Fault Truly no other than what the best Writers both Ancient and Modern have been equally guilty of if it can be called a Fault Those who are acquainted with this Controversie know that the great Objection against the Catholick Faith of the Trinity in Unity is not its contradiction to any plain and express Principle of Reason but the unconceiveabless of it It is certain that Three should be One and One Three upon different accounts is no contradiction and then what Principle of Reason does a Trinity in Unity contradict But we must grant that we have no perfect Example of any such Union in Nature and therefore cannot frame a compleat and positive Notion and Idea of such an Union and this some Men miscall Contradicting Reason but if every thing which we have no positive Idea of must be allowed to contradict Reason we shall find Contradictions enow and which is worse must be forced to believe Contradictions for we must confess a great many things to be true which we have no Idea of and cannot conceive how they should be But yet since the unconceivableness of this Union is the great difficulty and great Objection though in truth it is no Objection at all to any one who considers how unconceivable and incomprehensible the Divine Nature is the Ancient Fathers endeavoured to help our conception and imagination of this by some sensible Images Such as the Co-essentiality and Union of the Sun its Light and Splendor of a Fountain and its Streams a Tree and its Branches as the Dean has observed and as every one knows whoever looked into the Fathers But these are Material Images and may serve for Allusions and to render the Notion of a Trinity in Unity possible and credible when we see some faint resemblances of it in the Material World but they cannot help us to conceive what kind of Union there is between the Divine Persons the Union of Matter and Spirit differing as much as Matter and Spirit do which have no likeness or resemblance to each other And therefore the Dean was certainly so far in the right to seek for some Image and resemblance of this Mysterious Union in the Unity of a Spirit For a Mind and Spirit is the truest Image of God that is in Nature for God is a Spirit and therefore it is more likely to find some Image of the Unity of the Godhead in a Spirit than in Matter and yet we know nothing of a Spirit but what we feel in our Selves and can Philosophize no farther about it for as Mr. Lock has truly observed we can form no Idea but either from external Impressions or internal Sensations and therefore we can know no more of the Unity of a Spirit neither than what we feel Now whoever considers how he knows himself to be a distinct and separate Person from all other Men will be able to resolve it into nothing else but Internal Sensation which the Dean not improperly calls Self-consciousness The Unity of Matter consists in the Unity of its parts and we can see how far its Unity extends and where it ends for its Unity extends as far as the continuity of its parts extends and ends where that ends But we know of no extension or parts in a Spirit and therefore the very Nature of a Spirit consisting in internal and vital Sensation the Unity of a Spirit consists in the continuity if I may so speak of its Sensation So far as a Man feels himself or is Self-conscious so far he is One entire Person where this Self-conscious Sensation ends he becomes a distinct and separate Person For it is a Self-evident Proposition that in an intelligent Self-conscious Being Self can reach no farther than he feels himself And I would desire any thinking Man to tell me how he knows himself to be a distinct and separate Person from all other Men but only by this that he feels his own Thoughts Volitions and Passions Pains and Pleasures but feels nothing of all this in other Men. I have been forced to explain this more at large to help the Animadverter to some conception of it who I find understood not one word of it as will appear presently But to proceed The Dean having thus observed that the Unity of a single Mind or Spirit consists in such a Natural Self conscious Sensation this led him on to that other Notion of a Mutual-consciousness which may be between Three distinct Spirits and make them naturally One as much as Three can be One. For if a Natural Self-conscious Sensation makes a Spirit One with it self why should not a natural Mutual-conscious Sensation unite Three into One For if natural Unity extends as far as Conscious Sensation then if Conscious Sensation extends to Three why should not these Three be acknowledged to be naturally One That as a natural Self-consciousness makes One natural Person so natural Mutual-consciousness should make a naral Trinity in Unity For my part I believe it is much easier to cry down this representation as a Novelty than to offer one word of Sence against it or to make any other representation of this Mystery with so fair and natural an appearance of Truth and Reason For this Mutual-consciousness being a natural Sensation is not a meer Moral but a natural Union not a Cabal of Gods as a Socinian Writer Prophanely speaks but one supream natural Deity This indeed forced the Dean to speak of the Three infinite and eternal Persons in the Godhead under the Character of Three infinite and eternal Minds for this conscious Sensation whether Self-consciousness or Mutual-consciousness can belong only to Minds and if every Person in the Trinity considered as a distinct Person be not a distinct infinite and eternal Mind there is I confess an end of the Dean's Notion but then I doubt there will be an end of a Trinity of Persons also and we shall have nothing left but a Trinity of Modes and Postures and Names not in the Unity of the Godhead but in the Unity of one Person who is the whole Deity and Godhead But if every distinct Person in the Godhead considered as distinct be an infinite and eternal Mind as it must be if every distinct Person be GOD unless any thing else than an infinite Mind can be GOD though it be an usual way of speaking to call them Three eternal Minds yet there is no Heresie in it nor any intended by it as will appear before we part Nor ought this to pass for meer Fancy and Invention for as the Dean has shewn the Phrases and Expressions of Scripture whereby the Union between Father Son and Holy Ghost is described do naturally represent this conscious Union and cannot well be understood without it for that the Father should be in the Son and the Son in the Father so as perfectly to comprehend and be comprehended with several like Expressions is made very possible and intelligible by a mutual conscious Sensation but nothing else
all the Perfections of infinite Mind and Understanding distinctly as other Persons have but not separately as created Persons have And since there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead thus really distinguished from each other without a separation I know no reason why we may not use this Word Person in this limited Sence to signifie Three who are as really distinct from each other but not separated as other Persons are For when it is known in what sence we use the Word when applied to the Trinity it is trifling to dispute against Three Persons in the Godhead from the signification of the Word Person when applied to Creatures and yet this is the Sum total of all the Socinian Arguments against Three Persons and One God and of all the Contradictions they pretend to find in it Three Divine Persons they say must be Three absolute compleat independent Gods because Three Humane Persons are Three compleat absolute Men who subsist independently on each other and therefore it is as manifest a Contradiction That Three Divine Persons should be but One God as it is that Three Humane Persons should be but One Man which signifies nothing if we do not use the Word Person in the same Sense and all the World knows we do not when applied to the Holy Trinity as when applied to Men For it is meer trifling to dispute against us from such a Sense of the Word as we reject and declare to all Men that we do reject The most that can be made of this is that we use an improper Word and ought not to call Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Persons because that is to make Three Gods of them as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men But when the importunity of Hereticks forces us to find Names for that which nothing in created Nature can answer if they will not give us leave we must take leave to use the properest Names we can find though not every way proper and such the Name of Person is when applied to the Persons of the Trinity For all that this Word Person signifies except a separate Subsistence belongs to the Persons of the Holy Trinity An intelligent Nature and all personal Acts of Understanding Volition c. do as distinctly belong to each Person as to any Humane Persons and it is this makes a Person not a separate Subsistence which belongs only to finite and created not to infinite and eternal Persons And therefore the Word Person is properly enough applied to the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost because all that is essential to the Notion of a Person belongs to each of them though