and the Animadverter as the Animadverter often states it is concerning the Truth of these Three Articles 1st Whether Self-Consciousness be the formal reason of Personality in Finite and Infinite Persons 2dly Whether Mutual-Consciousness be the formal reason of Vnity of Nature in the Divine Persons 3dly Whether the Three Divine Persons may in an Orthodox Sense be stiled Three Infinite Minds The Animadverter resolves these Three Enquiries in the Negative and charges the Affirmative upon the Reverend Dean I agree with the Animadverter that the two former ought to be resolved Negatively I further declare my opinion That the Reverend Dean never intended the Affirmative Solution of those Questions in a strict and rigorous sense of the Terms so that I am not directly concerned in that part of the Dispute Though in my Passage I could not forbear noting 1st That this Assertion of the Animadverter's See chap. 3. n. 2. viz. That Self-Consciousness is a Personal Act does in its just consequence infer That the Divine Persons are Three Absolute Persons Three Absolute Beings nay according to his Principles that they have Three Absolute Omnisciencies or Divine Natures and consequently are Three Infinite Spirits in an higher sense than ever the Reverend Dean intended and this Consequence I still challenge him to clear that Assertion from if he can See chap. 3. n. 3 4. Secondly That the same Argument which himself calls a Demonstration against what he supposed the Reverend Dean's Assertion viz. That Self-Consciousness could not be the formal reason of Personality because it was a Personal Act was equally strong against his own Hypothesis viz. That Generation was the formal reason of Personality in the Person of the Father and this still stands unanswered and upon the Animadverter's Principles is I am satisfied unanswerable See chap. 2. n. 4 c. Thirdly I discuss at large that Philosophical Question Whether the Soul is a Person which I affirm and leave him at his leisure to overthrow if he can As for that weak Objection Tritheism c. p. 150. That then the Soul may be said to be Incarnate let me tell him that this is an Heretical Arian Sense of this Term Incarnate as if the WORD assumed only a Body and not a Human Soul this Term Incarnate signifies both Fourthly Ibid. chap. 2. n. 4 c. I vindicate the Sacred Article of the Incarnation from the Socinian Objections of the Animadverter which in terminis he brings against the Personality of the Soul only but in reality overthrow the Personality of the WORD had they been of any force Fifthly I explain that Subtilty of the Schools See chap. 3. n. 3 4. concerning the Relativeness of the Divine Persons and shew the Animadverter's Mistakes in this Article the Novelty of this Opinion not asserted as I verily believe by any one single Ecclesiastical Writer for more than a Thousand Years after Christ and give as I am fully satisfied unanswerable Arguments against the Truth of it Sixthly I enquire into that Question See chap. 3. n. 5. Why the Divine Persons are Three and no more and give a just Solution of it from Revelation Seventhly See chap. 3. n. 6. c. I discuss that Important and Fundamental Enquiry in this Mystery viz. What it is which determines the Singularity or Plurality of the Predication of any Attribute concerning the Divine Persons Where I first give the Predications themselves which are to be solved A very necessary matter to be known by all who pretend to give us an Hypothesis to solve the Sacred Mystery of the Trinity To do otherwise is to make a Key for a Lock by the Key-hole only Such a Key is a mere shew 't is Ten thousand to one that it never fits the Wards Secondly I consider the Answers of the Schools and shew their Insufficiency Lastly I endeavour to give the true Solution my self It is very weak to make an Outcry about a single Phrase how unusual soever to charge it in the Title of a Book with the odious name of Tritheism and in a Preface to the Two Vniversities with Paganism with being a New Christianity Determine the General Question first and this latter concerning the Phrase of Three Infinite Minds will be solved of course Chap. 3. n. 2. See chap. 6. n. 20. If Self-Consciousness be a Personal Act if the Term Deus be a terminus communis Both which the Animadverter has affirmed in express Terms then I do here aver and engage to make good against the Animadverter that according to his own Principles he cannot avoid the Charge of Tritheism but he must at the same time clear that expression of the Reverend Dean of Three Infinite Minds from the same severe and unjust Charge For so I am not afraid to call it The Three Divine Persons may be orthodoxly stiled Three Infinite Minds or Spirits I plead not for the Use but the Orthodoxness of the Phrase and this I prove Chap. 4. n. 4. First From the Adjective Form allowed by the Schools viz. Tres Infinitam Spiritualem naturam habentes Ibid. Secondly From the Authority of the Learned Genebrard to whom this Proposition Tres sunt
that the term three intelligent Persons is adequately and convertibly predicated of God For whatever is adequately and convertibly predicated of any term may in all Propositions be put in the place of that term according to which Rule we may say that three intelligent Persons sent his Son gave his only begotten Son That our Saviour is the Son of three intelligent Persons Blessed be three intelligent Persons even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ There needs no words to expose or confute these Expositions Is this the Person who calls so loud for a Decretum Oxoniense for a Theological Censure from both the Universities Is this the Person who is to vindicate the Reputation of the Church of England to Foreigners Is this the Man who is to warn us that our Religion our old Religion lies at stake If it does it is from such Heterodox Expounders of it as himself To conclude This Proposition viz. God is the Father which the Animadverter with so much ignorance of the received language of the Church and in the consequence Blasphemy charges with Absurdity and Illogicalness was in the judgment of the greatest Man as to this Controversy next to the Divinely inspired Writers whom the Church ever enjoyed the Learned Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most sacred and venerable Article of the Church of God But this belongs to my Second Part concerning the Vnity of God ERRATA PAge 9 l 6. f. sive r. sine p. 11. l. 10. f. by it r. by it self l. 29. r. Praeter p. 15. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 18. l. 27. f. part of r. co-part with p. 42. l. 23. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Marg. r. denominari p. 44. l. 15. after prius posterius add in the Divine Nature p. 46. l. 15. r. Principle p. 47. l. 15. f. such r. each p 48. l. 9. r. judicarunt p. 71. l. penult r. according p. 73. l. 23. f. personallity r. personally p. 88. l. 29. r. vindicates p 92. l. 2. f. senses in r of p. 98. l 13. r dicunt and place the Quotation after the following Sentence p. 109. l. penult f. these r. three p. 110. l. 28. f. as one r. in one p. 114 l. 7. f. but therefore r. so that p. 116. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 120. l. 5. f. Apostasit r. Hypostasis p. 129. l. 21. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 137. l. 27. r. praeter p. 148. l. 24 r. believes p. 153. l. 8. r. Hypothesis p. 155. l. 21. f. assent to r. assert p 163. l. 4. r. subsistit l 5. gignit l. 9. seipsam the same mistake in some other places l. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 165. l. 21. r. subsistit There are some other literal mistakes as Logicks for Logick Hypostases for Hypostasis and several mispointings which will not much disturb a judicious Reader and the Animadverter if he pleases may correct them himself if this Book does not find him other employment The Pages are mistaken from 132 to 137. INDEX A Preface to the Reader concerning Tritheism charg'd c. i. An Introduction by way of Letter to the Animadverter Page 1 The Socinian Historian's Encomium on the Animadversions c. ibid. The Animadverter's Treatment of the Dean of St. Pauls 2 The Hypothesis of Three Infinite Minds and Three Modes compared 4 My Design and Surprize in four particulars ibid. The Faith of the Church as to several Extra-scriptural Terms and several Scriptural Expressions 5 The design of my First Part to state the Doctrine of the Trinity the Reason of my proceeding by way of Animadversions on the Animadverter 6 The design of my Second Part to state the Article of the Unity of God ibid. CHAP. I. N. 1. THE absolute necessity of the Scholastick Terms their usefulness at this time 8 N. 2. Whether Accidents are distinct Beings from Substance 9 N. 3 4. Of Substance and Accident 10 N. 5 6. Of the Nature of Modes of the reason of inventing Modes the Animadverter's mistake N. 7. Of Modal Difference 13 N. 8. Of the Animadverter's definition of Essence 14 N. 9. Whether Existence be a Mode 15 N. 10. Of Subsistence of the Animadverter's addition to the common definition of Subsistence 16 Whether the Human Nature of Christ be barely an adjunct to the WORD 18 N. 11. Of one singular Existence of the Trinity 19 N. 12 13. More Considerations about Subsistence 20 N. 14. Of Modal Composition of the reduction of Modes Whether a Divine Person is compounded 21 N. 15. Whether things formally different be affirmable of one another 25 CHAP. II. N. 1. OF the Debate betwixt the Reverend Dean and the Animadverter concerning Self-consciousness and Mutual-consciousness 27 N. 2. Whether Personality be the Principle of Action N. 3. Whether the Human Nature of Christ be a Person And of some of the Subtilties of the Schools relating to the Incarnation 28 N. 4. Whether the Soul of man is a Person and of the illustration of the Incarnation from this similitude Whether Christ is a compound Hypostasis 30 N. 5. Whether the Soul can be a Part and Person both 33 N. 6. Whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and man be Unum per Accidens or Unum per se 34 N. 7. Whether the Soul be the same Person with the Man and whether the WORD be the same Person with whole Christ How a whole and compound Being or Person differ 36 N. 9. A Retortion of the Argument against the Socinians and the Animadverter 40 N. 10. What denominates any Being a distinct Person 41 CHAP. III. N. 1. OF a Prius and Posterius in the Trinity 44 N. 2. Whether Self-consciousness be a Personal Act 46 N. 3 4. Whether to be a Person be a Relative Attribute in this Mystery 47 N. 5. Why we believe Three Divine Persons and no more 52 N. 6. Of the Singularity or Plurality of the Predication of any Attribute concerning the Divine Persons Of the Distinction of Personal and Essential Predicates Of the distinction of Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective in relation to this Mystery Of the distinction of Absolute and Relative Predicates in relation to this Mystery St. Augustin's Axiom of quicquid ad se Deus c. confuted Of St. Augustin's Opinion in this Article A Character of the Schoolmen by Mr. Dodwell The Answer to an Arian Objection Of the true Rule of Singular and Plural Predications in the Trinity That the Articles of the Unity of God and the Unity of the Trinity are distinct Articles 55 CHAP. IV. N. 1. OF Orthodox Forms of Speech in relation to this Mystery 65 N. 2. Whether Three Persons in God 67 N. 3. Of the Reason of using Extra-Scriptural Terms in this Controversy Of the Schoolmens Principles 69 N. 4. Of the import of this Phrase of Three Infinite Minds Why this Phrase so rare Of the Phrase of One Infinite Mind in relation to the
Trinity Genebrard justifies the Phrase of Three Infinite Minds Of the Phrase of Three Gods 70 N. 5 6. Whether God and Infinite Mind are Terms equipollent 72 N. 7. Of the Animadverter's Answer to the Objection of Polytheism from the Assertion of Three Divine Persons Three Relatives not one simple Being under Three Relations 73 N. 10. Whether the Ternary Number belongs only to the Personalities 78 N. 11. Whether the Divine Nature sustains Three Modes of Subsistence 79 N. 12. Of the Phrase of Three Substances N. 13. Whether two Substances necessarily differ in substance Of Bellarmin's Orthodoxness in relation to this Controversy 80 N. 16. Whether one Infinite Mind can be Three Infinite Minds In what sense the Trinity One God 82 N. 18. Of the God of the Heathens and Jews In what sense God Three Persons 83 N. 19. In what sense the Father is the only True God 85 N. 20. Of the Father's being the Fountain of the Deity 86 CHAP. V. N. 1. WHether the Ancients believed the Divine Persons to be Intelligent Beings 89 N. 2. How the Son is the Wisdom of the Father Of the Particle of in this Mystery God of God Whether Three Persons infer Three Gods 90 N. 3. Whether the same Wisdom can be both unbegotten and begotten 92 N. 4. Of the Distinction of the Divine Persons 95 CHAP. VI. N. 1. OF a double Care in Mysterious Articles What is fundamental in this Mystery Three Hypotheses concerning the Trinity In what sense I affirm the Universality of the Common Divine Essence Of the Blasphemy of the Modern Socinians compared with the Ancient Socinians Of the Antiquity of both parts of my Hypothesis 96 N. 2. Petavius and Dr. Cudworth's Assertion That a Specifick Unity of the Trinity was the dogma of the Nicene Fathers considered as to its Historical Truth and vindicated from the Animadverter's Exceptions 102 N. 10. The same discussed Problematically betwixt the Animadverter and my self 118 N. 12. How far a Specifick Unity is notional 119 N. 13. Whether a Specifick Unity implies a Multiplication in the several Individuals Lombard the first who denied that the Divine Persons differ in number Two Corollaries 1st That a numerical Unity and a specifick Unity are not according to the Philosophy of the Ancients inconsistent 2dly That it was no such Paradox in the Ancient Fathers to deny that three Human Persons ought to be called three men as it is commonly esteemed 121 N. 16. The Principles of Individuation according to the Schoolmen 128 N. 17. The Opinion of Philoponus and the Tritheit Hereticks 129 N. 18. How far a Multiplication of the Divine Nature may be allowed 130 N. 20. Whether the term Deus be a Terminus Communis 131 N. 21. The Divine Attributes no Modes 132 N. 22. Of the Animadverter's definition of the nature of God 138 CHAP. VII N. 1. SCripture the only Rule of Faith 139 N. 2. The Unity of God an Article of natural Riligion Heb. 1.3.141 Not the Warrant of Three Hypostases 142 What Three Personalities are Of the Subtleties of the Schools in relation to Three subsistences Of the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 143 The Trinity one Suppositum to Cajetan 217. The Godhead sustains not the modes of Subsistence 218. Of Personal acts according to the Schoolmen 219 N. 3. A Deity diversified Whether the Personalities are Modes 223 N. 4. Whether Modes in God Modes according to the new and old Philosophy 150 N. 6. Three Modes not sufficient to explain the Trinity The principal inquiry in this Mystery what the Three Persons are 155 N. 10. Of Real and Modal Distinction Whether the Divine Persons differ Modally 159 N. 11. Whether Personality is a personal property 161 N. 15. Three kinds of Sabellianism Confusion of Persons Contraction of the Deity to the single person of the Father The Compounding of the Trinity 163 N. 18. Rufinus acknowledges trinitatem in rebus 167 N. 19. Boetius for the Universality of the common Divine Essence N. 20. Peter Lombard 168 N. 21. Thomas Aquinas N. 22. Of a Relative subsistence and a subsisting relation The Conclusion Containing a summary Account of the whole 170 AN ANSWER TO THE ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE Vindication of the TRINITY c. By way of LETTER to the Animadverter SIR I Make bold to follow your own Example and offer the following Papers to your Admirers your self and the late Socinian Historian and Considerer This last Person has given us his judgment Considerations of the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity c. P. 12 13. That you are the only Writer since the revival of these Controversies who has indeed understood what the Church means by a Trinity in Vnity that your Explication is a true and orthodox Explication of what the Church intends to say That your design being only to declare and explain the Doctrine of the Trinity that is to notify in what sense and manner 't is held by the Church In reference to such design We this great Author and his Party the English Socinians must say That his Performance is an accurate and learned Work Thus this Socinian Historian like a Second Celsus pretends to know all the poor Orthodox are able to say in Defence of the tottering and falling Ark Ibid. p. 20. as he Blasphemously calls the Doctrine of the Sacred Trinity You you Sir have without question laid down the very Explication of the Schools Ibid. p. 4. the Doctrine or Explication generally received in Vniversities which he doubts not would be approved by most of the Chairs of our European Vniversities or Schools of Learning you verily have acquitted your self like a Man of Learning and Wit All must bow before you but his own greater Self In your Person he slays his ten thousands When Goliah is defeated the Philistines must fly This Euge concludes that Pamphlet Ibid. p. 35. And indeed he this Considerer and all others that have laboured in this Controversy may surcease their Pains henceforth and leave what they have already said to the Judgment and Conscience of all considerate and sincere Men. How much you are an Admirer of your own performance may be more than surmized from several Passages in your Book and especially from your scornful treating of your Reverend and Learned Antagonist In your Preface you tell us That you neither Reverence nor Fear him and in the same Preface you charge him P. III. With defying the Church with so bold a Front P. II. with being so very Rude Scandalous and Provoking P. IV. that it is impossible for the Tongue or Pen of Man to reply any thing so severely upon him which the foulness of his Expression will not abundantly warrant both the speaking and writing of And in the same page with peculiar Modesty you call his Vindication Stuff if his Stuff should live so long Nay not content with this Censure upon his own Person you add in the same place concerning the Governors of
