be a just and modest Reprehension of him and what I am sure the Man will meekly take But to make him black and odious by all Arts and to talk of reforming him out of the Church for his peaceable Desires and Well-meaning is imperious beyond Measure and what another would call Tyrannical nor will he name what Spirit it bespeaks especially when the great Argument or Foundation of all against what he has said is no better than a Petitio Principii or taking for granted the prime Matter in question namely that the Doctrine of the Trinity as Dr. Sherlock has stated and does defend it is a Fundamental of the Christian Faith This the Dean in his Apology has not offered one Word to prove but quitting his Adversaries and shutting both Eyes and Ears against all that has been said against his Novelties on this Subject violently falls upon exposing the peaceable Man which was indeed much the easier Project but whether either Christian or Honourable the World will judg The melancholy Stander-by had asserted in his 7th Page the Doctrine of the Trinity as duly stated to be one of the Fundamentals of Christian Religion And it is most plain by what he propounds as the Medium of Peace that the stating it according to Scripture and in Scripture-Language he esteems the most due stating it the Dean likes not this says it is a Proposal of old Hereticks and not only would have the Philosophical Terms now a long time usual in this Point received for Peace-sake but as Fundamental in Faith Nay and not content herewith he gives new Definitions of or affixes new Notions to these Terms and would have all pass upon us still under the Colour of Fundamentals The melancholy Stander-by to speak the whole Truth neither could nor can admit either of these namely either that Philosophical Terms never used by Scripture and besides of various Use or uncertain Signification should be made Fundamentals of Faith or that the Doctor 's new Explication of them should pass at all and his Reasons may perhaps appear anon But in what he writ he express'd not this his Dissent so as to contest either of these Points Only as he would not enter into the Controversy himself so he desired chiefly by reason of the Mischief he thought he saw arising from thence it might be at present forborn by all and he is still as willing as ever to decline engaging on either Point only in his own Defence against what the Dean has endeavoured to load him with he must now say that if any should join Issue with the Dean upon the first Article of the Nicene Creed I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD c. which is a Fundamental and the true Catholick and Apostolick Faith It will soon appear that Dr. Sherlock has in his Book contradicted and to his Power overthrown that Faith as much as ever Johannes Philoponus or Joachim the * So the Text of the Decretal stiles him Florentine Abbot or as others the Abbot of Floria or Flency the two greatest and most antient Leaders of the Tritheists ordinarily assigned ever did for according to the best Accounts of them neither of these expresly maintained more Gods than one nay they expresly disclaimed such Assertion only they so taught the Nature and Distinction of three Persons as that their Doctrine inferred three Gods from which Charge the Invention of mutual Consciousness will never clear Dr. Sherlock ' s Definition of a Person in the Godhead for such Consciousness whatever he says to the contrary can infer only an Vnity of Accord not of Substance and Nature whereas it is an Unity of Substance and Nature that the Council and Fathers have held but these things require more Words than the present Design admits To make the Sum of my Sentiments or what I would be at plainer §. 3. The holy Scripture states the Trinity under the Notion of Three bearing witness in Heaven for I have much more to say for that exagitated Text than to allow it wanting in any Copies on any other Reason but their Imperfection and affirms these three one but how they are one it determines not And Faith being a Belief of the Witness of God and Baptism a Seal or Badg of Faith when we are baptized we are baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as owning and assenting to or professing and vowing to acquiesce in their Witness touching all the whole Will of God and Method of Salvation published in the Gospel This is Scripture and here the melancholy Stander-by would stop as to Faith in this Point of the Trinity To the Incarnation there is yet no occasion to speak The Fathers in the Council of Nice did not as far as ever I could perceive by any genuine Monuments of theirs vote the Term three Persons the Incarnation of the Son of God or his Divinity though made Man was the Controversy before them rather than the Trinity and the great Product of that Council was the word Homoousion in Assertion of the Son 's being of the same Substance with the Father But the Greek Fathers of that Age did soon use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in this Case is most aptly rendred Subsistence and contend for three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Subsistences