they do not subsist separately as Humane Persons do But yet Men are very apt to judge of the Divine Persons by what they see in Humane Persons and to fancy these Three Persons in the Deity to be like Three Men who have the same Humane Nature but subsist and act separately and are One only by a moral Consent and Unity And therefore to prevent this Imagination which betrays Men to down right Tritheism others without rejecting the Name Person have thought fit more expresly to signifie what kind of Persons they are by calling them Three Subsistences that is Three who have all the Perfections of the Godhead and do really and distinctly subsist for else they could not be Three Subsistences but yet do not subsist as separate Persons but are essentially One God For Subsistence does not necessarily infer Separation for Three may distinctly subsist though essentially and inseparably united And this is the difference between Person and Subsistence that according to the most usual acceptation of the Word Person which it is hard to correct for that Idea which in common use belongs to a Word is apt to stick close to it Three Persons signifie Three who subsist apart and as separately as Three Men do But Three Subsistences are Three Persons who subsist distinctly without Separation For Subsistence necessarily signifies a distinct and real but not a separate Subsistence for if Three really subsist without a Separation they are Three real Subsistences and therefore it is in vain for the Socinians to dispute against Three Persons that they must be Three separate Persons unless they can prove that they cannot really subsist without a Separation which none of them ever yet undertook and yet all their Talk of Contradictions and Three Gods vanishes without it What I have said of the Word Person is with equal reason applicable to the Word Mind The Animadverter objects against the Dean That a Mind or Spirit is an absolute Being Nature or Substance and I grant it is so in the common use of the Word as apapplied to created Minds and Spirits but so is Person also as much as Mind and if we allow of a Theological use of the Word Person why not of Mind too to signifie an intelligent Subsistence which is a Mind too but not a separate Mind and therefore not such an absolute Being Nature and Substance as a created Mind is And when the Dean speaks of Three distinct infinite Minds which are essentially and inseparably One he could mean nothing more than three distinct intelligent but not separate Subsistences And he needs ask no other Pardon but for the use of a Word which the Schools have not consecrated But there is greater want of Words to express the Unity and Oneness of the Divine Nature and Essence than the distinction of Persons The Nicene Fathers in their Controversie with Arius of which if there be occasion more hereafter who denied the Divinity of Christ and made him no more than a Creature though as perfect and as like to God as a Creature could be used the Word Homoousion which was not first invented by them to serve that turn but was used either in Words or Sence by the Anti-Nicene Fathers as the learned Dr. Bull has proved But what is this Homoousion or Sameness of Nature This is the difficulty for there is not any one Word to explain it by which adequately answers the full Notion of the Divine Unity and that is no great wonder because there is no perfect Example in Nature of any such Unity They very often explain this by Examples of a Specifick Unity That the Father and Son have the same Nature as Abraham and Isaac have and therefore they call Men who have the same Specifick Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so they do the Sun its Light and Splendor the Tree and its Branches c. And this is in part a true representation of the Homoousiotes or Sameness of Nature in the Persons of the Holy Trinity for if there be not that which perfectly Answers though it much out-does also a specifick Sameness and Unity their Nature cannot be the same and accordingly they prove against the Arians that Christ cannot be the Son of God if he be not Homoousios to his Father because every Father begets a Son in his
Relation and Participation with its Prototype and therefore the Prototype is greater than its Image and the Image receives all from the Prototype depends on it and subsists and lives in and by it as the Son acknowledges That he lives by the Father Iohn 6. 57. This is manifestly the Language of Scripture and Fathers concerning the Son of God his living and substantial Image and I hope you see That this is proper and peculiar only to a living subsisting Image and can be applied to nothing else but is the only proper way that we can speak of such an Image or that such an Image can speak of it self this is intelligible though the Mystery of this eternal living Image is inconceivable This I suppose is what the Dean meant when he said That Some tolerable Account might be given of the Terms and Distinctions of the Schools and I believe you begin to see That this representation I have now made of this Venerable Mystery will contribute very much to the better Understanding both of the Fathers and of the Schools as may appear more hereafter but at present I shall only shew you That this is the true representation of the Dean's Notion of a Trinity in Unity The Dean does professedly Teach That the Three Persons or Subsistences in the ever blessed Trinity are Three real Substantial Subsistences each of which has entirely all the Perfections of the Divine Nature Divine Wisdom Power and Goodness and therefore each of them is eternal infinite Mind as distinct from each other as any other Three Persons and this I believe he will no more Recant than he will renounce a Trinity for all the Wit of Man can't find a Medium between a Substantial Trinity and a Trinity of Names or a Trinity of meer Modes Respects and Relations in the same single Essence which is no Trinity at all And if the Son as you heard be the living Image of his Father's Nature Essence and Perfections the Divine Nature though it be not multiplied yet is repeated in the Son and does as really and distinctly subsist in the Son as it does in the Father as had a Man a living Image his Image would be as substantially and really Man as the Prototype is or as the Man himself whose Image it is though the Man and his Image which are really and substantially Two are not Two Men but One Man And thus the Dean might very safely say That there are Three in the Godhead each of which is a distinct infinite eternal Mind and though Custom has not made the form of Expression Orthodox yet there is no Heretical Sence in it to call them Three infinite and eternal Minds with respect to their Nature and real Subsistence to distinguish them from meer Names and Logical Notions if at the same time it be declared That they are individually and numerically One As it would be no Mortal Crime against Logick and common Sence to say That a Man and his Living Image are Two distinct Men with respect to the real and actual Subsistence of Humane Nature distinctly in each of them though the Image is not another Man but the same with its Prototype This is the distinction which the Dean makes between the Three Divine Persons which yet could not be Three were they not Three Self-conscious Subsistencies for there cannot be Three in a knowing and intelligent Nature without knowing themselves and their distinction from each other That the Father knows himself to be the Father and not the Son and the Son knows himself to be the Son and not the Father This every Man feels in himself to be a real and natural distinction of one Person from another and the Scripture is express in it that Father Son and Holy Ghost are thus distinguished and this the Dean thought and as far as I can yet see with great Reason to be the most easie and sensible representation of a real and natural Trinity As for the Unity of these three Divine Persons the Dean expresly Teaches That they are essentially and numerically One. And as the most sensible Representation of this he places their Unity in Mutual consciousness that they have as Conscious a Sensation of each other in themselves as they have of themselves And he is certainly so far in the right that this is essential to their Unity That Three intelligent Subsistences cannot be One without this Mutual consciousness and that this Mutual consciousness cannot be in Three which are not essentially and numerically One. The Scripture plainly enough Teaches this very Unity between Father Son and Holy Ghost as he has proved at large and if this either be or prove or necessarily supposes an essential Unity as inseparable from it and essential to it here is an intelligible Notion of a natural Trinity in Unity without any Contradiction Absurdity or Confusion of Subsistences which is all the Dean intended But the Animadverter and his Socinian Seconds or rather Leaders represent the Dean's Notion as if he made the Three Divine Persons as absolute compleat independent Persons as Three Men are and that they are united only by Mutual consciousness and then they can fansie nothing but an Unity of Knowledge or a Moral Unity and consent of Wills But this is either a mistake