by which the Humane Nature of Christ exists in the person of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we shall hardly find a fitter than to say that it exists in it as an Adjunct in the Subject For it is certain that it does not exist in it as a Part in the Whole since by this means the Second Person in the Trinity must till his Incarnation have wanted one part of his person But I shall not be positive in the application of this term here This Sacred Article of the Incarnation of the Son of God deserves a particular Treatise by it self However I could not in the Interim forbear to vindicate it from those Misrepresentations the Animadverter has unwittingly I charitably presume put upon it The Animadverter did not understand or not consider the relation of an Adjunct to a Subject or he would never have made this Application in reference to the Hypostatic Union of the Humane Nature of Christ to the Person of the WORD Where a Substance is an Adjunct the Adjunct is predicated of the Subject more Accidentis after the nature of an Accident This the predicament of Habitus might have informed the Animadverter We say not that a man is his Cloaths but that a man is cloath'd so that if the Humane Nature of Christ be barely an Adjunct to the Person of the WORD we could not say that the WORD was or became Man but only that he was externally cloathed with Humanity Secondly The Animadverter confutes himself when he tells us That the Humane Nature of Christ exists in the Person of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A substantial Adjunct can never exist in its Subject but only an accidental Adjunct as a Quality c. If the Humane Nature exists in the Person of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must in some sense be a part of the Person of the WORD Thirdly Nor is there any Absurdity in acknowledging the Humane Nature to be a part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay very learned persons have not scrupled to call the Person of the WORD a Part of Christ taking that term Part in a large sense and abstracting from the imperfections which are included in the common acceptation of it The Person of the WORD is not an imperfect Part nor the Humane Nature a Part in such Sense that the Person of the WORD wants such Part to complete it In an Hypostatical Composition the Inferior Nature is in some Analogy a Co-part in other respects an Adjunct and of necessity imperfect but to be the superior Nature in such Composition infers no Imperfection But of this more hereafter One and the same undivided Existence P. 34. lin 28. N. 11. as well as one and the same Essence or Nature belongs to all the Three Persons equally whereas yet every Person has his own distinct Subsistence by himself There is not a more intricate Dispute amongst the Schoolmen than this which the Animadverter argues from as a Principle To assert above one singular Existence in the Trinity thô the Sacred Scriptures expresly multiply this Attribute I and the Father are One these Three are One was to give up the Hypothesis of the Schools of the singularity of the common Divine Nature But the Schoolmen were at a loss Probabilius tamen ac verius existimamus illam substantiam singularem quae communis est tribus personis ut sic subsistentem esse ex se essentialiter habereque unam subsistentiam absolutam essentialem tribus personis communem haec enim sententia communiter recepta est à Theologis utriusque Scholae D. Thomae Scoti ab aliis etiam Suarez Metaph Disp 34. Sect. 1. N. 3. when they came to enquire into the Modus of this singular Existence There are but two Modes of a substantial singular Existence incomplete which belongs to a substantial Part complete which belongs to a Suppositum Complete Existence is but another Phrase for Subsistence and so there will be but One undivided Subsistence of the whole Three Persons and this the whole Party of the Thomists and Scotists affirm and call it an absolute essential Subsistence so little did the Animadverter understand these Disputes The acute Petavius could not here keep pace with the Schoolmen all Antiquity knew nothing of this Essential Subsistence he embraces the former and attributes one singular incomplete Existence to the Divine Nature Now certainly this Learned Person strained very hard to ascribe something incomplete to the Divine Nature I will give the Reader his own words Petav. lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 12. Sect. 13. p. 421. Non enim de tali Existentia hîc agimus quoe perfecta completae substantioe propria sit sed quoe formis imperfectis Rebus ex quibus quasi componitur quippiam congruit P. 35. lin 11. N 12. Now whatsoever Being or Nature this Mode of Subsistence does belong to that is properly called a Suppositum And the consequence of this is That as Subsistence makes a Thing or Being a Suppositum so Suppositality makes it incommunicable This is worse Heresy to the Schoolmen than the phrase of three infinite Minds They acknowledge this in finite Beings or Natures but affirm the quite contrary in the Divine Nature Not the Absolute Essential Subsistence renders the Divine Nature a Suppositum but the Divine Relation whether it be Paternity Filiation or Procession according to the Schoolmen constitutes the Divine Nature a Person or Persons Secondly Not the Subsistence with a relation renders the Divine Nature incommunicable but only the Divine Person incommunicable Subsistence in finite Beings renders that particular Nature as well as Person incommunicable but in the Divine Nature only the Person P. 35. lin 30. N. 13. So that as a Suppositum is substantia singularis completa per se subsistens so the Ratio intellectiva being added to this makes it a Person which is a farther perfection of Suppositality I only ask the Animadverter Whether he acknowledges three Suppositums in the Trinity And whether the Objection of three Substances is not as strong against that Confession from this Definition of a Suppositum as himself brings against the phrase of three infinite Minds 2dly Ratio intellectiva is a farther perfection of a Suppositum but not of Suppositality A Beast as truly as perfectly subsists by its self as a Man Rationality is a Perfection a Mode taking that term in a large sense of Animality but not a Perfection or Mode of Subsistence If it be here asked P. 36. lin 3. N. 14. Whether Subsistence or Suppositality added to bare Nature does not make a Composition I answer That in created finite Persons it does but not in uncreated and infinite And the reason is because tho all Composition implies Union yet all Union is not therefore Composition but something higher and transcendental So that in the Divine Persons of the Trinity the Divine Nature and Personal Subsistence coalesce into one
conditions he there mentions But there is one thing here especially to be noted that several Expressions are rejected by the Fathers of the Church not that they are absolutely uncapable of an Orthodox sense but because they are apt to lead to a false or Heritical sense as for instance In Trinitate datur alius alius sed non aliud aliud The rigid'st of the School-men allow aliud aliud suppositum in Trinitate the Axiom is understood of aliud in an Arian sense of aliud naturâ Again If ever it be lawful to use a new Phrase in this Mystery it will then be lawful when the antient allowed Phrases are rendred in a manner insignificant when three Persons are Expounded by three somewhat 's or are declared to be Metaphorical This seems to me to be the case of the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls by three Persons in this Mystery says he are to be understood three intelligent Beings Vindication of the Trin. p. 66. l. 24. three distinct Infinite Minds to say they are three Divine Persons and not three Infinite Minds is Heritical and absurd that is contains the Heresy of Sabellius and contradicts the Scripture which as the Reverend Dean observes represents Father ibid. Son and Holy Ghost as three Intelligent Beings not as three Powers or Faculties of the same Being which is downright Sabellianism The Animadvertor laying hold on the Novelty of the Phrase of three Infinite Minds took occasion to Write and Publish one of the most spiteful and malicious Books that perhaps ever saw the Sun For he is not content to note That this is a Phrase difused by the Church but he calls it a silly Heretical Notion Pref. p. 3. ibib p. 2. solely of his own invention a notion immediately and unavoidably inferring three Gods and p. 376. a Monstrous Assertion by which he holds and affirms the three Divine Persons to be three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits which I the Animadverter shew unavoidably and irrefragably inferr'd them to be three Gods Now that I may render these Papers more useful to my Reader I shall enquire into the reason why the Church refused several Phrases in this Mystery in what sense the same Phrase was allowed and in what other it was disallowed and more particularly have an Eye to the Animadvertor's Objections against the Phrase of three Infinite Minds It being certain both from Phylosophy and Religion P. 116. l. 5. n. 2. That there is but one only God or Godhead in which Christian Religion has taught us that there are three Persons It is ominous to stumble at the Threshold these two Terms God and Godhead are formally distinct and therefore ought not to be Confounded Every thing which may be affirmed of one of these Terms cannot with equal Truth and Propriety be always affirmed of the other The Christian Religion has taught us That there are Three Persons in the Godhead or in the words of the first Article of our Church in the Unity of the Godhead For the Unity of the Godhead and the Unity of the Trinity are equipollent Articles and there are certainly Three Persons in the Trinity in the Unity of the Trinity But if we take this term God as distinct from Godhead we can by no means say That there are three Persons in God or in one God The Christian Religion compels us to acknowledge that each distinct Person is God which would be impossible if there were three Persons in God For how can that Person be God which wants something which is in God for each distinct Person has not three Persons in him Hence the 11th Council of Toledo Nec rectè dici potest ut in uno Deo sit Trinitas with the Animadvertor's leave the Heretick Sabellius and not the Christian Religion taught this Article that there are three Persons in one God It had been to be wished P. 116. l. 12. n. 3. I confess That Divines had rested in the bare Expressions delivered in Scripture concerning this Mystery and ventured no farther by any particular and bold Explication of it But since the Nature or rather Humor of Man has still been too strong for his Duty and his Curiosity especially in things Sacred been apt to carry him too far those however have been all along the most Pardonable who have ventured least and proceeded upon the surest grounds both of Scripture it self and Reason Discoursing upon it Does the Animadvertor consider the import of those Words of resting in the bare expressions delivered in Scripture If I understand them they forbid the shortest Paraphrase they except not the most necessary Vindication of the Scripture Expressions from the false interpretations of Hereticks Again Is this the best Defence the Animadvertor can give for the Fathers of the Church who have not only exceeded the bare Expressions delivered in Scripture but expressed their Faith of this Mysterious Article by Sundry extrascriptural terms such as Trinity Person Hypostasis Substance Essence Consubstantial c. Was this only a wanton Humour in them an Humor too strong for their Duty a Curiosity which carried them too far Was this a fault and crime tho a pardonable one When it served the Animadvertor's design against the Reverend Dean these extrascriptural Terms were neither ambiguous faulty nor improper Animadv c. p. 147. l. 3. but much the contrary though now he condemns the Inventors of them as acting contrary to their Duty All are in some measure faulty even those who have ventured least those who have proceeded upon the surest grounds both of Scripture it self and of Reason discoursing upon it which I am satisfied is his own notion and not an over-wise one that we cannot escape a fault even where we proceed upon the surest Grounds not where we proceed upon the surest Grounds both of Scripture and Reason The Arians of old and the Socinians of late and some favourers of them or who otherwise occultum virus fovent in the words of Calvin have embraced some False and Heretical Notion of this Mystery are very angry with the extra scriptural Terms used by the Church in this Mystery But the Apology which the Nicene Fathers made for themselves was That the Arians and other Hereticks were the occasion of it these Hereticks Equivocated in the sense and meaning of the bare Scripture Expressions and the more ancient and simple Phrases of the Church so that the Church was obliged to use new Expressions to detect the Frauds of subtle and cunning Hereticks The Church chose not these Terms to express a new Faith by to say more than the Scripture had said but to say that in short which the Scripture had scatteringly delivered in several places And such I affirm the ancient Writers and Fathers of the Church Ibid. and after them the School-men to have been who with all their faults or rather infelicities caused by the times and circumstances they lived in are better