Now as to the common Definition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in divinis that is to my best Memory pretended to be taken out of Justin Martyr by Damascen a Father of much latter Age I said to my best Memory for my Condition is such at present and has been such upward of four Years that I am without the Use of the best part of my Books and now near 150 English Miles distant from a Library Yet I thank God I am Master of Justin and Damascen more ways than one be it spoken without Affront to Dr. Sherlock in case of my having read other Books I had read them near two and thirty Years ago But to return to the Definition spoken of as now I take it out of my old perhaps too imperfect Notes runs thus In the Holy Trinity an Hypostasis is an unbegun or if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damasâ—en Dialectic cap. ult Word may be pardoned a beginningless manner of the eternal Existence of each that is of Father Son and Holy Ghost So that according to this Author it superadds nothing to the Divine Essence which is one and common to all the three save a bare manner of Existence or Subsistence Only by the way I must note as to the Authority of that Piece in the Works of Justin Martyr whence this Definition comes namely the Expositio rectae fidei it is sufficiently proved by Scultetus Rivet and others to be none of Justin's genuine Works The Latin Fathers which came soon upon the Heels of the Council and of the Greek Fathers above spoken of suspected this Word Hypostasis and St. Jerome particularly contended there
was Poison under the â—n Epistol ad Damas Tom. 2. Honey and boggled at it St. Austin acknowledges he understood not the Difference the Greeks designed between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in our present Language between Essence and Subsistence But because says he according to our Custom of Speech Essence and Substance are all one â—e Trinitat â—b 5. in fine â—apitis 8 cap. 9. therefore we dare not say one Essence three Substances but one Essence or Substance and three Persons So that when they laid aside Hypostasis they introduced a Term equivalent and perhaps more ambiguous namely Persona and then said there were three Persons in one Essence Yet at the same time St. Austin acknowledgeth the Use of this Term improper and that it was Necessity drove them to it they used this Word for â—agna prorsus â—opia humaâ—â— laborat â—â—quium Dictum est tamen tres personae non ut illud diceretur sed ne taceretur Non enim rei â—â—bilis eminentia hoc vocabulo explicare valet Cap. 9. want of a better The Father saith he and the Son and the Holy Ghost are truly three But when it is demanded three what humane Speech is defective notwithstanding we have said three Persons not that strictly we mean or intend to say this but lest we should be silent and say nothing for the Transcendency of the ineffable Matter cannot be express'd by this Word And again more fully in his seventh Book proving the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be one because the Father is Wisdom the Son Wisdom and the Holy Ghost Wisdom and in God to be wise is the same as to be and to be the same as to be God Therefore says he for expressing what is inexpressible that we may speak in some measure what we cannot speak out the Itaque loquendi causâ de ineffabilibus ut fari aliquo modo possemus quod effari nullo modo possumus dictum est à nostris Graecis una Essentia tres Substantiae a Latinis autem una Essentia tres Personae Et ut intelligatur in aenigmate quod dicitur placuit ita dici ut aliquid diceretur Ut quaereretur quid tria sunt quid tres conferimus nos ad inveniendum aliquid speciale vel generale nomen quo complectamus haec tria neque occurrit animo quia excedit supereminentia divinitatis usitati eloquii facultatem Cap. 3 4. Grecian Christians have said one Essence three Substances that is Subsistences and the Latins one Essence three Persons And that what we say may be understood at least in a Riddle we thought it good thus it should be said that something might be said When it is required what these three are we apply our selves to find out some special or general Name whereby we may comprize all the three nor does there any occur to our Thoughts because the Transcendency of the Divinity exceeds the Faculty of usual Speech He goes on to the Effect following If we take these three Abraham and Isaac and Jacob we can find somewhat common which they all have and say they are three Men but touching Father Son and Holy Ghost we cannot say they are three Fathers or three Sons nor indeed three Gods what therefore are the three Three Persons By all which it is plain they used this word Persons not because it was proper but because the Speculation was run so fine that they knew not what else or what less improper to say And let this suffice in my present Penury of Books as to the Fathers who of old either first introduced or by their Use first authorized in divinis this Term three Persons or a Trinity of Persons As to the Sense of the School-Doctors touching