or a wilful misrepresentation as every one may see with half an Eye who considers the whole Notion together The Dean indeed the better to convey this Notion of the natural Unity of Mutual consciousness to our Minds supposes a Case which he knew very well never was nor ever could be which is very allowable in all Writers within the compass of decency when we want some sensible Images to frame our Conceptions by And therefore says That if there were Three created Spirits so united as to be conscious to each others Thoughts and Passions as they are to their own he can see no Reason why we might not say That Three such Persons are numerically One. Though he knew That Three such particular separate Natures never could be thus united but in them we might the better conceive what kind of Union it was he meant But from hence to conclude That the Dean owns no other Unity in the Divine Nature than what Mutual-consciousness would make between Three particular absolute compleat separate Natures is I 'm sure false-reasoning and looks like very foul Play The Dean asserts That these Three Divine Persons are thus Mutually Conscious to each other and that this Mutual-consciousness is an essential Unity and that those who are thus Mutually Conscious are numerically One but then he Teaches that there are no other Three in the World that are thus Mutually Conscious and that these Three are not and cannot be for this very reason Three particular separate subsisting Natures but Three Subsistences in one individual numerical Nature An Unity of Nature and mutual consciousness may be distinguished but are inseparable There can be no Unity of Nature between Three
Being and feeling himself and other Persons in himself This is sufficient to justifie the Dean's Notion of Self-consciousness and Mutual-consciousness and a little more fully to explain it which it seems he thought that every one who was acquainted with the workings of his own Mind must have understood without a Comment And I hope if the Animadverter think fit to try his skill again we shall hear no more of his formal Reasons of Personality and Union but that he will be pleased to speak to the true point whether a Self-conscious Person be not one with himself and distinguished from all other Persons and whether he does not feel himself to be thus One and thus distinguished by Self-consciousness and whether Three Divine Persons who are thus Mutually-conscious to each other be not naturally and essentially United into One Supream Being or One God All other Disputes are beside the Question for if this hold true then we have a natural Distinction and a natural Unity between these Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost and that is a natural Trinity in Unity without the least appearance of Absurdity or Contradiction or impossibility in its Notion Hitherto though the Assault has been furious and insulting we have met with no heavier Charge excepting some usual Complements than Ignorance in Philosophy and Metaphysicks and Scholastick Terms and where that Charge falls I will now leave you to judge but this is but the beginning of Sorrow Tritheism follows next which is a terrible Accusation though I do heartily thank the Animadverter that he has been so civil to the Dean as not to charge this upon him as his Opinion but as the consequence of his Principles which I believe will prove no more than the Animadverter's Ignorance not the Dean's Heresie Before I Answer his Arguments it will be necessary briefly to state this Matter in Controversie for the Sting of all his Arguments consists in forcing such a Sence on the Dean's Words as he never intended The only thing that needs any Excuse or Apology is the Phrase of Three eternal and infinite Minds the Fault of which is That it is an unusual way of Speaking and gives advantage to an ignorant or cavilling Adversary to affix some uncouth and Heretical Sence on it What led the Dean to this I observed before viz. His explication of the distinction of the Three Divine Persons by Self-consciousness and of their essential Unity by Mutual-consciousness now since Self-consciousness and Mutual-consciousness can be in nothing but Minds he thought the fairest and easiest representation of this Matter was to consider them under the Notion and Character of Minds for every Man can feel in himself that a Mind is distinguished from all other Minds by Self-consciousness and if there may be and is such a Mutual-consciousness between Three as the Dean describes they must be as naturally and essentially One as Three can be One and we must seek for no other Unity in Trinity than what is reconcilable with a real Trinity or a real distinction between Three But had the Dean been aware what kind of Men he should have had to do with such as have no regard to the plain and manifest Sence of an Author if they can but pick a Quarrel with his words he might easily have prevented all this without having injured his main Argument If instead of Three eternal and infinite Minds he had but said Three eternal infinite knowing intelligent Persons he had kept the Orthodox Language and yet expressed all that he intended by Three Minds for a knowing intelligent Person is a Mind if Knowledge can be only in a Mind and then Three such intelligent Persons may be distinguished from each other by Self-consciousness and united in One Godhead by Mutual-consciousness This is the Account the Dean himself gives what he means by a Mind That a Mind is an intelligent Person and that every intelligent Person is a Mind and therefore thought it as innocent in this Sence to say That there are Three eternal and infinite Minds as to say That there are Three eternal and infinite Persons and I believe it will appear That excepting the unusualness of the Expression the objection of Tritheism will equally lie against both with this difference That it is more easily Answered by considering the Powers and Properties of a Mind And in this Sence only he affirms That to say they are Three Persons and not Three distinct infinite Minds that is not Three distinct intelligent Persons is both Heresie and Nonsence it is Nonsence to Talk of a Person who is not an intelligent Person that is as he explains it a Mind which contradicts the Notion both of a Person and Mind and to say That there are Three Persons but not Three intelligent Persons is Heresie even the Heresie of Sabellius for there is no Medium between a Trinity of intelligent Persons and a Trinity of Names for Powers and Faculties and Modes will prove no more when distinguished from intelligent Persons And it is evident That this is all he intended by it by the opposition he makes between Three Minds and Three intelligent Persons and Three Powers and Faculties of the same Being for Faculties are not Persons no more than Memory Will and Understanding are Three Persons in One Man And he proves That the received Catholick Notion of a Person is such a Being as has Understanding and Will and Power of Action from the Arguments universally urged against the Socinians to prove the Holy Ghost to be a Person and not meerly a Divine Power because all the Properties of a Person belong to him such as Understanding Will Affections and Actions So that the Dean does not charge those with Heresie and Nonsence who barely refuse to use these Terms of Three eternal and infinite Minds which it may be no body ever so expresly used before him and which he will not contend about but the Heresie and Nonsence is to assert Three distinct Divine Persons who are not Three distinct eternal infinite intelligent Persons and he has Authority and Reason enough to call this both Heresie and Nonsence This is a sufficient Answer to that Charge the Animadverter draws up against the Dean That he calls the Three Divine Persons Three eternal and infinite Minds by which he understands no more than Three intelligent Persons and if He thinks an intelligent Person to be a Mind let the Animadverter confute him if he can and if he means no more by Three Minds than Three intelligent Persons as it is evident he could mean no more how inconvenient soever this expression may be thought let the Animadverter try his Skill to make Tritheism of Three Minds and excuse Three intelligent Persons from the same Charge And now let us consider his Arguments which he shews with great Pomp in Mode and Figure Arg. 1. Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits are Three distinct Gods But the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not Three distinct Gods And therefore the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not Three distinct infinite Minds or