Divines and soberer Reasoners than any of those pert confident raw Men who are much better at despising and carping at them than at reading and understanding them tho wise Men despise nothing but they will know it first and for that very cause very rationally despise them First I believe that the Animadvertor is the very first Person who commended the School-men for venturing little or for proceeding upon the surest Grounds both of Scripture and Reason The Boldness of the Schools is known to a Proverb he that has but cast his Eye upon Aquinas his Sums must from his own Experience confute the Animadvertor this Character of the School-men that they ventured little puts me in mind of a certain Person I once knew who commended Aristotle for Writing excellent Latin I leave the Application to the Animadvertor himself The second part of their Character is almost as proper they and the Animadvertor proceed upon the surest Grounds of Scripture much alike This last in his Eighth Chapter wherein he professedly endeavours to state the Doctrine of the Trinity quotes only one single place Heb. 1.3 and even that he has mistaken The School-men's Principles were for the most part St. Augustin's Authority as to the first Schoolmen for the latter generally Transcribed one from another A wise Man will no more praise than he will despise any thing till he first knows it and for that cause rationally praise it and not as the Animadvertor has done praise them for venturing little and for proceeding upon Scripture Grounds when it is notorious that they were guilty of the contrary faults After all Praising the School-men is Dispraising himself and his own Hypothesis The Modes of the School-men are only such in name in our imperfect Conception of things the Animadvertor's Modes are such in reality but of this hereafter P. 119. n. 4. Argument I. Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits are three distinct Gods c. Here I shall enquire into the import of these two Phrases Three infinite Spirits and Three Gods An Explication of these two Phrases is sufficient to solve this Objection and indeed the whole difficulty The rigid'st of the School-men allow That Father Son and Holy Ghost are Tres infinitam Spiritualem naturam habentes nor can there be any dispute either from Grammar or Logick that infinitus Spiritus and infinitam Spiritualem naturam habens are in sense exactly Equipollent and if these two are Equipollent in the singular number I would fain know a reason why the plural Number of these two Phrases should not be Equipollent that is why tres infiniti Spiritus should not signify the same with tres infinitam Spiritualem naturam habentes If any shall object the distinction of the Schools concerning Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective that Spiritus is a Noun Substantive and therefore according to them implys a multiplication of the form viz. the Spiritual Nature whereas Spiritualem naturam habens is an Adjective and only implys a multiplication of the Suppositum First I Answer That the distinction is groundless in it self and needless in respect of the difficulty it pretends to solve Secondly Allowing it to be true It only causes the Phrase to be less accurate not as the Animadvertor pretends absolutely Heretical the Phrases of the Athanasian Creed non tres aeterni c. observe not this rule yet the School-men charge not Athanasius with Heresy with denying a plurality of Persons but choose to say that he understood those Phrases Substantively the same favourable Construction ought a School-man to make of this Phrase viz. that Spiritus in this Phrase ought to be taken Personally Adjectively for Spiritualem naturam habentes and then it is Orthodox But if I will not allow this Criticism of the Schools concerning Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective how came no Man to venture upon it before the Dean of St. Paul's I Answer First That there is a very good reason why this Phrase is not to be found in Antiquity the reason the Reverend Dean himself gives viz That though there are three Holy Spirits yet not three Holy Ghosts in the Trinity that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Spiritus was by the Ancient Fathers Appropriated to signify the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or tres Spiritus would accordingly to them have implyed Three Holy Ghosts strictly so called And for the same Reason the Phrase of one Spirit in reference to the whole Trinity is not that I know of above once to be found in all Antiquity and that in that bold Father St. Augustin Lib. 5. de Trin. cap. 11. Hom. 5. in Jerem. who was not afraid to say of the Phrase of Three Persons Non ut illud diceretur Secondly I find Origen quoted for the very Phrase Tres Spiritus David in Psalmo confessionis postulat Amongst the Moderns the learned Genebrard a Man of great Note in his Time and of great Skill in relation to this Mystery Genebrard Resp ad Scheghium p. 52. not barely justifies the Orthodoxness of the Proposition but declares that it was Propositio vera ac fide ab Ecclaesia Catholica omnibus temporibus recepta a true Article nay an Article of Faith and received as such by the Catholick Church of all Ages The Proposition is thus set down by Genebrard Tres sunt Spiritus oeterni quorum quilibet per se Deus there are three Eternal Spirits whereof every single Spirit is God with much more to the same purpose in the same place The same Answer will serve in reference to the Animadvertor's Objection That three Infinite Spirits are three Gods Tres Dei when it signifies the same with tres Deitatem habentes with tres Divinae Personae is Orthodox Genebrard lib. 2. de Trin. p. 155 Hear the learned Genebrard Si mavis dicere tres Deos id est tres Divinas Personas possis dicere atque interpretari Nam vocabulum Deus aliquando sumitur Hypostaticè ac ultrò citroque commeat cum Divina Persona sive Hypostasi ut cum in Niceno Symbolo legitur Deum de Deo c. But this Objection of Polytheism against the Doctrine of the Trinity I reserve to be handled at large in my Second Part. p. 119. lin 29. n. 5. My Reason for what I affirm viz. That three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits are three distinct Gods is this that God and Infinite Mind or Spirit are terms equipollent and concertible Every Page of the New Testament confutes this assertion This term God is a thousand times in Scripture appropriated to signifie the Person of the Father as in these and the like Phrases The Son of God the Spirit of God God sent his Son c. But this term Infinite Mind or Spirit is not capable of such Appropriation any more than the Phrase of a Divine Person can be appropriated to that signification Infinite Mind or Spirit is therefore more properly a term equipollent
and convertible with a Divine Person than with the term God As it is true that one and the same God or Godhead is common to p. 120. l. 6. n. 6. and subsists in all and every one of the three Persons so it is true that one and the same Infinite Mind or Spirit is common to and subsists in the said three Persons This Fallacy is easily answered One Godhead and one Infinite Spiritual Nature in abstracto is common to the three Persons The Animadvertor must prove that this Rule holds of one Infinite Spirit in concreto God the Father is not God the Son God the Father and God the Son are not the same God in Person or Personality in the words of the learned Petavius Petav. lib. 3. de Trin. cap. 9. S. 3. p. 282. Non est igitur Filius idem ille unus Deus qui Pater Can the Animadvertor believe that Petavius would have scrupled to say Non est igitur Filius idem ille unus Spiritus qui Pater The same one Godhead by being common to three Persons becomes Deus trinus in Personis in which Phrase Trinus agrees with Deus and not with Personis nor is it capable of that common but groundless Interpretation of Tri-une God is three and not tri-une in Persons Had Trinus ever signified tri-une which yet it never did to the Ancients nor by any Rules of Grammar ought it to signifie so now If it be here objected p. 120. n. 7. that we allow of three distinct Persons in the Godhead of which every one is Infinite without admitting them to be three distinct Gods and therefore why may we not as well allow of three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits in the same Godhead without any necessity of inferring from thence that they are three distinct Gods This Objection is every way to the purpose this is the Plea of the Reverend Dean To say they are three Divine Persons and not three Infinite Minds was what the Reverend Dean could not understand Secondly This is the great Objection of the Socinians three Humane Persons are three Men three Angelical Persons three Angels therefore three Divine Persons three Gods They esteem God and a Divine Person terms equipollent and convertible they esteem the Consequence from three Divine Persons to three Gods necessary immediate and unavoidable Not one Socinian who understands himself but will confess that he can as soon believe three Infinite Minds as three Divine Persons reconcileable with the Article of the Unity of God If the Animadvertor can give an Answer to this Socinian Objection from the Phrase of three Divine Persons which is not equally applicable to his own Objection against the Phrase of three Infinite Spirits I will yield him the Point he contends for One thing I must note which to me betrays the Animadvertor's fear I mean his not representing the Objection fair The Dean's Phrase is put down three distinct Infinite Minds why did he not equally say three distinct Infinite Persons Why must this last be expressed by a Circumlocution three Persons of which every one is Infinite How often has the Animadvertor used the Phrase of three Divine Persons which is the same with three Infinite Persons Is not this to make a distinction without a difference p. 120. n. 8. I Answer that the case is very different and the reason of the difference is this because three Infinite Minds or Spirits are three absolute simple Beings or Essences and so stand distinguished from one another by their whole Beings or Natures But the Divine Persons are three Relatives or one simple Being or Essence under three distinct Relations and consequently differ from one another not wholly and by all that is in them but only by some certain Mode or Respect peculiar to each and upon that account causing their distinction This Answer puts me in mind of a certain Respondent who being at a great loss cryed Nego id not determining whether it was the Major Minor or Conclusion which he denyed And I believe most Readers will be equally at a loss whether the Animadvertor applies this Answer to the Premises or Conclusion The Animadvertor's Argument against the Reverend Dean's Assertion of three Infinite Minds is this One Infinite Mind is one God therefore three Infinite Minds are three Gods The Socinians Objection mutatis mutandis the same One Divine Person is one God therefore three Divine Persons are three Gods The Consequence of each Argument the same viz. That three Infinite Minds three Divine Persons must be thrice what one Infinite Mind or one Divine Person is The Consequence is a Mathematical Conclusion that three of any kind must be thrice what one of the same kind is Will the Animadvertor deny the Antecedent that one Divine Person is one God Or will he deny that Father Son and Holy Ghost are three Persons This Objection depends not immediately upon the Relativeness or Absoluteness of a Divine Person If one Mode one Accident one Relation be one God how shall we avoid the Conclusion that three Modes three Accidents or three Relations are three Gods The force of this Answer if it has any must lye in this that there are not properly three Divine Persons the Divine Persons are not three as three Infinite Minds are three to speak the truth the ternary number belongs not to the Persons but to the Personalities to the Modes to the Relations We use the Phrase of three Relatives but we mean only three relations of one simple Being and with equal Justice the Animadvertor might have said that we use the Phrase of three Persons but we mean only three Personalities of one absolute Person The Animadvertor entirely begs the Question if he takes three Relatives and one simple Being under three Relations to be equipollent Adam had three relations of a Creature an Husband and a Father yet he is but one Relative A Relative is not the Relation but that which has the Relation the Subject of the Relation The Person of the Father is one simple Being God under two Relations of Generation and Spiration is therefore the Person of the Father two Relatives two Persons Again the Divine Persons are three Relatives Why did not the Animadvertor speak out Are they three Relative Substances three Relative Accidents or three Relative Modes Further Genebrard and the same I believe of the Reverend Dean would have told him that three Infinite Minds or Spirits have but one singular individual Spiritual Nature or Essence and therefore according to Genebrard three Infinite Minds differ no more than three Divine Persons Lastly the difference of the Divine Persons is not the difference of one simple Being under three Relations For one simple Being under one Relation cannot be simply denyed of it self under another Relation Adam the Father is Adam the Husband Adam the Creature the Person of the Father is the Spirator of the Holy Ghost though as he
dicamus tres substantioe incommunicabiles seu relativoe Lib. 3. de Trin. cap. 6. The Learned Suarez acknowledges the Divine Persons to be tres res tria entia but he thinks it better to add tria entia relativa to be tria aliquid No Protestant Writer can deny them to be tres per se subsistentes and in that sense tres substantias Indeed there never had been any scruple of this Phrase had not this term Substantia been ambiguous and sometimes signified the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence Whence the warm St. Jerom Quis ore sacrilego tres substantias proedicabit Whence himself says that there was Poyson in the term Hypostasis whereas there is neither Poyson in the one or the other term if rightly Interpreted P. 123. l. 13. n. 13. And Bellarmin a Writer Orthodox enough in these Points and of unquestionable Learning otherwise in his second Tome p. 348. about the end says that to assert that the Father and Son differ in Substance is Arianism And yet if they were two distinct Substances for them not to differ in Substance would be impossible Authority is very low with the Animadvertor when he takes shelter in Orthodox Bellarmin and lays hold on a dubious Expression in a plain case Every one knows that the Arians asserted that the Substance of the Son was not barely different in number but different in kind specifically different from the Substance of the Father and how impossible soever the Animadvertor judges it for two Substances not to differ in Substance the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon did expresly assert That Christ in his Humane Nature and we Men who are confessedly two Substances in number were consubstantial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I am perswaded that the unquestionably Learned and Orthodox Bellarmin if he were now alive nor the Animadvertor for him will have the Boldness to say that this term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to differ in Substance Again the Orthodox Bellarmin justified Calvin who ventured to Condemn that Expression of the Nicene Council that the Son was God of God and affirmed that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself Dr. Bull. def fidei Nicaenae S. 4. cap. 1. n. 7. p. 439. Bellarmin thought this only a Dispute of a Phrase Verbi solum locutionis Such an Orthodox Person who can thus easily part with the Nicene Faith may easily find out a new sort of Arianism For to believe Father Son and Holy Ghost three co-equal co-eternal Substances Hypostases was not the Arianism which the Nicene Fathers opposed Since for one and the same Substance to be common to all three Persons p. 124. lin 4. n. 14 and withal to belong incommunicably to each of the three and thereby to distinguish them from one another is contradictious and impossible This is the Faith of the Schools that one and the same Substance one and the same singular Nature is common to all three Persons and withal belongs incommunicably to the Father quatenus ingenita incommunicably to the Son quatenus genita incommunicably to the Holy Spirit quatenus spirita See Animadv c. p. 160. This Faith the Animadvertor declares to be contradictious and impossible which is in his own words not to be able to forbear Writing and yet not know when one writes for and when against an Opinion p. 124. lin 8. n. 15. On the other side to assert two distinct Substances in each Person is altogether as absurd and that as upon many other Accounts so particularly upon this that it must infer such a composition in the Divine Persons as is utterly incompatible with the Absolute Simplicity and Infinite Perfection of the Divine Nature The Schoolmen who assert an Absolute Substance and a Relative Substance in each Divine Person deny a composition from hence for that the Absolute and Relative Substance are not united but identified one with another The Ancient Fathers asserted that the common Divine Nature and each single Hypostasis differed not really but only ratione from each other as Homo and Petrus Angelus and Michael in which cases there is no composition and therefore à majori there is no composition in a Divine Person p. 124. n. 16. Argument III. One Infinite Mind cannot be three Infinite Minds Nor three Infinite Minds one Infinite Mind Therefore the Divine Persons who are one Infinite Mind as they are one God cannot be three Infinite Minds This is the sum in short of his Third Argument which to swell up his Book and make a shew of he repeats backwards and forwards This Argument is a meer Fallacy equivocating in the term Mind or Spirit which is to be interpreted in a concrete or in an abstract sense When the Schoolmen say That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God they do not take this term God in a concrete sense but in an abstract sense Father Son and Holy Ghost are not habens Deitatem which is the concrete sense of this term God but either habentes Deitatem in the Plural Number or Deitas the Godhead it self in the Singular Number So the learned Genebrard Lib. 2. de Trin. p. 154 Nota Dei nomen aliter accipi in his enuntiationibus Pater est Deus Filius est Deus Spiritus Sanctus est Deus aliter in hac Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus sunt unus Deus Nam in primis Deus idem quod habens Deitatem quod quidem Personae congruit in postrema non simpliciter habentem Deitatem sonat sed ipsam potiùs Deitatem Now the Animadvertor himself will not say that tres habentes Deitatem cannot be one Essence nor that tres habentes infinitam spiritualem naturam cannot be one Infinite Spiritual Nature one Infinite Mind or Spirit in the abstract sense of the term in which only the Divine Persons are said to be one Infinite Mind or Spirit It is in a different sense of this term Infinite Mind or Spirit viz. in the concrete sense that we multiply it and say that three Divine Persons are three Infinite Minds And this Answers the Animadvertor's Fourth Argument drawn from the Athanasian Form p. 128. n. 17. which is grounded upon a false Supposition viz. That this term Infinite Mind is necessarily a Predicate perfectly Essential whereas p. 130. lin 17. when it is taken concretely it must be understood as a Personal Attribute viz. for habens infinitam spiritualem naturam which in the words of Genebrard personoe congruit The Animadvertor's Overplus p. 131. lin 2. n. 18. That the Heathens believed God to be one Infinite Mind cuts deeper than he is aware of For these same Heathens did as certainly believe that God was one single Person as well as one Infinite Mind Nay which is a far greater Objection the Jews God's own People not only did but to this day do most firmly believe that God is one Divine Person and