the word Persona in this Controversy I must speak chiefly out of my Memory having besides the Master of the Sentences and some imperfect pieces of others only St. Thomas's Sum at hand in which Work he is somewhat brief on this Term Yet even therein when he concludes it convenient that the Name Person be used touching God he does it with this Limitation that it be Conveniens est ut hoc nomen persona de Deo dicitur non tamen eodem modo quo dicitur de Creaturis not used or which is the same understood after the same manner as it is of the Creatures But I do avow it and will be bound to produce Testimonies enough as soon as I can come at Books that it is both his Doctrine and the common Doctrine of his Followers that the word Person when used touching God and the Creatures is not taken in the same equal or univocal Sense but only by way of Proportion and as to the manner Persona de Deo Creaturis non dici univoce sed analogice of signifying and Imposition of the Name it first and more properly agrees to the Creatures As to Protestant Divines also for the Reasons above touched I must be sparing in their Numbers but I am sure the Systematists ordinarily assign either four or five Differences in the Use of the Word when attributed to God and to the Creature And I find by me in my Notes this Passage which I long since transcribed out of Zanchy a judicious and learned Calvinist In the Creatures one Person is not only Una Persona creata ex contextu precedente supplenda ab altera non tam distincta quam etiam disjuncta est at proinde diversae sunt inter se substantiae licet unius naturae In Deo una Persona ab altera distincta quidem est sed disjuncta esse non porest c. De tribus Elohim Parte 2da lib. 1. c. 3. distinct from the other but disjoined and separate so that the Substances are divers though the Nature one But in God one Person is indeed distinct from the other but cannot be disjoined and therefore the Divine Persons are not only of the same Nature for so are humane Persons but of the same Essence Nay they so subsist in the same Essence that they are indeed nothing else but that Essence Somewhat very near this the Doctor to do him Justice more than once or twice expresly says in his Book I mean in his Vindication of the Holy Trinity viz. p. 47 67 104 c. that they are distinct not separate but then he in effect unsays all again much oftner and that both by his Definition of a Person in divinis and in those other Passages of his produced by me in my Paper p. 14. and by many other Passages which I might transcribe from him For my own part I am not able to excuse him from contradicting himself over and over most plainly in the Space of a dozen Lines in one of the Pages now cited viz. 67. of his Vindication for first he acknowledges These three Divine Persons are not separate Minds as created Spirits
Fathers perhaps did dispute or opine to this or the like Effect but surely they never designed to impose such a Form of Belief under such damning Clauses as are contained herein This may the rather be concluded for that Gregory Nyssen penn'd the Constantinopolitan So Baronius Creed in that Council ten Years at least after Athanasius his Death And amongst other Fathers of that Council Gregory Nazianzen and Jerome cited here to little Purpose by Mr. Dean approved it as it is without the pretended Athanasian Criticisms and Severities nay without the very Filioque I had Reason therefore as to the Doctrine of the Trinity not to go beyond the Decisions of these Councils but to acquiesce in their Authorities What further Authority beyond that of the Church interposed in the Council of Nice I have no mind to speak I will also pass by here as small Faults some Blunders of Mr. Dean's which he is guilty of in his huddle of Fathers making St. Athanasius St. Hilary and St. Basil to write largely against these Heresies which former Councils had condemned whereas they all three died when there had but yet one Council sat and therein as far as with Certainty appears but one Heresy namely that of Arim condemned for I cannot allow the Quarto Decimani to have been Hereticks they could not therefore write against Heresies condemned by Councils But waving these and other Exceptions which I might justly make touching all these Fathers Writings on this Subject as being impertinently cited against me I say after all if the Worship of the Trinity might be left as these Fathers and particularly as St. Hilary in the End of his twelfth Book of the Trinity left it whose Words I produce not for a Reason any one may guess who pleases to consult them the Differences in this Controversy amongst Protestants would be nearer a Compromise And thus as to my Adhesion to the Authority of these Councils My next Charge is what I confess was great News to me that I am §. 