Spirits Now let us but change the Term of Minds into Intelligent Persons and it is the very Argument the Socinians urge to confute the Doctrine of Three Divine Persons or to charge it with Tritheism and runs thus Three distinct infinite intelligent Persons are Three distinct Gods But there are not Three distinct Gods And therefore there are not Three distinct infinite intelligent Persons in the Godhead and consequently to assert Three such distinct Persons is to assert Three Gods His proof of the Major Proposition will serve as well for an eternal infinite intelligent Person as for an eternal infinite Mind For God and eternal infinite intelligent Person are Terms as equipollent and convertible as God and infinite Mind or Spirit God being as truly and properly an infinite intelligent Person as an infinite Mind or Spirit and an infinite intelligent Person being as truly and properly God as an infinite Mind If the Animadverter think fit to Answer That One God and One infinite Mind are convertible Terms but One God and One infinite intelligent Person are not convertible Terms because there are Three such infinite Persons in the Godhead and but One infinite Mind the reply is easie That the bare Terms from which he argues do not prove this distinction For though in the Doctrine of the Trinity custom has more reconciled us to the Term Person than Mind yet setting aside this Dispute all Mankind understand the same thing by an infinite Mind and an infinite intelligent Person it is plain the Socinians do and hence conclude That there is but One Person in the Godhead because God is but One infinite Mind Whether there be One or Three infinite Minds or infinite intelligent Persons in the Unity of the Godhead is a Dispute of a higher Nature and can't be determined by Convertible Terms for though the ancient Philosophers and Poets as he Learnedly proves what every School-Boy knows did acknolwedge God to be a Mind or Spirit that is an understanding intelligent immaterial Being yet most of them by Mind understood no more than One single Mind or One single Intelligent Person and he might have known that Plato to whom he appeals though he acknowledged God to be a Mind yet he owned Three such Minds in the Unity of the Godhead And therefore could not think That One God and One infinite Mind were equipollent and convertible Terms because he asserted Three infinite Minds to be but One God But since the Animadverter has only made God and infinite Mind or Spirit equipollent and convertible Terms we may allow him this and still deny his Major Proposition that therefore Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits are Three distinct Gods for though God is an infinite Mind and an infinite Mind is God it does not follow that Three infinite Minds are Three distinct Gods no more than Three infinite intelligent Persons are Three distinct Gods but only as it is expressed in the Athanasian Creed That we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singly distinctly to be God and Lord and yet are forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there be Three Gods or Three Lords If God be an infinite Mind and there be Three infinite Minds it must follow That each of these Three infinite Minds distinctly and by himself considered is God not that these Three are Three distinct Gods but One God Indeed the Animadverter's Argument from Convertibility and Commensuration that whatsoever may be affirmed or denied of the One may with equal Truth and Propriety be affirmed and denied of the other proves all that the Dean would desire viz. that every distinct Person in the Godhead is distinctly by himself an infinite Mind because he is distinctly by himself God and God is infinite Mind and therefore every Person who is God is infinite Mind for no Person can by himself be God who has not by himself all the Perfections that belong to the Idea of God So that here are Three Persons in the Godhead each of which by himself is infinite Mind And therefore though it may be improper in an absolute Sence to say there are Three eternal and infinite Minds when we acknowledge this infinite Mind is and eternally was essentially and inseparably One yet we must say that this One infinite Mind is essentially distinguished into Three infinite intelligent Persons whom in any other case we should call Three Minds and are as much Three as is consistent with the essential Unity of the Godhead and this is reason enough to consider the distinction of Persons and the Unity of the Godhead as we would the Distinction and Unity of Three Minds and then this One eternal infinite Mind may be distinguished into Three intelligent Persons by Three Self consciousnesses and be essentially One by a natural Mutual-consciousness which is all the Dean intended or had occasion to assert And if this be all he means by the Godhead and infinite Mind which is common to all Three Persons the Dean readily agrees with him and in this Sence will no more say that there are Three infinite Minds than that there are Three Gods The Animadverter was aware of this That the same Objection of Three Gods would as well lie against Three Persons as against Three Minds and let us consider how he avoids the blow The difference he makes between them is this That 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 The Sum of which is no more but this That Three distinct Minds are Three distinct Gods because they are distinguished but if notwithstanding their distinction they are essentially and inseparably One they are not Three distinct Gods but a real Trinity of Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead which all Men must own who believe a Trinity in Unity But are not Three infinite intelligent Persons as much Three absolute simple Beings and Essences as Three Minds No! by no means 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 Mode or Respect peculiar to each and upon that account causing their Destinction This is perfect Gibberish which I am certain he understands not one Word of himself But let us examine it The Divine Persons he says are Three Relatives very right for Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three and are related to each other But what are Three Relatives that comes in by way of Parenthesis One simple Being or Essence under Three distinct Relations That these Three Persons thus related to each other are One simple Being or Essence we readily grant for they were from eternity inseparably united in
One infinite Essence or One Supream God but the Question still remains what these Three Persons are into which this One Being or Essence is distinguished by these Three distinct Relations Three Relatives are not Three Relations but Three things related to each other What then are these Three Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence Three Relations Three Modes Three Respects without some Being which tho' essentially One is really and substantially Three is Nonsence in Logick for there must be as many real substantial Relatives and Correlates as there are Relations unless the Relation between Father and Son can subsist without a real Father and Son The Person then of the Father the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Ghost are not the Relations between Father Son and Holy Ghost but real substantial Persons thus related to each other And if these are Three intelligent Persons let him make if he can Three Gods of Three Minds and excuse Three real intelligent Persons from the same Charge But the Truth is to prevent the Charge of making Three Gods he distinguishes the Three Divine Persons into Three Logical Relations or Modes of Subsistence and if we will be contented with a Trinity of Modes he is for us but this looks very like renouncing a Trinity of Persons to secure the Unity of the Godhead and I fear will prove no better when thoroughly examined In what Sence the Three Divine Persons are Three Relatives or Three Relations I have explained above their Nature is compleat and absolute if the Divine Nature be so but their Subsistence is Relative as it must of Necessity be when the same individual Nature is repeated and subsists distinctly in Three If it be essential to the Father to be a Father he subsists with a necessary Relation to his Son if it be essential to the Son to be a Son the perfect living Image of the Father his Subsistence is wholly Relative as the Subsistence of an Image is which depends upon the Prototype And therefore though each Divine Person be eternal and infinite Mind and with respect to their Three real Subsistences may be called Three infinite eternal Minds as the Dean ventured to call them yet these Three are not Three absolute simple Beings or Essences which stand distinguished from one another by their whole Beings or Natures but One absolute eternal Mind repeated in Three Relative Subsistences without multiplication As a Man and his living Image though each of them have distinctly Humane Nature and upon that account might be called Two Men yet they have but One compleat absolute Humane Nature though it be repeated in the Image and are but One Man in Two Persons or Two Humane Subsistences Had the Dean indeed made Three compleat absolute eternal Minds he had been justly chargeable with making Three Gods but the same eternal and infinite Mind repeated in Three Subsistences necessarily and essentially related to each other are but One eternal God 2. His second Argument is this Three distinct Minds or Spirits are Three distinct Substances But the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are not Three distinct Substances And therefore they are not Three distinct Minds or Spirits The Dean does not pretend to know any thing of the Substance of a Mind much less of God who is an infinite Mind He is contented to know That a Mind