not God of God To be God of God and also not God of God are contradictious and therefore can never be verified of one and the same Subject of one and the same God in concreto of one and the same God in Person Nor is this any Blasphemous stuff it only proves that one sense of the term God is equipollent with a Divine Person in the words of Genebrard before quoted Chap. 4. n. 4. Vocabulum Deus aliquando sumitur Hypostaticè ac ultrò citróque commeat cum Divina persona sive Hypostasi ut cum in Niceno Symbolo legitur Deum de Deo c. It is the Faith and has been the Language of the Church before the Nicene Council that Deus est Trinus in Personis that God is Three in Persons And this is the just and easie Answer to that dreadful Objection of the Socinians that three Divine Persons infer three Gods as three Angelical Persons infer three Angels viz. That if by three Gods the Socinians mean that there are three Divine Persons that there are tres Deitatem habentes that Deus est trinus in personis in these senses in the term God we acknowledge and embrace the Conclusion as an Article of our Faith and despise the weak Sophistry of their Objection which only equivocates in the term God Ask a Socinian what he means by God in that Phrase of three Gods He will readily Answer that he means a Divine Person and consequently this Formidable Objection amounts to no more than this That three Divine Persons are three Divine Persons Therefore c. Just so does the Animadvertor deal with the Reverend Dean He declares that he takes God and Infinite Mind to be equipollent and I will assure him that none will deny that three Infinite Minds are three Infinite Minds And so the Reverend Dean is eternally confuted or rather the Animadvertor ought to be ashamed of so weak a Sophism If the Animadvertor or any Socinian will deal like a Scholar and not like a Sophister let either of them produce those Arguments which deny a Plurality of Gods and shew that they are equally strong against the Faith of three Infinite Minds or three Divine Persons and they shall not fail of an Answer by God's assistance as soon as I can finish it but this more properly belongs to my Second Part. It is a meer begging of the Question to say that this term God is not capable of Multiplication when it signifies equipollently with a Divine Person or any other equivalent Phrase as an Infinite Mind or the like p. 160. lin 3. n. 3. It is one and the same Wisdom which is both ingenita and genita though as it is one it is not the other The Animadvertor p. 156. lin 9. had declared it to be very true that the Son is a begotten Mind and Wisdom and in the same place denies That the Eternal Mind or Wisdom begetting and the Eternal Mind or Wisdom begotten are two distinct Minds but only one and the same Mind or Wisdom under these two distinct Modifications of Begetting and being Begot In this place the Animadvertor advances one step higher and tells us that unbegotten Wisdom and begotten Wisdom are not two Wisdoms but only one Wisdom under two several Modifications as also that Father Son and Holy Spirit are one Infinite Spirit under three distinct Modalities Now say I if this be a fair Solution of this difficulty it is impossible for the wisest Person to be certain that he can count two For ought any one then can tell the Reverend Dean and the Animadvertor may not be two Persons but only one Person under two Modifications The highest Proof that can be brought in such Enquiry is that Contradictions may be verified concerning the Reverend Dean and the Animadvertor that what the one is the other is not Now there cannot be a plainer fuller Contradiction than to be begotten and to be unbegotten Again this Answer undermines the Faith of the Catholick Chuch the Faith of three Divine Persons The Sabellianist asserts that Father Son and Holy Ghost are not three Persons but one Person under three distinct Modalities which Modifications diversifie and distinguish the Person they belong to but not multiply him The same Person is both the Father and the Son but as he is one he is not the other Now the allowed Proof of a Plurality of Divine Persons is from the contradictory Predicates which may be verified of Father Son and Holy Ghost in the words of the Athanasian Creed The Father is made of none neither created nor begotten the Son is of the Father alone not made not created but begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and Son neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding If this be a good Argumument to prove a Plurality of Divine Persons I desire to know why an unbegotten and begotten Wisdom are not equally two Wisdoms The Moderns who follow the Schoolmen say indeed the same thing with the Animadvertor that it is one and the same singular Wisdom which is both unbegotten and begotten that is one Wisdom under two distinct Modifications But then they understand themselves better than to say That it is very true that the Son is a begotten Wisdom They say that Begotten Wisdom is to be understood in an improper sense and consequently that the Contradiction is only in words and not in reality According to the Schoolmen the Son is unbegotten Wisdom The Wisdom of the Son is equally unbegotten with the Wisdom of the Father and that Proposition the Son is begotten Wisdom is only true according to them sensu reduplicativo viz. That the Son who is begotten is also Wisdom Now certainly unbegotten is a very improper sense of being begotten The Phrase of Begotten Wisdom was used without scruple by the Ancients and though Lombard and the bold Lateran Council condemned this Phrase Hand over Head yet the more Prudent Persons of the Romish Church thought it more elegible to allow the Phrase in complyance with Antiquity and strive to evade it by a stretched Interpretation by a sensus reduplicativus The Animadvertor has here borrowed the words of the Shoolmen but without understanding their meaning Nay it is very observable that the Animadvertor who here in p. 156. tells us That it is very true that there is a begotten Mind or Wisdom is of a quite different Opinion p. 159. lin 18. viz. That this cannot be said in Truth and Propriety of speech For God cannot properly be said to beget Wisdom c. I leave him at his leisure to reconcile these two places His the Reverend Dean's Allegation is this p. 166. lin 4. n. 4. That it is usual with the Fathers to represent the three Persons in the Blessed Trinity as distinct as Peter James and John The Animadvertor Answers That the term as distinct is ambiguous For it may either signifie 1. as Real or 2. as Great a distinction As
agreeing in the Fundamental Articles of this great Mystery viz. That the Father is truly Essentially God that the Son is truly Essentially God that the Holy Ghost is truly Essentially God that one of these Persons is simply not either of the other two And that there is nothing in this Faith which contradicts that Fundamental Article of Natural Religion That there is but One God or more briefly in the received Language of the Church that there is One God and Three Divine Persons shall choose to explain the modus of the Unity of the common Divine Nature by singularity with the Schools or shall profess that this Unity wants a Name in our present Logicks It is Truth not Victory I contend for he therefore who grants my Conclusion why should I quarrel with him concerning the Premises by which he arrives at the Conclusion The Impudence and Blasphemy of our late Socinian Writers extorted this Essay The Head and Mouth of the Party the Unitarian Historian in one short Section has amassed together this Charge against the Faith of the Ever Blessed Trinity viz. That the Faith of the Trinitarians is absurd History of the Unitarians p. 9. n. 7. and contrary to Reason and it self false impossible an Error in numbring most brutal inexcusable which not to discern is not to be a Man nonsense that it does impose false Gods on us that it robs the one true God of the Honour due to him A Letter of Resolution concerning the Trin. c. p. 6. n. 1. Another of the same Party is pleased to stile the Son and Holy Ghost Gods of our own devising Were such Blasphemies as these ever suffered before in a Christian State Crellius was a Zealous Socinian and wrote one of the subtilest Books which was ever published against the Orthodox Faith his Book of One God the Father These Gentlemen have translated and published this Piece in the English Language I will send these Persons to learn better Manners from him He in his Preface to that Book expresly expounds those words of St. Paul Rom. 9.4 of Jesus Christ viz. that He is over all God Blessed for evermore And in the first Chapter of that Book speaking of those words of our Saviour John 17.3 wherein he calls the Father the only true God Crellius has these express words For neither do we hold that Christ is by vertue of these words wholly excluded from true Godhead Crellius of one God the Father p. 4. I quote their own English Translation I am not for Persecution no not of the Socinians I disallow not of a modest Representation of their Opinions or of the Reasons why they embrace not the Catholick Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation Heresies are often the occasion to clear the truth it self But in so Sacred Articles it becomes all Persons to use modest Expressions especially those who want not only present Authority but are confessedly contrary to the Voice of the Catholick Church for more than Twelve Hundred Years and most of all since the Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation are in their Primary Conclusions the express words of Scripture Christ is called God says Crellius John 1.1 and Rom. 9.4 I doubt not that Crellius himself would have condemned with the greatest abhorrence the stiling of Christ a false God a God of Mens devising There can need no Apology to vindicate the Mysteries of the Christian Religion when they are thus barbarously attacked I have this to plead for my self and my own Hypothesis that as the Socinians confess so I verily believe that it was the Eaith of the Nicene Fathers and embraced by the most learned Fathers of the Greek Church from Athanasius to Damascene and so far as I know to this day Nor do I know that there is one Expression in the Articles of our Church that is not fairly reconcileable with it I have the same Plea in reference to my Second Part my Exposition of the Article of the Unity of God that it is of the Ancient Fathers they are both Venerable for their grey Hairs All I pretend to is only my weak Endeavour to set these two Ancient Expositions of the Articles of the Unity of God and the Trinity in a fairer Light to prove that they are very consistent one with another and liable to no just Exception by a Socinian After all I adjure my Reader that he will not judge of the truth of this Article by the strength of my Defence My Hypothesis may be true I only faulty in the explication of it Or if my Hypothesis of the Modus of this Unity be disallowed the Article concerning the Unity it self stands firm upon the Expressions of Scripture On my self let all the shame of any mistakes fall But let the Truth of God be unshaken and the Gates of Hell never prevail against the Faith of the Church the Faith I mean of one God and three Divine Persons He the Reverend Dean tells us That Petavius and Dr. Cudworth have abundantly proved That the Nicene Fathers did not understand the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Numerical but of a Specifical sameness of Nature or the Agreement of things Numerically different from one another in the same common Nature This is the First Part whether the Ancient Fathers asserted a Specifical Sameness Unity Identity of Nature or a Numerical Unity or rather a Singularity of the Divine Nature The Dean quotes two very learned Persons Petavius and Dr. Cudworth and tells us that they have proved the Specifical Unity of Nature to be the Opinion of the Nicene Fathers nay that they have abundantly proved it Had two such able Judges of Antiquity barely said it it would have weighed very much with considering Persons But the Dean tells us that they have not barely said it but proved it abundantly proved it which cannot be otherwise understood than that they have quoted several Sayings of the Nicene Fathers which plainly and undeniably evince abundantly prove this to have been their Judgment This was very full to the Dean's Design to prove that three Divine Persons are three Infinite Minds that is that the Nicene Fathers judged them so For I dare say p. 215. l. 10. that no Man besides himself will deny That three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits are Specifically one if not by an higher degree of Unity No one who understands the meaning of the terms can deny that this term Infinite Mind is predicated of three Infinite Minds as a Species is predicated of its Individuals No one surely will say that three Infinite Minds differ Specie or in their definition If three Finite Minds are Specifically one are one in Specie such an Unity or an higher cannot be denyed to three Infinite Minds Again according to his own Argument a Specifick Unity implies a multiplication of the Nature And since all acknowledge that each Divine Person is an Infinite Mind if their Unity be only a Specifick Unity according to