16. Pag. 14. well vers'd in Mr. Hobbs's Divinity Truly though I neither have nor ever had any Esteem for Mr. Hobbs's Divinity yet I could wish my self better skilled in it for then I should better know it when I meet with it in other Mens Writings disguised now 't is said a certain great Person no Stranger to the Temple has lately espoused it under a very slighty Disguise and I should be able more perfectly to wipe off the Imputation of being a Disciple to it at present without any Consciousness to my self cast upon me I could here tell Mr. Dean a very true Secret that there were two Books which I was afraid to read when I was young lest they should corrupt me and Mr. Hobbs's Leviathan was one And having neglected it when my Curiosity was strongest I never read it since So that it would be very strange should I be well vers'd in a Man's Doctrine which I never read But the best of it is Mr. Dean shews here also his great Reading and cites Mr. Hobbs just as before he did the Fathers at random without giving us any Text out of him And I neither have by me nor in case I had have I leisure to search all Mr. Hobbs's Works to see whether he has any such Assertion as Mr. Dean alledges In answering Arguments from Testimony the Testimony it self ought first to be examined And this not appearing I must for that Reason wave any more particular Answer to this Charge Only as to what follows in the Apology I will renew my Request to Mr. Dean as being a Person of Learning for that small Favour that he will hereafter be consistent with and not contradict himself and particularly that he will no more affirm that Point made plain and easy which he confesses difficult and incomprehensible And to prevail with him for this Boon I will promise publickly to beg his Pardon for the Affront of making this my Request to him a second time if I do not immediately prove that in this Matter of the Trinity which here in his Apology he confesses to be an incomprehensible Mystery he does not say again and again in his Vindication thereof that he has made it plain and easy and so has contradicted himself in the Point objected First I say he confesses here the Divine Nature the Trinity of Divine Persons and the Unity of the Divine Essence to be incomprehensible Secondly He says in his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity p. 48. that he will not pretend to fathom such a Mystery as this Here he is for the Incomprehensibility of it Then in his Preface to his Vindication he tells us the writing that Book cost him many Thoughts and those who have a mind throughly to understand it must not think much if it cost them some notwithstanding all that he has done to explain the Mystery Here 's the Difficulty of it acknowledged still Yet a little before in the very self-same Preface he says he has given a very easy and intelligible Notion of a Trinity in Vnity And in his Vindication p. 66. that his Account thereof gives a plain and intelligible Solution of all the Difficulties and seeming Contradictions in the Doctrine of the Trinity And again p. 68. in a kind of an Epiphonema This is a very plain and intelligible Account of this great and venerable Mystery as plain and intelligible as the Notion of one God or of one Person in the Godhead Notions which are very easy and intelligible and whereof all the Difficulties and seeming Repugnancies or Contradictions have received a plain and easy Solution are certainly comprehensible and easy For what hinders them from being so Or what do we mean in our present State by comprehending any Notion or Doctrine but a clear understanding it without any Difficulty or Perplexity That which I said therefore of some Writers pretending to make this Controversy comprehensible and easy is verified in him though I did not name him and so is no spiteful and scandalous Imputation of mine to him as he in his good Nature and sweet Language is pleased to stile it but was justly and truly spoken with Humility and peaceable Design And he must one Day answer if he do not repent for this his second slandering me with Spite against him whom Pag. 11 15. God knows I both loved and honoured and at present wish him as well as my own Soul nor do I reprehend any thing in him which I would bear in my self But now I may set my Heart at Rest as to this Controversy if Mr. Dean will stand to the Profession he has made for he says all that any Man therefore that he pretends to in vindicating the Doctrine of the Trinity Pag. 16. is to prove that this Faith is taught in Scripture This is that which I would be at and have contended for that we may have nothing obtruded upon us for Faith in