is a thinking and understanding Being and though Understanding and Being and Nature or Substance may be distinguished in finite created Minds yet St. Austin has taught him that in God to be is not One thing and to understand another or whatever else can be said of the Divine Nature and therefore not Substance neither So that if in the Unity of the Godhead there be but Three such distinct Understandings or Minds or intelligent Persons who are not each other and do not understand by each other but distinctly by themselves as St. Austin expresly observes That no man will say That the Father does not understand by himself but by his Son he is not concerned about distinct Substances which are the same with to be and to understand in God But his Proofs of both Propositions are entertaining His Major That Three distinct Minds are Three distinct Substances he proves from the Definition of a Mind or Spirit that it is Substantia incorporea intelligens an intelligent incorporeal or immaterial Substance and therefore Three distinct Minds or Spirits must be Three such distinct Substances Now if a Man should deny his Definition and say That a Mind is res cogitans a thinking Being he would be undone for want of his Substances but I shall only cap Definitions with him at present That a Person is Substantia individua naturae rationabilis the individual Substance of a Rational Nature And therefore if there be Three distinct Persons there are Three such distinct Substances in the Godhead and let us see how he will bring off Three Persons from being Three distinct Substances and I will undertake the Dean shall do as much and do it as well for Three Minds But if a Mind were not a Substance what could it be else Let us know first what Substance is and then we 'll tell him Not quod substat accidentibus I hope for then he immediately proves That God is no Substance because no accident can be in God nor need he fear that the Dean will make a Mind a Mode of Subsistence in his Sence of it but a true and real Mind which does really and actually subsist though these Three eternal Minds are but Three eternal Subsistences of the same One individual eternal Mind As for the Minor viz. That the Three Divine Persons in the blessed Trinity are not Three distinct Substances he proves first from Authority and he is as dangerous a Man at Authorities as ever I met with He cites Tertullian St. Ierom St. Austin and some others and he might have produced the Authority of all the ancient Fathers to prove that there is but One Substance in God but this is nothing to his purpose for by One Substance they plainly meant the Homoousion that Father Son and Holy Ghost were of the same Nature and by denying Three Substances they principally rejected Three divers Natures of different Kinds and Species in opposition to Arianism which denied the Son to be of the same Nature with his Father this he might have learnt from what he cites from his Orthodox Father Bellarmine That to assert that the Father and the Son differ in Substance is Arianism for the difference the Arians made and the Catholicks opposed was not in the real distinction of their Persons but in the diversity of their Natures and the Reason he adds will not help it out And yet he adds if they were Two distinct Substances for them not to differ in Substance would be impossible as if to be distinct and to differ in Substance were the same thing As if Two Men
were not unius Substantiae of one and the same Substance as St. Austin and all the Fathers assert because they are Two distinct Men and each of them has a distinct Nature of his own Or if he will call this a Difference as if to differ in number and in Substance or Nature were the same thing or as if to differ in number proved a diversity of Nature too It is a tedious thing to dispute with Men who must be taught to construe the Fathers and to understand common Sence But if Authority will not do this he is resolved Reason shall and he has as peculiar a Talent at Reason as he has at Authorities He proves That the Three Persons can't be Three distinct Minds because they are not Three distinct Substances Now the Dean may very safely deny this Consequence and try how the Animadverter will prove it That if Three Minds are Three intelligent Persons and a Mind is a Substance therefore Three distinct Minds or Persons are Three distinct Substances for Three distinct Minds may subsist distinctly and yet inseparably in One Eternal and infinite Substance as Three intelligent Persons do Though the true and short Answer is That the same Substance repeated in Three distinct Subsistences is not Three Substances but One as I have often observed in the Case of the Man and his Image But suppose Three Persons were Three distinct Substances inseparably united in One What then What then It is a Terrible then For then Two Substances will concur in and belong to each Person to wit that Substance which is the Divine Essence and so is communicable or common to all the Persons and the Substance which constitutes each Person and thereby is so peculiar to him as to distinguish him from the other and consequently to be incommunicable to any besides him to whom it belongs I am heartily ashamed and sorry to see such Stuff as must necessarily expose our Holy Faith to the scorn of Atheists and Infidels and that I may not contribute to it all this Nonsence shall escape the lash of my Pen. In short the Dean knows no Divine Substance or Essence distinct from the Three Divine Persons nor knows any distinction between the Divine Essence and a Divine Person but that the Essence makes the Person That the whole Divine Essence or Nature is originally in God the Father that this same whole Divine Nature and Essence was by eternal Generation communicated by the Father to the Son and subsists distinctly in him That this same whole Divine Nature by eternal Procession is communicated by the Father and the Son to the Holy Ghost and subsists distinctly in him and these Three Divine Persons by an inseparable Union dwelling in each other is that Supream and Sovereign Being who is the One God or a Trinity in Unity It is amazing to think what strange Conceits this Man must have of a Trinity of Persons and Unity of Essence or Substance For I am sure no Man has any Idea of an intelligent Nature and Essence distinguished from a Person or of Persons distinguished from a rational Nature of a Divine Essence and Substance which is no Person and of Divine Persons which are no Substances as it seems they cannot be in the Animadverter's way unless he also will compound every Person of Two Substances What is the Divine Essence and Substance but an infinite and eternal Mind And is not an infinite and eternal Mind a Person The Divine Essence then must be acknowledged to be a Person and to be a substantial Person or the Divine Substance so that there is a Person that is a Substance and if there be but One such single and solitary Divine Essence there can be but One such single and solitary Person Will he then make four Persons in the Godhead the Divine Essence which is a substantial Person and Three Persons which are no Substances Or will he own God to be what Pascentius objected to St. Austin and he rejected with Scorn Triformis Persona One Divine Person under Three Forms this or something more Senceless is the Truth of the Case as may appear more hereafter but I will now proceed 3. His third Argument is this If it be truly said that one and the same infinite Mind or Spirit is Father Son and Holy Ghost I mean all Three taken together and it cannot be truly said that one and the same infinite Mind or Spirit is Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits then it follows that Father Son and Holy Ghost are not Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits This Logick is a very troublesome thing when Men want Sence The whole of this Argument is this That One infinite Mind can't be Three infinite Minds nor Three infinite Minds One infinite Mind and that Three Persons who are One infinite Mind can't be Three infinite Minds that is That Three can't be One nor One Three which if it be universally true there is an end of a Trinity in Unity if it be not universally true that is if Three may be One and One Three the meer opposition between Three and One which is the whole force of his Argument is childish Sophistry For if they be Three and One in different Respects this is no Contradiction Every Divine Person is an infinite Mind and as distinctly so as he is a distinct Person and yet by their essential and inseparable Union to each other all Three are but One eternal infinite Mind as they are but One God But when these Three Divine Persons are said to be Three and to be One eternal and infinite Mind they are Three and One Mind upon different Respects every Person by himself as a distinct Person is an eternal infinite Mind that is is a knowing intelligent Being and has all the Perfections of an infinite Understanding distinguished from the other Persons by Self-consciousness and all Three Persons by their inseparable Union to each other are but One eternal infinite Mind as having each other in themselves by Mutual-consciousness and let the Animadverter shew where the Contradiction is That there should be Three Self-conscious infinite Minds as there are Three infinite Persons united into One mutualconscious Mind as Three distinct Persons are united in the Unity of the Godhead especially when this One eternal Mind is entirely and perfectly repeated without the least change in Three eternal intelligent Subsistences each of which is distinctly an eternal Mind but the same One individual eternal Mind 4. His fourth and last Argument is this Whatsoever Attribute may be truly predicated of all and each of the Divine Persons in the Athanasian Form so belongs to them all in common that it can belong to none of them under any Term of distinction from the rest But the attribute infinite Mind or Spirit may be truly predicated of all and each of the Divine Persons in and according to the Athanasian Form And therefore it can belong to none of them under any Term