and the other Schoolmen found out a relative Substance a relationem per modum rei subsistentis a Relation subsisting and affirm that the three Divine Persons are three Relations subsisting But to this I answer First That this will assert four Subsistences in the Trinity one absolute and essential and three relative ones by which the Relations subsist which is contrary to all Antiquity Secondly This is but a subtler Disguise for what the Master of the Sentences spoke more plainly viz. That there are not three Persons in the same Sense in which we say that the Father is a Person For the Father is not Paternity and therefore not Paternity subsisting The Father is not a Relation subsisting but formally properly God an infinite Mind Lastly A Mode a Relation subsisting is perfectly unconceivable and contrary to the known rules of Philosophy And now it may be time to put an end to this First Part and to my Animadversions upon the Animadverter first taking a short review how far I have proceeded My first Chapter is chiefly spent in explaining the Metaphysical Terms used in this Mystery such as Substance Accident Mode the Nature of modal Difference Essence Existence Subsistence modal Composition c. How much reason there was to re-examine the Animadverter's Definitions and Distinctions of these things in Relation to the Subject of the Trinity I must leave to the Reader to judge when he has perused the Chapter My second Chapter is chiefly spent in defending that ancient Illustration of the Incarnation the Conjunction of the human Soul and Body in one Person from the Objections of the Animadverter one Question of which was briefly touched Chap. 1. n. 10. In the close of this Chapter I give the Reader a very necessary and usefull Distinction concerning the formal reason of Personality in reference not only to Finite Persons but to the Divine Persons My third Chapter enquires how far a Prius and Posterius may be admitted in the Trinity whether Self-Consciousness be a personal Act explains at large that Subtlety of the Schools concerning the relative Personality of the Divine Persons and shews the Animadverter's great mistakes therein as also that Question of the number of the Divine Persons why we believe a Trinity neither more nor fewer As also that difficult Problem concerning the Singularity or Plurality of the Predication of any Attribute concerning the Divine Persons where I first give the Predications themselves which are to be solv'd and shew the Insufficiency of the Schoolmen's Solutions from the Distinction of essential and personal Attributes from the Distinction of Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective from an absolute and relative Predicate Lastly I lay down the true rule my self which at persent I only vindicate from a Mis-interpretation of the Schoolmen by distinguishing betwixt the Articles of the Unity of God and the Unity of the Trinity which the Schoolmen confound My fourth Chapter treats of the import of these Phrases viz. Three infinite Minds three Gods three Substances one infinite Mind one God and how far they are allowed or disallowed in speaking of the Trinity of the Animadverter's Answer to the Objection of Polytheism from the Phrase of three Divine Persons and occasionally of the Notion of the Unity of God and of the Appropriation of the title of Only True God to the Person of the Father and of his being stiled the Fountain of the Divinity My fifth Chapter is chiefly Historical of the Opinion of the Ancients whether they believed the Divine Persons to be three intelligent Beings Of the import of that Phrase that the Son is the substantial WORD and Wisdom of the Father of the Particle OF in this Mystery and occasionally I give an answer to the Socinian Objection from the Phrase of three Divine Persons and enquire whether the same Wisdom can be both begotten and unbegotten My sixth Chapter treats of what is Fundamental in this Mystery of the different Hypotheses of explaining the Unity of the Trinity of the Blasphemy of the Modern Socinians compared with their Predecessors of the historical Truth of Petavius and Dr. Cudworth's Assertion that the specifick Unity of the Trinity was embraced by the Nicene Fathers which I largely vindicate against the Animadverter's Exceptions the same discussed problematically betwixt the Animadverter and my self Whether a Specifick Unity of the Trinity and a Numerical Unity were in the judgment of the Ancients inconsistent Why Philoponus and his Followers were called Tritheit Hereticks My last Chapter treats of Heb. 1.3 Whether that place was the Warrant of the Phrase of three Persons or three Hypostases Of the Divine Personalities according to the Schoolmen of the Sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Ancients of Cajetan's calling the Trinity one Suppositum of essential and personal Acts according to the Schoolmen Whether there are true Modes in God Of the Insufficiency of three Modes to explain the Trinity Whether the Divine Persons differ modally or really Of three different Species of Sabellianism Of the Distinction of a Relative Subsistence and a subsisting Relation There are several other material Enquiries in the Explication of these and others which are less material which I leave to the Reader 's own Observation This I hope I may say of this present Essay that there are very few of the material Disputes of the Schoolmen concerning this Article of the Trinity which the Reader will not find either explained in this Essay or at least a sufficient Key given to him who shall desire to consult the Schoolmen themselves The many and great mistakes of the Animadverter convinced me of the Usefulness of such an Explication he often swallowed without chewing what they strained very hard to believe and at other times sheltered himself under their Name and Authority when his opinion was contradictorily opposite to theirs and which is more forgot or omitted the principal and most material Enquiry in this Article of the Trinity viz. What the three Divine Persons are that is What Suppositum Persona Hypostasis signifies when these terms are predicated plurally of the Father Son and Holy Ghost The Animadverter defines Suppositum in the singular number Anim. c. p. 35. Substantia singularis completa per se subsistens but this according to the Animadverter only increases the Difficulty since he dare not deny a Multiplication of the Definitum of Suppositum He cannot deny that there are tria supposita in the Trinity yet with earnestness he contends that the Definition cannot be multiplied that there are not tres substantioe singulares completoe per se subsistentes in the Trinity but how unsatisfactory soever the Scholastick Subtleties in this Article appear to me I am satisfied that I had contented my self with a private Proposal of my Hypothesis to some of my Friends if the unmeasurable Blasphemy and boasting of our Socinian Writers had not over-perswaded me I plainly saw that nine parâ—s in ten of the Objections of the Socinians
our Church whom you vouchsafe only the bare Title of Church-men to None then opposing them The Reverend Dean's Notions concerning the Trinity most overlooking them and some countenancing and advancing the Author of them and perhaps for them too This is truly the Case Is not this in your own words To throw your Scurrility at high and low Preface p. III. at all about you and below you at an unsufferable rate Is this the Character of so Learned and every way Excellent a Clergy not to oppose most to overlook nay some to countenance and advance the Author of the worst of Heresies Tritheism it self You explain your self p. 361. when you call the late Learned and Worthy Archbishop of Blessed Memory his Great Lord and Patron whom you here designed by those words and advancing the Author for them too I need add but one place more at present p. 379. where you tell the Reader how thin a Bottom the Reverend Dean has to support him But it seems Coward-like in my apprehension to accuse the Reverend Dean as a Person of so thin a Bottom and yet immediately in the same page to declare That if any one besides him shall attempt an Answer to your Discourse you shall not in the least trouble nor concern your self about him whosoever he be You mean probably that you will not in Print Answer any such Discourse but it is not always in our power to avoid being troubled or concerned However if that will do you any kindness I design not an Answer to your Animadversions so far as they are personal betwixt the Reverend Dean and your self The Reverend Dean needs not so weak a Pen as mine to defend him His own is best able to chastise you if that Learned Person were not better imployed more to the Glory of God and the Service of the Church of England If the Novelty of the phrase of three infinite Minds startled many of our Clergy I do assure you That yours of three Modes has displeased more not one whom I have had the honour to consult but are better reconciled to three infinite Minds since the reading of your eighth Chapter than they were before They believed the Article without enquiring into the Modus But if they must determine the Modus if they must chuse to profess three infinite Minds or only three Modes The former is an intelligible Notion There is a difficulty indeed how to reconcile this with the Article of the Unity of God but the latter is to most meer Metaphysical Cant. They believe and can readily understand that each distinct Divine Person is an infinite Mind from whence the Consequence lies fair that three distinct Divine Persons are three distinct infinite Minds But they cannot in the least comprehend how a Divine Person can be a Mode which you expresly affirm p. 121. A Person here in this Mystery imports only a Relation or Mode of Subsistence c. My design is by God's assistance to vindicate this great Article of a Trinity in Vnity against the Socinians The Church by God's Providence has overcome the Arian Heresy a much more subtle Heresy than that of the Socinians which perswaded me that treading in the steps of the Ancients was the best way to defend the Orthodox Faith at present It was a great surprise to me in my Enquiry to find 1st that those things which at this day are esteemed as the greatest Objections against this Sacred Article had a quite different import in the Judgment of the Ancients 2dly That all these Subtilties which the Schools have taught us in this Mystery were utterly unknown to Antiquity nay in many of them the direct contrary Conclusion most expresly maintained by the Fathers of the Church 3dly That the Subtilties of the Schools were little studied by the Moderns these Animadversions were no small confirmation of this point the Animadverter having in so many places and in the most material Articles not understood the Hypothesis of the Schools which yet at the same time he would be thought to embrace and shelter himself under 4thly That the Article of the Trinity is safe without recurring to the Scholastick Subtilties I am very sensible that to clear all this is a difficult Province and I heartily wish this Lot had fallen to an Abler Hand I am so conscious of my own Defects that nothing but Zeal for that Eternal Truth of this Article in the Belief of which I hope to be saved could have tempted me to expose my self and my own Deficiencies to the Censure of the world It often pleases the Divine Providence by weak means to bring to pass great effects If it shall please his Infinite Wisdom to use so weak an Instrument as my self to illustrate this great Truth or at least to incite by me some Abler Person to adorn this Great Mystery as it deserves To God and his Great Name be all the Glory and I shall then sit down contentedly joyfully with the Shame which any Mistake or Error of mine may bring to my self The Faith of the most Learned Fathers of the Church if I aright apprehend them that Faith at least which I embrace and propose is That the Extra Scriptural Terms used by the Church in this Great and Sacred Article viz. Trinity Person Hypostasis Consubstantial Essence are to be received and understood in the most proper native and genuine Sense of those Terms that is in the same Sense in which they were understood when by the same Fathers they were applied to Angelical or Human Persons And this I conceive in Sense to imply no more than what the same Fathers declared concerning the following Scriptural Expressions viz. That Father Son Spirit Begotten Proceeding Son of God Spirit of God Begotten Son of God c. are to be properly expounded and not in some improper uncouth figurative or Metaphorical Sense I shall divide my Design into Two Parts In the First I shall endeavour to give an Account of all the Metaphysical Terms used in this Mystery and as far as is necessary of the Subtilties which the Schoolmen have introduced in their Explication of them and this I have chosen to do by way of Animadversion upon our Animadverter from a double Reason First in relation to himself to convince him if possible of his Barbarous Treatment of a Worthy and Reverend Person for barely venturing on a new Expression in a Vindication of this Sacred Article The Piety of the Design with all Candid and Ingenuous Lovers of the Article would have attoned for a much greater Erratum Three Infinite Minds or Spirits is capable of an Orthodox Exposition even in the mouth of a Schoolman However the Animadverter of all persons ought to have been silent or the last to have found fault with it who has so often been guilty of greater Slips both in Philosophy and Divinity Secondly In relation to the Socinian Historian who by his Commendation of the Animadversions has adopted them for his own
one Divine Person as Generation is a Personal Act proper and peculiar to the Person of the Father and distinguishes the Father from the Son and Holy Spirit Now Self-consciousness is an Absolute Attribute and upon that account cannot be esteemed Personal by the Schoolmen Self-consciousness is but one conception of Omniscience and will the Animadverter say That the Father has a distinct Personal Omniscience If he does he multiplies Omniscience with the Persons that is he multiplies the Divine Nature in such Person Self-consciousness as well as Mutual Consciousness to the Schoolmen is an Essential Act Father Son and Holy Ghost according to the Schoolmen as they have but one singular Divine Nature so they have but one singular Omniscience but one singular Self-consciousness and one singular Mutual Consciousness Every Act proceeds not only from some Agent but by vertue of some power to produce that Act Therefore a Personal Act must have a Personal Power a Personal principium quo The Personal Act of Generation by the Father supposes a Personal Power to generate peculiar to the Father A Personal Act of Self-consciousness therefore will imply a Personal Power to exert such Act that is a Personal Omniscience or a Personal Divine Nature Not therefore the Phrase of Three Infinite Minds but the asserting that Self-consciousness is a Personal Act does in the Judgment of the Schoolmen unavoidably infer Three Gods The Personality of every One of the Divine Persons is purely and perfectly Relative P. 98. lin 12. N. 3. and therefore nothing Absolute as Self-consciousness is can be the Formal constituent reason of their Personality The Conclusion and Consequence are granted to the Animadverter The Antecedent viz. That the Personality of every one of the Divine Persons is purely and perfectly Relative is also the General Assertion of the Schoolmen as Petavius observes Lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 10. sect 6. Paucissimi quidem è Schola Theologi vel opinati sunt vel probabile judicant personales proprietatès absolutum non-nihil habere à quibus meritò dissentiunt coeteri How universally soever this Conclusion is embraced by the Schoolmen and from them by the Animadverter I can scarce persuade my self that the Animadverter understood the meaning of the very Conclusion this I am sure of That his pretended Arguments to prove this Conclusion are the greatest Objections against the truth of it and that he all along betrays the grossest Ignorance of the Schoolmens meaning I will give the Reader his own words and then examine them And that the Persons in the Blessed Trinity are purely Relative to one another and consequently that their Personalities are so many Relations is no less evident from this that two of them relate to one another as Father and Son and the third to both as proceeding from both and it is impossible for one thing to proceed from another especially by a continual act of Procession without importing a relation to that from which it so proceeds so that the very Personal Subsistence implies and carries in it a formal Relation For the Father subsists Personally as a Father by that Eternal Communication of his Nature to his Son which Act as proceeding from him is called Generation and renders him formally a Father and as terminated in the Son is called Filiation and constitutes him formally a Son and in like manner the Holy Ghost subsists personally by that Act of Procession by which he proceeds from and relates to both the Father and the Son So that that proper Mode of Subsistence by which in conjunction with the Divine Essence always included in it each of them is rendred a Person is wholly Relative and so belongs to one of them that it also bears a necessary reference to another From all which it undeniably follows that the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are in the formal Constitution of them Relative to one another and consequently that the Three Personalities by which they become formally Three Persons and are so denominated are Three Eternal Relations The Ancient Fathers confess That the Divine Relations constitute each of them a distinct Person that they enable us to conceive them distinct this therefore is not the question The question is Whether the Relations constitute each