will afford us any Conception of it Now suppose That after all these fair Appearances a spiteful Wit could start some difficulties in this Notion as it is not to be expected that in a matter of so high a Nature we should have such a perfect comprehension of it as to leave no difficulties unexplained ought not the Dean to have met with as fair Quarter as other Writers have done in the same cause Has he not given us as intelligible a representation and it is intended for no more of a Trinity in Unity as the Sun its Light and Splendor a Tree and its Branches a Fountain and its Streams or a Mathematical Cube Are not all these Accounts much more chargeable with Tritheism or Sabellianism are not the Sun its Light and Splendor as much Three but not so much One as Three Conscious Minds Can there be a Trinity in Unity unless there be a real and substantial Trinity What work could our Animadverter have made with the Ancient Fathers and some late Writers had he thought fit to have treated them as he has done Dr. Sherlock But it is in vain to expostulate when the Man not his Notions is in Fault and the only Comfort in such cases is That Malice is as blind as Love and so it has happened to the Animadverter as I shall make appear But before I particularly answer the Animadverter's Arguments against Self-consciousness and Mutual-consciousness and Three eternal Minds it will be necessary to Discourse something in general concerning a Trinity in Unity and the words whereby to express it For a Trinity in Unity is such a distinction and such an Union as is peculiar to the Godhead and though there are some faint resemblances of it in Nature yet Nature has nothing like it and then it is impossible we should have any words that can adaequately express it It may help to allay the heat and virulence of Disputation among those who heartily believe a Trinity in Unity as I hope the Animadverter does to discourse this matter plainly and briefly The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament every where assure us That there is but One GOD and not to take notice now of the more obscure intimations of a Trinity in the Old Testament Christ in his Gospel and his Apostles after him have ascribed the Name and Character and incommunicable Attributes of GOD to Three Father Son and Holy Ghost we are by the Command of Christ Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and we are blessed in their Name The Grace of our Lord Iesus Christ and the Love of God and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all Amen Christ declares himself to be the Son of GOD and to be One with his Father and St. Iohn tells us That he is that Word which was in the beginning and was with God and was God That by him all things were made and without him was not any thing made that was made And the like Divine Attributes are ascribed to the Holy Spirit and therefore though there be One GOD we must acknowledge if we believe the Gospel that there are Three Father Son and Holy Ghost in the Unity of the Godhead This is the true simplicity of the Christian Faith to believe Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One GOD that the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost that the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost that the Holy Ghost is not the Father nor the Son but that the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and all Three but One God Now one would have thought that the Authority of Christ and his Apostles had been a sufficient Foundation for this Faith without any farther enquiries but the Devil very well knew That the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation by Christ and consequently the whole Christian Religion depended on this Faith and that the curiosity of Mankind the weakness of their Understandings and their vain presumption in measuring GOD himself by their narrow Conceits might easily be managed to unsettle these Foundations and therefore here he made some of his earliest Attempts The ancient Christians before this was made a matter of Dispute contented themselves with professing their Faith in One God Father Son and Holy Ghost but when Heresies in several Ages of the Church were broached and some to secure the Unity of the Godhead made Father Son and Holy Ghost no more than Three different Names belonging to Three different Appearances and Manifestations of the same One God others if they were not misunderstood or misrepresented did not only distinguish but separate Father Son and Holy Ghost and made Three absolute independent Gods of them and others denied the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which preserved the Unity of the Godhead by reducing the only begotten Son and the Holy Spirit of God into the rank of Creatures This forced the Orthodox Fathers into a Dispute where they wanted Words adaequately to express their Sence The Doctrine which they constantly affirmed and defended against Hereticks of all sorts was this That Father Son and Holy Ghost were Three as really distinct from one another as Three humane Persons are and that each of them is true and perfect God and has all Divine Perfections in himself and yet that all Three are essentially One and the same eternal and infinite God But when they came to say what these Three are and how they are One by what Name to call this wonderful distinction and Unity here Words failed them as of necessity they must because there is no such Distinction and Unity in Nature and therefore no Name for it For the Names of distinction in ordinary use do not only distinguish but divide and separate their Subjects and the Names of Unity signifie singularity also which admits no number And this has occasioned most of our cavilling Disputes and raised all the noise and clamour about Absurdities and Contradictions in the Doctrine of the Trinity and there is no help for this if Men will ask such Questions as the proper and natural signification of Words cannot reach the Mystery of and not allow such a Theological use of Words as a little alters their natural Signification to accommodate them to represent some divine and supernatural Mysteries Thus for Example A Person signifies a reasonable understanding Being which actually subsists and is distinguished from all other Beings of the same kind but then it signifies more than this not only a distinct but a separate Subsistence for so all created Persons are not only distinct but separate Beings who have a compleat absolute independant Subsistence of their own But when we use this Word Person in a Theological Sense as applied to Father Son and Holy Ghost in the ever-blessed Trinity we only use it in the sense of distinction not of separation to signifie that each of these Holy Three has
of distinction from the rest This is a wonderful Argument if it be well considered For 1. Infinite Mind or Spirit is no Attribute but the Divine Nature and Essence it self and our Metaphysical Animadverter uses to distinguish between Essence and Attributes in God and disputes earnestly without an opponent that infinite Mind is God and therefore That there is but One infinite Mind as there is but One God Is God himself then an Attribute What will he make of God at last when the Divine Essence is an Attribute and a Divine Person a meer Mode 2. But let infinite Mind or Spirit be an Attribute or the Divine Essence since it may be truly predicated of all and each of the Divine Persons it must so belong to them all in common that it can belong to none of them under any Term of distinction from the rest If by this Term of distinction from the rest he means it cannot belong to each of them considered distinctly as such distinct Persons then it cannot be predicated distinctly of them neither for nothing can without manifest absurdity be distinctly predicated of Three distinct Persons if it do not distinctly belong to each of them If the Father considered as the Father and as a distinct Person from the Son and from the Holy Ghost be not an infinite Mind it cannot be truly said That the Father is an infinite Mind and if the Son as a distinct Person from the Father and the Holy Ghost is not an infinite Mind it cannot be truly affirmed distinctly of the Son that he is an infinite Mind Predication if it be true must follow Nature and therefore nothing can be particularly and distinctly predicated of any Person which does not distinctly belong to him What is common to Three cannot be so peculiarly appropriated to any One as to exclude either of the other Two for it is not common if it be not common to all and no more is it common if each of them have it not as distinctly as they subsist For distinct Persons that subsist distinctly must distinctly have what they have or they cannot have it at all though Humane Nature is common to all Mankind yet every distinct Man distinctly enjoys Humane Nature for there is no other way of distinction of Persons in a common Nature There is indeed a great difference between the distinction of Humane Persons and of the Divine Persons in the Sacred Trinity and between the Divine Nature being common to all Three Divine Persons and Humane Nature being common to all Mankind as I have often observed but there is so much likeness and Analogy between them as to make it very absurd to say That what is common to Three distinct Persons does not belong distinctly to each 3. Nor does the form of the Athanasian Creed forbid us distinctly to attribute to each distinct Person of the Trinity what is common to all Three for the Creed it self does this expresly in every point The Father uncreate the Son uncreate the Holy Ghost uncreate The Father Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty God and Lord and the Son Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty God and Lord and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty God and Lord. And that the Christian Verity compels us to acknowledge every Person by himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I think is distinctly God and Lord. Well! but the Creed expresly denies That therefore there are Three Uncreate or Three Incomprehensibles or Three Eternals or Three Almighties or Three Gods or Three Lords I grant it but not for the Animadverter's Reason because what is common to all Three does not distinctly belong to each or to all of them for the Creed expresly affirms that it does but because these Three Divine Persons each of which have distinctly all these Perfections of the Divine Nature and the whole Divine Nature in them are so inseparably united as to be essentially One And therefore though there are Three Eternal Incomprehensible Almighty Persons each of which is God and Lord yet there is but One Eternal Incomprehensible Almighty God and Lord and thus it must be if we will maintain with the Athanasian Creed the real distinction of Persons and the Unity of the Godhead If there be Three Persons each of which is by himself Uncreate Eternal Incomprehensible Almighty I will venture any Man who can understand plain Sence and dares own it to deny if he can That there are Three Uncreate Eternal Incomprehensible Almighty Persons And in this Sence the Dean has not transgressed the Form of the Athanasian Creed by Three infinite Minds if we understand them of Three infinite intelligent Persons and it is certain he could understand nothing else by them when he unites these Three infinite Minds into One infinite Mind which can signifie nothing else but Three Persons and One God This is enough in Answer to the Animadverter's Arguments and I belive you are sensible by this time what a profound Reasoner he is in the next place we should consider his Authorities but I am very weary of this work and I guess you think it a pretty long Letter already but if you desire it and will have a little Patience neither you nor the Animadverter shall long complain for want of an Answer though I can't but think it a needless undertaking for no Man who ever lookt into the Fathers can want an Answer and those who cannot consult the Fathers themselves will believe as their Inclinations and Affections lead them I will undertake the Fathers shall absolve the Dean from the Imputation of Tritheism let the Animadverter fence as well as he can against Sabellianism His Socinian Friends and Admirers declare they will not dispute with him about a Trinity of meer Modes and Postures in the Singularity of the Divine Essence for though they have too much Sence to own and profess such a Trinity yet they think it not worth disputing It is a real substantial subsisting Trinity they are afraid of and dispute against such a Trinity the Dean asserts and has vindicated from Absurdity and Contradiction and this is the Trinity which both the Scripture Teaches and the ancient Catholick Church always taught and this I undertake to prove There is indeed a third part of the Animadversions if that may be called a part which runs through and inspires the whole in which the Animadverter is by much an Over-match for any Man who is a Christian I mean his scolding part for it would Prophane the Name of Wit to give it that Title This I don't pretend to Answer and you your self confess it should be despised not Answered Let him then here securely Triumph and receive the Reward of such Heroical Actions Ut pueris placeas declamatio sias And therefore I shall only add That if you want an Answer to the Preface you should read the Dean's Defence of the Knowledge of Iesus Christ and our Union and Communion with him which was published many Years since
and silenced all his Adversaries then that he heard no more of that till the Animadverter revived the Quarrel who could have given you the Dean's Answers to his own Objections if he had so pleased for they are not new but borrowed from such Wits as Mr. Alsop without any new strength given to them Where the Animadverter charges the Dean with Absurdities and Contradictions turn to the place and read it with it s context and tell me what you can't Answer and I will But if you or any body else can be perswaded by the Animadverter That the Dean understands neither English Latin nor Greek neither Logicks Metaphysicks or Common Sence I need wish you no other Punishment than when ever you Write to fall into the hands of such an Adversary for I believe there are very few Writers but might be exposed in the same manner by a spiteful Critick not the Animadverter himself excepted who begins his Animadversions with a notorious Blunder in deriving a Mystery from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas a Mystery does not signifie in English the word Mystery but the thing signified by that word and therefore though the word Mystery may be derived a Mystery is derived from no Word and to Talk of deriving a Mystery is neither English nor Sence But though it were Justice to return some of his Complements to the Dean upon himself yet his Example is too scandalous to be imitated and there is no need to expose him more than his own Pen has done I am SIR Your very Faithful Friend A POST-SCRIPT Concerning the Calm-Discourse of the Trinity in the Godhead SIR SInce my writing this Letter I have met with a Book Entituled A Calm and Sober Enquiry concerning the possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead Written as is said by a Man of great Reputation among the Dissenters I do not intend to examine the Book nor to approve or disapprove it though there seem to be very obnoxious Passages in it should he fall into such hands as our Animadverter He has taken great care That no Man should suspect that he favours the Dean in his Notions and I believe the Dean will thank him for that for if I understand him he would never have said and would be as unwilling that any Man should think he has said what the Enquirer has But all I design by this Post-script is only this to let you see that though the Enquirer does not in every particular say what the Dean says yet he says what will justifie the Dean against the heaviest Charge the Animadverter himself could frame against his Hypothesis and that is Tritheism The pretence of this is what the Dean says concerning Three distinct eternal infinite Minds and the Objections and Answers you have already heard and if I can understand the Enquirer he says this as plainly and in more obnoxious Terms than the Dean has done To prove the possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead he argues from the possibility of God's uniting two Spirits by as close an Union as he has united Spirit and Body which make One Man and if it were possible to him God to unite Two would it not be as possible to unite Three So that he represents the Trinity in Unity by the Union of Three Spirits which are distinguished by their own individual Essences and remain distinct by their singular Essences so as to be everlastingly united but not Identified and by Vertue of that Union be some one thing as much and as truly as our Soul and Body united do constitute One Man Now from the possibility of such an Union with such a distinction in created Spirits he concludes the possibility of such an Union unmade or that is original and eternal in an unmade or uncreated Being that is That Three eternal unmade uncreated Spirits may be thus united in One Godhead that is That there are or may be for whatever he thinks which may be easily guessed at he will not positively assert it Three eternal uncreated Minds in the Unity of the Godhead This he proves from the Incarnation That the Union of the Two Natures the Humane made up of an Humane