of them a Person indefinitely Spiration is a Relative Attribute in the Father relates the Father to the Holy Spirit but yet Spiration is not properly a Personality not properly the subsistential Form but a subsistential or personal Property A little to examine the Animadverter's proofs First The Persons in the Blessed Trinity are purely Relative This is too much more than ever any asserted before him A Person in the Blessed Trinity is God an infinite Mind but to be God to be an infinite Mind are confessedly absolute Attributes The Schoolmen say That the Persons in the Blessed Trinity are purely Relative in their Personalities that is purely Relative secundum quid or in one Respect The Animadverter turns the Proposition into a simple Affirmation that they are in all Respects purely Relative Secondly The Divine Persons are purely Relative because two of them relate to one another as Father and Son and the third to both The Animadverter knows not the difference betwixt a Relative Person and a Person who sustains a Relation Adam is related to God to Eve to Seth yet none ever stiled Adam a Relative Person The Personality of Adam is not a Relation but a proper Mode of Subsistence which can never be conceived otherwise than Absolute Thirdly The Father subsists personally as a Father This is the question it self and by the Rules of Logick ought to have been proved and not supposed The sole Enquiry is Whether to be a Father and to be a Person or subsist personally be formally the same Paternitas sc Divina rationem fundandi non postulat ut in rerum natura sit nam si aliquam talem fundandi rationem haberet maximè generationem activam Illam autem non respicit ut rationem sui esse sed potius est in suo genere ratio cur ipsa sit In quo etiam Paternitas illa aeterna antecellit omnem aliam Paternitatem quae in coelo in terra nominatur Omnis enim alius Pater ideo est Pater quia generat Pater autem aeternus ideo generat quia per Paternitatem est constitutus in suo esse Personali Suarez lib. 5. de Trin. cap. 8. N. 8. p. 437. Fourthly The Father subsists Personally by an Act of Generation How can a Personal Act which supposes the Person already constituted be the formal Cause of Personality in the same Person The Schoolmen were wiser in their Generation they confess that if the Father is denominated a Father from his Act of Generation it is impossible that the Father's Paternity should be his Mode of Subsistence since it is impossible not to suppose a Person subsisting before we can conceive of him acting The first Person of
that the Divinity has a Fountain is to say in other words that the Divinity is begotten which can neither be affirmed in truth or propriety of speech p. 159. lin 18. The Divine Persons may properly be said to be begotten but not the Divine Nature But with the leave of the Animadvertor all Antiquity before Peter Lombard and the Oxthodox Lateran Council not considering the Consequences of Expressions did venture thus far and used the Phrase of Begotten Wisdom speaking of the Divine Nature of the Son Nay which may possibly sway more with the Animadvertor he himself has allowed it to be very true p. 156. l. 10. that the Son is an Eternal begotten Mind and Wisdom and I am sure then the Son must be an Eternal Begotten Divine Nature and the Father the Fountain of the Deity to the Son For my part I like the Subtilties of the Schools never a whit the better for charging those Expressions with Falshood or Impropriety which so many great Lights of the Church thought both true and proper I fear not his Consequences nor his Threats I do believe with Athanasius that the Father is truly the Fountain of the Deity to the Son and Holy Ghost and that he has no Fountain of his own Divinity and that his being thus the Fountain of the Divinity is the reason of appropriating the Title of one God to his Person alone And that though the Son and Holy Spirit are each of them truly Essentially God yet they cannot with any more Propriety be called the One God the only true God than each of them may be stiled unbegotten the Fountain of the Deity or God of Himself The Socinians say That the Person of the Father is the only true God so say the Ancients so says the Animadvertor so say I But the Socinians say that this Title of Only true God is an Essential Attribute distinguishing the Essence of the Father from the Son and Holy Spirit I say that it is only a Personal Attribute and Prerogative distinguishing the Person of the Father from the Son and Holy Ghost but not dividing their Essence The Animadvertor declares That it is an Essential Attribute in common to Father Son and Holy Ghost which of these Interpretations best Vindicate the Christian Faith will be more fully discussed in my Second Part. CHAP. V. n. 1. THE last Chapter was chiefly spent in considering the import of several Plural Predications and Phrases concerning the three Divine Persons and particularly of the Phrase of three Infinite Minds In this the Animadvertor enquires into the Historical truth of this Assertion whether the Ancients believed the Divine Persons to be Intelligent Minds or Beings This the Reverend Dean thought an uncontested Article to all who professed the Faith of a Trinity of Divine Persons The Reverend Dean was of the learned Genebrard's Opinion before quoted viz. That this was Propositio vera ac fide ab Ecclesia Catholica omnibus temporibus recepta and therefore as it is usual in uncontested Articles was less curious in Collecting the Proofs of an undisputed Opinion which yet I speak not as if I thought the Proofs of this Assertion brought by the Reverend Dean insufficient One thing however I can by no means omit that the Animadvertor has disjoynted the fairest Proof of the Fathers Opinion in this Debate and treated of it in his next Chapter viz. That Father Son and Holy Ghost were esteemed so certainly to be three Infinite Minds by the Ancients that they asserted Father Son and Holy Ghost to be one by a Specifick Unity Now though I should grant to the Animadvertor that the Fathers did not understand such Assertions in the strictest sense of such Phrases but only by way of Resemblance of which afterwards yet this must be allowed that the Ancient Fathers could have had no shadow or pretence for such an Assertion unless they had believed Father Son and Holy Ghost to be three Intelligent Beings which is but another Phrase for three Intelligent Minds It never entred into the Mind of any one Man who understood what a Specifick Unity means that One simple Being under three distinct Relations which is the Animadvertor's Hypothesis of the Trinity was one by a Specifick Vnity Animadv c. p. 120. lin 32. But of this more in its proper place p. 154. lin 29. n. 2. The Son is the Substantial WORD and Wisdom of the Father and that this can be nothing else but to say That he is an Intelligent Being or Infinite Mind And he is so I the Animadvertor confess But does this infer that he is therefore a distinct Intelligent Mind or Being from the Father This we deny and it is the very thing which he ought to prove And it is not come to that pass yet that we should take his bare Affirmation for a Proof of what he affirms It seems the Animadvertor is one of those who do not know a Proof unless it be put into Mood and Figure for him There is a Personal Word and Wisdom of the Father so there is of the Son and Holy Ghost that is to say the Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them Personally Wise and Personally Act. The Personal Wisdom of the Divine Persons is an Attribute the Personal Word of every one of the Divine Persons is an Act and not a Person But the Person of the Son is the Substantial WORD and Wisdom of the Father such a Wisdom which is an Infinite Mind and not the Attribute of an Infinite Mind such a WORD who is a Person and not a Personal Act. And it is absolutely impossible that both these Characters of being an Infinite Mind and also the Wisdom of the Father can belong to the Son unless he be a distinct a Personally distinct Intelligent Mind from the Father This little Particle of is the same in this Mystery with proceeding Of the Father is the same with proceeding from the Father God of God the same with God proceeding from God Light of Light the same with Light proceeding from Light The Son is the Substantial WORD and Wisdom proceeding from the Father Now as the Procession of the Divine Persons from one another is the allowed Proof of their Plurality so if there be a Substantial Wisdom proceeding from the Father there must be the same distinction between this Substantial Wisdom and the Person of the Father But here comes the mighty Objection Obj. p. 156. lin 27. That if Wisdom of Wisdom proves two Wisdoms or Light of Light imports two Lights then by the same Reason God of God very God of very God will and must infer two distinct Gods two distinct very Gods which says the Animadvertor is most monstrous blasphemous stuff I Answer That the Phrase God of God Sol. does necessarily imply a multiplication of this term God in some sense or other One and the same Numerical God in concreto can never be God of God and also
for the first I grant that the three Persons in the Blessed Trinity differ as really as Peter James and John But Secondly if by real distinction be meant as great a distinction so we utterly deny that the three Divine Persons differ as much as Peter James and John I Answer that this Phrase as really signifies in the same degree of real distinction as this Phrase as Wisely imports the same degree of Wisdom Again it is an idle Enquiry to dispute by what Name we must call the distinction of the Divine Persons If they were three Infinite Minds they can but be simply denyed one of the other we could then only say that the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son and this I shall hereafter shew is not a Modal but a strictly real distinction CHAP. VI. n. 1. THERE ought to be a double care in treating of Mysterious Articles of Faith on the one hand not to debase them to avoid the difficulties which attend the Article in its Native sense and on the other hand not studiously to seek out for Mysteries which possibly God never intended nor to refuse such Illustrations of the Article from Natural Examples which readily offer themselves especially if they have the Suffrage of the most Pious and Learned Fathers of the Church The Sabellian Hereticks have adulterated the Divine Generation because they could not explain how God an Immortal Spirit can generate On the other Hand the Schoolmen are not satisfied that the Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation in the general contain great Mysteries in them but they will have every Conclusion throughout both the Articles to be so These two Articles are delivered with so much plainness and simplicity in the Sacred Scriptures and with so much subtilty in the Writings of the Schoolmen that a stranger to the Christian Faith upon the comparing of them both together could hardly be perswaded that the latter were pretended to be an explication of the former The Sacred Writings contented themselves to teach us that the Father and Son are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that these three are one The Fathers of the Church justly explained this Unity that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one in Nature one in Godhead the Unity of a Father and a begotten Son is an Unity of Nature The Shoolmen advance one step higher it is not sufficient with them for any one to acknowledge the Divine Persons to be one in Nature Essence Divinity unless he adds in one singular Essence in one singular Nature in one singular Divinity and that under pain of being guilty of the worst of Heresies Tritheism it self The Animadvertor keeps pace with the warmest not only contends against the admission of a Specifick Unity in the Trinity but calls it a Traducing of the Fathers to assert that they held this Specifick Unity As to the Question it self I wish from the bottom of my Heart that we might learn to distinguish betwixt the Primary Conclusions of our Faith and disputed Articles that they who contend for the singularity of the common Divine Nature with the Schools would not overthrow the received Faith of three Divine Persons and that the Article of the Unity of God be esteemed infinitely more Sacred than any seeming Advantages that the Assertion of a Specifick Unity of the Trinity might afford us in the maintaining the Faith of three Divine Persons The Christian Faith professes an Unity in Trinity and a Trinity in Unity He therefore who asserts an Unity to destroy the Trinity or a Trinity in derogation of the Unity offends against the Christian Religion I shall much rather choose my self and recommend to my Orthodox Reader the Belief that the Divine Nature is above these terms of Art above these distinctions of Logick of Singular and Universal that it is transcendental to those Rules by which we judge of created inferiour Natures than any ways weaken either of those Fundamental Articles before mentioned either of the Unity of God or of the Trinity of Divine Persons The learned Petavius seems to me to incline to this Opinion where speaking of the Unity of the Divine Nature Petav. lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 1583. he has these words Speciei unitate constituta etiam individua singularis sequitur And in that Famous Objection of the Greeks against the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son viz. that then Father and Son are one Principle of the Holy Spirit either specie sola or numero Lib. 7. de Trin. c. 16. n. 1. p. 156. To which Petavius Answers That they are Vnum reverà numero specie Principium quatenus in Deum convenire ambo ista possunt Where he expresly asserts that a Specifick Unity and an Unity of Singularity are consistent in the Divine Nature nay that the latter follows from the former as also that the vis spiratrix which to Petavius and the Schools has the same Unity with the common Divine Essence is one both in specie and in number Suarez Metaph. Disp 5. S. 1. n. 6. Non desunt Theologi qui dicant Divinam essentiam nec singularem nec universalem esse And in the Margin Vide Durandum alios in 1. D. 35. To the same purpose I understand those Divines who assert that the common Divine Essence is neither a first nor second Substance that is neither strictly Singular nor Universal but in some measure partaking of both transcendental to both However it must not be dissembled that since every created Nature is either strictly Singular or Universal we want a medium to prove that the Divine Nature can be transcendental to both these and therefore how Modest and Peaceable and otherwise Eligible such an Assertion seems to be yet when we contend with an obstinate Adversary with a subtile Socinian it will be hazardous to found the Defence of so Sacred an Article upon what he will be apt to stile a Precarious Hypothesis The common Opinion of Philosophers is that Singulare and Vniversale are contradictorily opposed in Finite Creatures and consequently that there can be no medium betwixt them and it is not easie to give a Reason why the same Rule should not hold in the Divine Nature especially since we cannot in this Conclusion plead the Authority of express Revelation as we can in that Mysterious Article of a Divine Generation and Procession There is no need of this Precaution in reference to the Animadvertor my Debate with him is rather Historical and Problematical than Dogmatical Historical as whether the Ancient Fathers held this Opinion of the Universality of the common Divine Essence Problematical whether those Reasons which he has brought against the admission of a Specifick Unity of the Trinity prove such Notion to be unphilosophical Nay I do here disclaim all Dogmaticalness in this Conclusion I shall not in the least contend with any Orthodox Divine who
imperfect as Suarez quoted before Chap. 1. n. 14. says Modus non potest non esse quid imperfectum cum non attingat absolutam rationem entis But I will ask no other authority but his own to confute this singular Assertion of the Animadverter's that there are Modes in God This is his own Definition p. 31. A Mode of Being is such a thing as being added to another does not make any Addition of another Being or Degree of Being to it but onely restrains and determines it I have already shewed that such an Addition would make a Composition Chap. 1. n. 14. now I argue from the latter words that a Mode restrains and determines the Being or Nature it belongs to And will the Animadverter say That the Divine Nature can be restrained or determined If he dares I desire to know the difference betwixt a Nature restrained and determined and a finite Nature or whether the Animadverter will say That the Divine Nature can be Finite Or whether our acute Animadverter to borow his own words will distinguish betwixt terminus and finis and say that the Divine Nature may be determined but cannot be Finite p. 55. the Animadverter tells us That the Divine Nature is that of which there neither are nor can be any Bounds Limits or Determinations and therefore I hope I may say from his own Definition of a Mode not any Modes And this may suffice at present to answer his manifest Reason N. 5. Anim. c. p. 286. His unquestionable Authority is no less than all Divines Metaphysicians and Schoolmen they do unanimously concurr in this thing they universally affirm Modes of Being to be in God and to belong to him Nay and which is more they do in these very Modes state the Ground and Reason of the Personalities c. Now I do confess that the Phrase of three Modes of Subsistence in the Trinity is used by most Divines by most who treat of the Trinity so is the Term of Modes used by the new Philosophers that is not the question But whether all Metaphysicians Schoolmen and Divines do assert Modes of Being in the Trinity in the Sense in which the Animadverter has defined them A Copernican Astronomer uses the Ancient Terms of Art of Epicycles invented by the Ptolemaists and uses the Phrases of the Sun 's rising and setting c. does he therefore embrace the Ptolemaick Hypotheses All wise men understand Phrases according to the known principles of the Speaker The Schoolmen believed that three finite persons had three proper real modes of Subsistence in the sense of the Animadverter they declare that the modes of Subsistence which constitute the Divine persons are in our imperfect conception analogous to the former but in the reality not Modes but perfect infinite relative Substances Holiness goodness in the creatures are proper adjuncts nor can our imperfect minds conceive of them otherwise in God and therefore we call them Attributes in God But our judicium correctivum tells us that this is only the weakness of our conception of things and that the Divine simplicity will not admit of any proper Attributes in God The same mistake has the Animadverter made in those words of the Reverend Dean which he quotes p. 287. viz. That the same numerical Essence is whole and entire in each Divine Person but in a different manner By which words it appears that he grants that of the Manner which he had before denied of the Modus it is a shrewd temptation to me to think that certainly this acute Author takes Modus for one thing and Manner for another The oftner I read these words the more I admire at the presumptuous confidence of him that wrote them I am sure no man can give a more convincing argument of his utter unacquaintance with the principles of the new Philosophy than these words nay indeed with the principles of all Philosophy and Divinity There is a mode habitude or relation whereby God is related to and respects a created Being God as a Creator is related in one manner and God as a Governour or Judge is related in another manner What then are the Relations of a Creator and Governour or Judge true and proper modes in God The Animadverter will himself determine the contrary p. 242. they derive says he only an external Habitude and Denomination consequent from it upon the Deity it self A Posture of the Body according to the Schoolmen is a real Mode a distinct accidentale quid from the Body it self according to the new Philosophers a different posture is only a different circumstance a different external habitude of the parts of the Body or of the whole Body in respect of the different situation of the parts yet not one of them would scruple the phrase that the Body standing is in a different manner from the Body sitting I am really ashamed of spending the Readers time in confuting so weak objections Modus is Latin for Manner therefore he that uses the one or the other phrase must necessarily assert Modes of Being in the sense of the Reallists for I do more than conjecture that the Nominalist Schoolmen did not believe these Real Modes but my distance from Libraries will not give me leave to determine any thing positively concerning their opinion Risum teneatis n. 6. Thirdly if we should grant the Animadverter a triplicity of proper Modes if we confess the three Personalities to be three proper Modes nay if we allow that the three relations of Paternity Filiation and Procession and the three Personalities in the reality make but three Modes notwithstanding the distinction that natural reason conceives betwixt proper modes of Subsistence and relations resulting from Beings constituted I say all this if liberally granted to the Animadverter would avail him very little For first it would only increase the difficulty what we must do with the fourth Relation of Active Spiration Four Modes in the Trinity would be new even to the Schoolmen themselves But of this afterwards Secondly this would leave us as much in the dark what the three Persons are A Person is not Personality but the Subject of Personality The Father is not Paternity but the Subject of Paternity Paternity is a personal Property but will any one dare to say that God the Father is a Personal Property Paternity according to the Animadverter is a Mode not so perfect as a Being It is boldness to ascribe a Mode to God the Father but to say that the Father is in recto a Mode not a Being is the height of folly and madness This is the constant language of the Ancient Fathers that the Divine Persons are distinguished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in subject Lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 2. §. 9. p. 324. Hence Petavius speaking of the Divine Persons according to the opinion of the Ancient Fathers says Non unum simplex habere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Phrases of the
and from his own words is bound to defend them for an Acurate Account of what the Church and Schools have taught in this Mystery or else confess that he has opposed possibly forsook the Faith of the Church and Schools before he understood either In my Second Part I intend to enquire more carefully into that uncontested Article of The Vnity of God especially since I am verily persuaded that most of the Subtilties not to say Perplexities wherewith this Article of the Trinity is too often obscured arise from want of a just stating of that First Article of Natural Religion the Unity of God It will be an ease both to my Reader and my self to divide my First Part into Chapters and numbred Sections and be more ready in case of any occasion of Reference or Comparison My design will also apologize for me if I sometimes take occasion to digress much farther than a bare Answer to the Animadversions seems to require since my desire is to bring as far as I conveniently can all Metaphysical or Nice Disputes into this First Part that my Second Part may be more suited for the use of those persons who are less acquainted or less delight in these Terms of Art I also crave leave to acquaint the Reader that for the avoiding of unnecessary Disputes I judge it sufficient at this time to reduce the Question to what is owned and professed on both sides As for instance Both Jews and Socinians acknowledge one Divine Person Both also acknowledge God's relation to his Creatures If therefore the Divine Relations within the Trinity are capable of the same Solution with the Relation of God to his Creatures I mean in respect of their Real Existence that sufficeth for my purpose So if the Suppositality of Three Divine Persons be capable of the same Solution with the Suppositality of One Divine Person whether that Suppositality be a Mode or Negation I need not in my present Design strictly determine CHAP. I. Animadv c. chap 2 p 30. 2d Edition N. 1 BUT because the Subject I am about to engage in is of that nature that most of the Metaphysical and School-Terms hitherto made use of by Divines upon this occasion will naturally and necessarily fall in with it I think it will contribute not a little to our more perspicuous proceeding in this Dispute to state the Import and Signification of these Terms Essence Substance Existence Subsistence Nature and Personality with such others as will of course come in our way while we are treating of and explaining these c. The Method is extremely judicious and ought to be commended but if we state the Import of these Terms falsly or imperfectly we shall obscure and perplex our selves and our Readers instead of assisting them to understand things more perspicuously The simple Faith of this Sacred Article to pious and docible minds needs not any of these Metaphysical or school-School-terms accordingly the divinely-inspir'd Writers have used none of them But the subtle Equivocations and Objections of the Arians on one hand and the Sabellians on the other together with the great Veneration paid to the Conclusions of the Schoolmen in this Mystety have made it necessary to enquire into the just signification of these and other School Terms and Distinctions N. 2. And here first of all according to the old Peripatetick Philosophy which for ought I see as to the main Body of it at least has stood its ground hitherto against all assaults I look upon the division of Ens or Being a summary word for all things into Substance and Accident as the Primary and most Comprehensive I see no necessity from this Mystery to concern our selves with this Metaphysical Dispute Whether Accidents are distinct Beings from Substance The Ancient Fathers denied any Accidents in God or in a Divine Person because God was immutable whereas an Accident potest adesse aut abesse sive subjecti interitu is separable from its Subject is changeable So St. Augustin lib. 5. de Trin. cap. 4. Nihil itaque accidens in Deo quia nihil mutabile aut amissibile But not one of them so far as I can find ever gave this Metaphysical Reason that it would compound God or a Divine Person of two Beings All the new Philosophers who are neither a small nor contemptible Body of Men explode this Division of Ens they do all deny that Accidents are distinct Beings from Substance Ens is not Vnivocum but Analogum to Substance and Accident that is an Accident is not properly a Being but Analogous or like to a Being not properly Ens simpliciter but Ens entis an affection of Being Lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 9. S. 15. p. 391. rather than a Being Accidens saith the Learned Petavius proprie non est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affectio quaedam Sola vero substantia esse dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocatur Transubstantiation as I verily believe first persuaded the Schoolmen to teach That Accidents are distinct Beings from Substance as being capable to exist separate from Substance Nay this monstrous Doctrine cannot persuade the new Philosophers of the Romish Church to believe these real Accidents they rather chuse to affirm that God by a perpetual Miracle causes the appearances of Bread and Wine to all our Senses than to acknowledge that Accidents are distinct Beings from the Substance they affect Aristotle himself appropriates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence to Substance if therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Relatives if that only be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Being which hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Essence nothing but Substance according to that Philosopher can be such P. 31. N. 3. As for Substance I define that to be a Being not inhering in another c. A Division rather than a Definition of Substance is necessary in this Mystery Aristotle divides Substance into first and second Substance And it is no such contemptible Enquiry as possibly the Animadverter may imagine whether the Ancient Fathers of the Church when they so often say that Father Son and Holy Ghost are of one Substance are not to be interpreted of a second Substance P. 31. N. 4. Accident I define a Being inherent in another This I have already spoken to N. 2. P. 31. N. 5. But now besides these two Terms of Substance and Accident there is another assigned by Logicians Metaphysicians and School-men called a Mode of Being viz. such a thing as Being added to another does not make any addition of another Being or degree of Being to it but only restrains and determines it c. All the new Philosophers deny real Modes equally with real Accidents Nor can I see any necessity to recur to such a nice Metaphysical Debate to explain this sacred Mystery Neither Jews nor Socinians fly to this Metaphysical Notion to explain the Suppositality of One
the Animadvertor they are three Infinite Minds in the highest sense The Animadvertor charges the Phrase of three Infinite Minds with the grossest Tritheism it immediately and unavoidably infers three Gods Preface pag. II. The Reverend Dean pleads the Authority of the Nicene Fathers that they had said as much nay more than he they had asserted a Specifick Unity of the Trinity which in the Animadvertor's Judgment implies a multiplication of the Divine Nature that is three Infinite Spiritual Natures whereas three Infinite Spirits in the bare Phrase implies no more than that there are three possessing one Infinite Spiritual Nature Now I presume if the Dean or rather if Petavius and Dr. Cudworth were not mistaken the Animadvertor will abate something of his Confidence he will hardly have brow enough to say That the Notion of the Trinity which the Nicene Fathers advanced was a silly Heretical Notion immediately and unavoidably inferring three Gods The same Request I make to all my Orthodox Readers that they will be pleased to lay aside their Prejudice against the Admission of a Specifick Unity in the Trinity till this Historical Truth be fairly determined The Nicene Fathers Judgment is not indeed the Rule of our Faith but it deservedly demands a Veneration from all Modest and Pious Christians and is infinitely to be preferred before the bare Authority of the Schoolmen or Moderns The Animadvertor Answers n. 3. p. 174. lin 16. I must confess my self very unfit to take such great and truly learned Persons to task and that upon comparing this Author the Reverend Dean and Petavius together I find much more Reason to believe that he mistook the meaning of Petavius than that Petavius could mistake the meaning of the Fathers If the Animadvertor is unfit to take two such learned Persons to task why does he contradict their Judgment Why does he call it a traducing misrepresenting the Fathers Why does he so confidently aver That the Fathers never mark that word never used the Example of three or more individual Men agreeing in the same Nature as a parallel instance of the same sort or degree of Unity He should have added p. 175. lin 5. of Nature with that which is in the three Divine Persons The Fathers never believed indefinitely universally the same Unity betwixt Humane Persons as betwixt the Divine Persons nor is that the Question but whether they believed the same Unity of Nature betwixt the latter as is confessedly betwixt the former A Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature if we for once only suppose such an Unity has quite different Consequences from what a Specifick Unity of a created Humane Nature implies which yet alters not the Unity of each Nature Well but the Animadvertor has compared the Dean and Petavius May I ask him why he did not also consult Dr. Cudworth He gives him a Complement in the foregoing Lines his Piece is not so rare but it might easily have been procured He was a Protestant Divine a Person of great and deserved Repute for Learning and Skill in Antiquity and which is more gives judgment against himself He himself embraces the Platonick Hypothesis which infers a Generical not Specifical Unity of the Trinity He lays a very severe charge to this Notion of a Specifick Unity It seems plain that this Trinity of St. Cyril and such who believe a Specifick Unity is no other than a kind of Tritheism and that of Gods independent and co-ordinate too The Platonick and Nicene Hypothesis of the Trinity both agreed in this that the common Divine Essence was an Universal They differed in this that the Platonists held the Divinity to be a genus and consequently capable of admitting degrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the distinct Divine Persons The Nicene Fathers held the Divinity to be a Species capable of no degrees of no essential degrees but that Father Son and Holy Ghost are perfectly equal touching the