Body and Humane Soul which are Two exceedingly different Natures with the Divine which is a Third and infinitely more different from both the other in One Person viz. of the Son of God cannot certainly appear to any considering Person more conceivable or possible than that which we now suppose but assert not of Three distinct Essences united in the One Godhead And that Father Son and Holy Ghost have their distinct Essences he proves also from the Doctrine of the Incarnation since the Man Christ is confessed to be in Hypostatical Union with the uncreated Spiritual Being of God not as that Being is in the Person of the Father nor as in the Person of the Holy Ghost for then they should have become Man too but as it was in the Person of the Son only why should it be thought less possible That Three uncreated Spiritual Beings which the Animadverter will no more allow of them of Three eternal Minds may be in so near an Union with each other as to be One God as that a created Spirit and Body too should be in so near an Union with One of the Persons in the Godhead only as therewith to be One Person Will it not hereby be much more apprehensible how One of the Persons as the common way of speaking is should be Incarnate and not the other Two Will not the Notion of Person it self be much more unexceptionable when it shall be supposed to have its own individual Nature Will it be Tritheism and inconsistent with the acknowledged invioluble Unity of the Godhead A great deal more to this purpose you may find in his first Letter to Dr. Wallis p. 100 c. and whether this be Tritheism or not he had best ask the Animadverter who charged the Dean's Hypothesis with Tritheism with much less Reason And I confess I am amazed that after all this he should so industriously Vindicate himself from Dr. Sherlock's Notion of Three infinite Minds or Spirits for Three distinct Substances the Dean does not assert and if the Enquirer has not all this while been proving Three Spirits Three distinct Essences Three individual Natures in the Godhead no Man living can guess what he means for my part I cannot tell where the difference is unless it be in the Term of infinite for his Three Spirits and Essences and individual Natures which make up his Unity of the Godhead as he has represented it do not seem to be infinite But he shelters himself from the Animadverter whom he seems to be terribly afraid of in Academick uncertainty and thinks he may safely dispute as he pleases and all on one side so long as he asserts nothing though I cannot see how the Dean was more dogmatical than the Enquirer who proposed his
LICENS'D ERRATA PAge 9. line 3. for usual r. unusual p. 21. l. 8. f. any r. an l. 24. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 22. Marg. l. 9. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 11. p. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A DEFENCE OF Dr. SHERLOCK's NOTION OF A Trinity in Unity In ANSWER to the ANIMADVERSIONS upon his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and ever Blessed TRINITY With a POST-SCRIPT Relating to the Calm Discourse of a Trinity in the GODHEAD In A Letter to a Friend LONDON Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun over-against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street MDCXCIV A DEFENCE OF Dr. SHERLOCK's NOTION OF A Trinity in Unity c. SIR I Had heard very often and very much of the Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity but I had also heard such a Character of it which both Friends and Foes agreed in that I could not perswade my self to read it For a Satyrical Wit is no diversion to a Wise Man except in a Play and where it hurts no Body and I could never think that true Divine Wisdom rests on an ill-natured and perverse Spirit But your late Letter awakened me for I could not but think that Book whatever other Faults it had must be worth reading which you could think worth answering and seem so impatiently to expect when the Dean or some body for him should Answer it As for the Dean he has given Testimony to the World that he has not been Idle all this while but much better employed And to speak my Mind freely I don't see how he is obliged to Answer unless you think a Man bound to Answer Ballads and Lampoons for he is as little concerned in it as you are that had it not been for the Title Page and some particular Expressions which the Dean uses and the Animadverter furiously opposes without understanding them I could never have guessed against whom he had Writ I had a little before read over the Vindication and the Notions lay fresh and easie in my Mind but as soon as I dipt into the Animadversions they were all on a sudden confounded and put into disorder The Animadverter Disputes earnestly subtilly and triumphantly opens his whole Armory of Metaphysicks and because they are thin airy Weapons which do no great Execution he points them with Wit and Satyr to make them pierce the deeper It was the Saying of a very Witty Man that He who Writes lies down but it is to be supposed he forgot it when he made the Experiment himself But I must say this for the Animadverter That he is as fair an Adversary upon this account as one would desire as he spares not those who lie down before him so he very civilly takes his turn and lays himself as fairly open to Satyrical Wit if the Dean or any of his Friends would condescend to exercise it upon him When he ventures upon any thing like Wit he always makes himself a Jest and never so much insults and triumphs over an Enemy as where he is certainly himself in the Wrong I will not entertain you with particular Remarks of this Nature read over his Book again if you have the Patience and see if this be not true But Sir as well as I love you I 'm resolved to humble you for giving me the trouble of reading this Book not by giving a particular Answer to the whole which would be too unmerciful but by convincing you that it needed no Answer and to let you see what a trifling Author you have either admired or feared will prove some little Humiliation to you But I shall do it in short to save my self as much as I can the pains of Writing and you of Reading and therefore shall consider only the main Points of Dispute between the Animadverter and the Dean concerning Self-Consciousness Mutual-Consciousness and Three eternal and infinite Minds He rages furiously against the Dean according to his Custom in a whole long Chapter for discarding those good old Terms of Essence Substance Nature c. for his own new-invented Terms of Self-consciousness and Mutual-consciousness that any one who reads it would believe That the Dean would not allow GOD to be a real Substantial Being or to have any Nature or Essence whereas he no where denies That these are very good Words and not only useful but necessary in some cases but yet very apt to confound us with Material and Sensible Images when we go about to form a Notion and Idea of GOD. We know not the naked Substance or Essence of any Thing not of Matter much less of Spirit and much less of an infinite and eternal Spirit and therefore as we can form no other Idea of Matter but by its sensible Qualities so we can form no Idea of a Spirit but by such Attributes and Powers as are proper and essential to a Spirit which is so far from being a Novelty that it is to think and speak with all the considering part of Mankind but let this pass which the Dean is no more concerned in were his Words and Sence truly and candidly represented than the best Christian Writers both Ancient and Modern as were easily shewn did I not fear the Animadverter should he know it would rail at them all for his sake for there is not a more Capital Crime than to speak any thing well of the Dean or to say any thing that he says That which the Dean is more immediately concerned in is the Idea he has endeavour'd to give us of a Trinity in Unity and all that he positively asserts of it is That it is a possible and intelligible Notion and no other in Sence and Substance than what the ancient Fathers made use of to represent this great Mystery by though expressed in other Terms To prepare you to judge equally in this Cause you must remember That the Substance of the Article is not concerned in it here is no Dispute about a Trinity in Unity This the Dean asserts in as full and ample words as the Athanasian Creed it self which some Trinitarians themselves boggle at but without reason as he thinks for whoever will acknowledge Three Persons in the Godhead each of which distinctly considered is GOD and has all the Perfections of the Divine Nature and yet are all Three but one GOD must as he undertakes to prove own the Terms and Explications of that Creed He has been careful to preserve a Real not a meerly Nominal distinction of Persons and yet asserts the Unity of the Godhead in as high terms as ever the Schools did even a Natural Numerical Unity and there is no reason to suspect he dissembles his Sence for then he might have concealed it too having no other obligation to engage in this Cause but a Zeal for this truly Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith Since then here is no Innovation made in the Faith nor any alteration of the least term in it what is the