Godhead in the words of the Athanasian Creed The Godhead of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is all one the Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal I say the Testimony of this learned Person is of the more weight as being against his own Judgment We naturally in such cases weigh the words of an Author with more exactness when his Authority makes against us than when it agrees with us Him therefore we have left us as an unanswered Witness What does the Animadvertor say to Petavius Has the Reverend Dean misrepresented Petavius or not Why does not the Animadvertor speak plain Why does he keep a muttering between his Teeth That he finds more reason to believe that the Reverend Dean mistook the meaning of Petavius than that Petavius could mistake the meaning of the Fathers We want a categorical Answer whether Petavius did represent a specifick Unity of the Trinity to be the meaning of the Fathers and if he did so whether in so doing he mistook their meaning and sense This question which was too hard for the Animadvertor I will answer for him but I cannot promise to his good liking The Reverend Dean did not mistake the meaning of Petavius as might be proved from innumerable places of Petavius I shall content my self with two only Petav. l. 4. de Trin. cap. 7. S. 2. In hoc uno Graecorum proesertim omnium judicium opinionesque concordant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est essentiam sive substantiam sive naturam quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant generale esse aliquid commune ac minimè definitum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verò proprium singulare circumscriptum Ibid. c. 9. S. 1. Again Antiquorum plerosque dicentes audivimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive naturam commune quiddam esse multis quod universale vocant Hypostasim verò idem atque individuum sive singulare These words are capable of no Evasion Petavius in express terms declares that according to the Judgment of all the Greek Fathers the common Divine Essence is Generale quippiam as opposed to singulare is commune quiddam multis quod Vniversale vocant Thus Petavius as well as the Reverend Dean takes in the subject before us Common Nature and Specifick Nature to be all one Had the Animadvertor consulted the seventh and ninth Chapters of this fourth Book of Petavius concerning the Trinity he could neither have doubted of Petavius's Judgment nor well of that of the Ancient Fathers Well the Animadvertor has a Refuge for himself if Petavius has given his Judgment against him in the immediate following words n. 4. But however I shall lay down this as a Conclusion which I take to be undoubtedly true p. 174. ib. viz. That the Ancient Fathers as well the Nicene as those after them held only a Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature That is in other words They held and acknowledged one Numerical God and no more This Conclusion I hold and have good reason to believe that neither Petavius nor Dr. Cudworth shall be able to
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or likeness of Nature between them but therefore we have the less cause to wonder if there be defects in some of their Arguments if some of their reasonings about the Trinity seem to look no further than a specifick Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons This is as little to the advantage of the Animadvertor's cause as the former allegations The Arians would not allow so much as a specifick Unity between the Father and the Son Nicepho Callist Eccles His lib. 18. cap. 47. I would fain know what Hereticks ever did allow it Nicephorus Callistus charges indeed this Opinion upon Philoponus and his followers who are commonly called the Tritheit Hereticks but he is a later and fabulous Writer wrote in the fourteenth Century long after the prevailing of the School-Divinity Philoponus and his followers the Tritheit Hereticks of the seventh Century inclined nearer to Sabellianism than to a belief of a specifick Unity of the Trinity that hard name of Tritheit Hereticks was given them by reason of some uncouth Phrases which they used of which hereafter Secondly what consequence will the Animadvertor draw from the Arians not allowing a specifick Unity between the Father and the Son This is what he aims at that it sufficed to maintain a specifick Unity to confute the Arian Heresie I desire to know why the same Plea might not have served the Reverend Dean in his learned Vindication of this Article against the Socinians who no more allow a Specifick Unity of the Trinity than the Arians of old The Socinians deny them to be three infinite minds why will not that Apologize for the Reverend Dean Why is not this molified and called only a defect in the Reverend Dean as the Animadvertor here Stiles it in the Antient Fathers Thirdly the Arians objected Tritheism against the Orthodox Faith as the Socinians do to this day So that had the Ancient Fathers believed this Heresie a consequence of asserting a specifick Unity in the Trinity they would as carefully have avoided the asserting of it as the School-men and Moderns do on all occasions Fourthly The answer of the Antients to this Objection of Tritheism by the Arians is the clearest demonstration of their judgment this is the Objection Peter James and John are three Men therefore Father Son and Holy Ghost are three Gods The general answer of the Ancients is by denying the truth of the Antecedent that Peter James and John are improperly abusively called three Men that it is contrary to the rules of Philosophy to call them otherwise than one Man and three Human Persons as we say in the Blessed Trinity there are three Divine Persons and one God Now not one School-man or Modern as I believe ever gave such an answer Not one of them ever imagined that the affirming Father Son and Holy Ghost to be one God did in the least enforce them to affirm Peter James and John to be one Man The Animadvertor thinks this Objection only Jocular only fit to be Laughed at which the Antients thought so weighty that to get rid of it they endeavoured says the learned Dr. Cudworth reflectingly with their Logick to prove that three Human Persons ought not to be called three Men. I shall consider their Logicks afterwards at present I declare that is a manifest conviction to me that they did conceive the Unity of Nature between Human and Divine Persons parallel equal n. 9. Fifthly those words are very remarkable in our Animadvertor but instead of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 held only an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or likeness of Nature between them which insinuates as if the debate of the Catholicks and Arians in the Nicene Council were only about a Title whether the Son be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Father but this is to misrepresent the Fathers of that august Assembly The Arians liked neither the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and a Creature are improperly said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again the Catholicks approved of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 provided it were understood without equivocation if there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 added to it that is perfectly alike in their Essence is to the Catholicks the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consubstantial The Arians never consented to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when their Party was too weak and they were obliged to dissemble with some Catholicks who were otherwise favourable to their Persons and cause It must be confessed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not without great force suit with the Hypothesis of the Schools of the Singularity of the common Divine Essence A Singularity will not admit of a Comparison of likeness so saith Ricardus de S. Victor Lib. 6. de Trin. c. 20. Siquidem ubi est simplex Vnitas summa simplicitas quid ibi facit qualis talis It is less wonder therefore if the School-men charge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Arianism or Semi-arrianism Vid. Petav. lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 6 per totum whereas it is capable of an Orthodox Exposition I thought it necessary to follow the Animadvertor thus closely in the examining of this Historical Truth viz. whether the Fathers of the Church believed the Modus of a Specifick Unity of the Trinity Two very great and learned Persons have said it have abundantly proved it saith the Reverend Dean Their Assertion has never yet been confuted They were not drawn into this Assertion by the heat of Disputation or to favour their own Hypothesis neither of them approve of a Specifick Unity of the Trinity The Reverend Dean rightly judged that those places they had already produced abundantly proved their conclusion and yet Petavius gives them but as an Essay and pronounces this Opinion to be the judgment of all the Greek Fathers especially Shall I ask the Animadvertor a few Questions Was not Petavius as capable of judging betwixt occasional and designed Expressions as himself as capable of judging betwixt an Allusion or an Argument a minore ad majus as himself Did not Petavius know that the Arians denyed a Specifick Unity of the Trinity Shall I ask the Animadvertor whether he ever consulted St. Basil's 43d Epistle and if he did whether he can have Brow enough to say That that Epistle was not designedly wrote of the difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether St. Basil has not in the fullest manner delivered his judgment in this point I particularly mention this Epistle because our Animadvertor quotes a passage out of it Pag. 149. of his Animadversions under the name of Greg. Nyssen de differentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom in the Printed Editions it is also ascribed and because this Epistle being both in the Works of St. Basil and Gregory
account of the Divine Attributes by Essence and a Mode is this in his own Words Ibid. The constant unanimously received Doctrine of Divines School-men and Metaphysitians in their Discourses upon God Can a Reader unacquainted with these Debates believe that by the constant unanimously received Doctrine of Divines School-men and Metaphysitians we are to understand the single Aninmadverter alone and yet that is the truth So p. 51. l. 3. he with the same confidence and something else tells us That all Divines hitherto have looked upon and professedly treated of the Divine Nature and Attributes as different and distinct from one another still considering the first as the Subject and the other as the Adjuncts of it What must we say when a Person shall set up for a Critick in the most mysterious Article of our Religion and himself understands not the first Elements of Divinity Did any Divine before himself compound God of Subject and Adjunct Did any Divine before himself assert that Holiness Goodness Truth Knowledge Eternity c. were Adjuncts in God Does he know what an Adjunct is Quod alicui preter essentiam adjungitur something added conjoyned to the Essence of a Being Do not all Divines teach That the Divine Attributes may be predicated in abstracto of God God is his Wisdom his Power his Goodness but a Subject cannot be so predicated of its Adjunct But I am ashamed of confuting so weak a Notion yet our Animadverter has the Face to say That without this Notion it is impossible to discourse intelligibly of the Divine Attributes Ibid. p. 217. P. 223 Qu. 3. n. 27. What is the Substance or Nature of God I answer It is a Being existing of and by it self Incorporeal Infinite Eternal Omniscient Omnipotent c. The Animadverter triumphs over this and some other questions the Reverend Dean had made as easie and trifling for that is the natural Sense of calling them not so very formidable c. But I conceive that he mistook the Reverend Dean's Mind in asking this question which probably was What Notion we can frame in our Minds of the Substance of God of an infinite immaterial Substance However I shall wave that and tell him That he has extremely failed in the answer of this easie Question First When he tells us that the Nature of God is a Being God is properly called a Being but his Nature ought to be stiled an Essence and not a Being when we speak properly and according to the formal Conception of things Secondly To be a Being existing of it self is not of the Nature or Essence of God otherwise the Son and Holy Spirit are not each of them God for certainly neither the Son nor Holy Spirit exist of themselves to be a Being existing of it self is a personal property of the Father alone Thirdly Existing by it self is but an explication of being an Hypostasis or Suppositum which indeed agrees to Father Son and Holy Ghost but yet by the Consent of sober Divines is not esteemed an essential Predication and consequently ought not to be put into the Definition of God Fourthly Incorporeal Infinite c. are Attributes that is according to the Animadverter Adjuncts to the Essence or Nature of God how come they therefore to make up part of the Definition of the Nature of God But I am tired and have reason to believe my Reader so with the observation of the Animadverter's Mistakes and therefore I have omitted very many I did observe and doubtless a more attentive Reader would find many which escaped my notice The Animadverter in this Book has concern'd himself chiefly with three Articles Christ's Satisfaction His Incarnation and the Doctrine of the Trinity and I do not find upon the strictest Search that he understands any one of them Concerning the last of these Articles the Reader cannot have a clearer Proof than by Examination of the Animadverter's eighth Chapter wherein he professedly endeavours to lay down the positive Faith of the Church concerning this Article CHAP. VII I judge it neither improper nor unusefull to represent what the Church has hitherto held and taught concerning this important Article of the Trinity p. 240. l. 2. n. 1. as I find it in Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern Make room for this mighty Man keep silence and learn what Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern have taught in this important Article Goliath himself was not more compleatly armed Cap-a-pee but Goliath wanted little David's Sling he came not in the name of the Lord. And it seems this great Opiniator has forgot his Bible behind him quite forgot Christ and his twelve Apostles in the Crowd of Fathers and School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern Shall I need to remind this great Critick that if Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern have determined I will not say against but without a sufficient Foundation of Scripture their determination is no rule of a Protestant's Faith Article 8. Our Church receives the Creeds themselves because they may be proved by most certain Warrants of Holy Scripture I acknowledge it a great Confirmation of my Faith as to this Article that Councils and Fathers have explained the Scriptures in the same Sense in which I believe them The Ecclesiastical Phrases and Forms of Speech are very usefull to detect aequivocating Hereticks or as they speak in short what the Scriptures deliver in several places or as they are Arguments ad homines to those who acknowledge their Authority p. 240. l. 14. n. 2. Now the commonly received Doctrine of the Church and Schools concerning the Blessed Trinity so far as I can judge but still with the humblest Submission to the Judgment of the Church of England in the Case is this That the Christian Religion having laid this sure Foundation that there is but one God and that there is nothing i. e. no positive real Being strictly and properly so called in God but what is God and lastly That there can be no Composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being distinct from the Deity it self and yet the Church finding in Scripture mention of three to whom distinctly the God-head does belong it has by warrant of the same Scripture Heb. 1.3 expressed these three by the Name of Persons and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence allotted to one and the same God-head and these also distinguished from one another by three distinct Relations First The Complement is very high to the Church of England that he will submit the Faith which he finds in Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern to the Judgment of the Church of England but whom does the Animadverter mean by the Church of England this is his Character of the Churchmen the Clergy of the Church of England in