Sense your good Nature can yea should you take it even for Foolishness it self which none can think I intended the first Chapter of the first to the Corinthians would in a sort justify the Expression But by Simplicity I meant here as all who are not wilfully blind will understand me Plainness Vnmixedness Purity I would not have so much of Philosophy vamp'd into Faith And I am not of the Mind of that Cardinal that we should have been to seek for sundry Articles of our Faith had it not been for Aristotle and though I love him much better I will add for Plato either But here I must answer once for all as to my Displeasure with the §. 6. Pag. 4. School-Doctors Pray what Hurt have they done says Mr. Dean I could give a certain Reason for which I might say perhaps they have done him little But I will rather give him two other Answers one I hope he will not except against because it is his own They sometimes mistake the Fathers Sense whom they pretend to follow or clog it with some peculiar Niceties of their own by which Means this Mystery has been confounded Vind. p. 138. And again p. 139. Though I do not think it impossible to give a tolerable Account of the School-terms and Distinctions yet that is a Work of greater Difficulty â—â—an Vse This we must take for a fair Specimen of Mr. Dean's great Skill and Reading in the School-Doctors But my own Answer is the Writings of the School-men or rather that Vein of Study and Dispute which they have brought into the Church of God turning the whole Body of Christianity into nice and too curious many times idle Questions and resolving these in the difficultest Philosophical Terms and so running all to thin Metaphysical Distinctions has made Religion mostly a Business of Speculation and Wit The Endeavour of Subtilty has very much eaten out the Heart and Vitals of Christianity raised fruitless Contentions bitter Envyings endless Schisms and Parties in the Church destroyed in a great measure the Love of God and all good Affection and debauch'd Faith it self for the main into Opinion or Scepticism This is my Answer further I do aver the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is dishonoured and exposed by their Questions and Disputes of it And particularly as to the Master of the Sentences with whom the Dean will not allow me to be intimately acquainted I Pag. 17. say that had I used severer Language touching him than that what Stuff has he in his first Book made of this Doctrine by too much Subtilty and too nice Enquiries the Matter would justly have born it And for a Proof hereof If I should run through all I must transcribe in a manner his whole first Book Let it therefore suffice of such Stuff as I justly called it to give only a Taste Methinks these that follow are not seemly Questions to be put inquired into or disputed touching the infinite incomprehensible Majesty Creator and Lord of all I will not therefore turn them into English Vtrum Pater voluntate genuerit filium Distinct VI. an necessitate an volens vel nolens sit Deus And it is resolved that the Word of God is the Son of God by Nature and not by his Will Therefore it should seem without his Will and so the Father God and a Father unwillingly The Unsoundness of this Resolution see in Danaeâ—â—'s Censure on it The next Question is no more reverent An Pater potuerit Dist VII vel voluerit gignere filium Et an hoc sit aliqua potentia quae sit in filio And if the Father always had such Power and such Will he had a Power and a Will to do something which the Son had not and consequently the Son must not be of equal Power with the Father nor have like Will The Sum of the Resolution is Filius potuit gignere sed non oportuit Again An filius sit sapiens à seipso vel per seipsum And he resolves it Non est sapiens a se sed de Patre à Patre Dist 32. E. Again That may seem a little better touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost Vtrum Spiritus sanctus priùs vel pleniùs procedat à Patre quam à Filio Dist XII And An plenius vel magis processerit à Patre quam à Filio Now though he resolved it in the Negative yet ne te perturbaret lest this should offend any he tells us that the Holy Ghost proceeds principally from the Father but he is found also to proceed from the Son Sed hoc quâ—que illi Pater dedit non jam existenti nondam habenti Had I been Author of such a Saying as this last what should I have heard But who pleases may read more on the same Subject I will conclude all this as the Master does a certain Section in one of the cited Distinctions Sub silâ—ntio potiùs esset praetereundum nisi me super hoc aliquid loqui cogeret instantia quaerentium which I will be content to english I would not have discovered the Master's Shame could I have in the Judgment of some escaped otherwise without the Brand of an ignorant impudent and false Accuser But though I will add no more of these grating Places yet I will desire of Mr. Dean because he professes to be able to give a tolerable Account of these Mens Terms and Distinctions to shew if he pleases his Skill in any useful Explication of the following Passages Eadem est Potentia Dist VII G. Patris quâ potest esse Pater Filii quâ potest esse Filius Yet he doubts not to affirm Filii originem esse ab initio at non ipsum esse ab initio sed ab initiabili And touching the Trinity and the Holy Ghost In Trinitate Dist XXXII Ae. est Dilectio quae est Trinitas tamen Spiritus sanctus est Dilectio quae non est Trinitaâ— nec ideo duae sunt Dilectiones Take these Assertions either singly and apart by themselves as I designed them or imagine that being all from one Hand they ought to be consistent with one another and what pretty Employment will it be to make useful Divinity I had almost said even Sense of them I might add hundreds more either on this or other Subjects out of the same Author but I fear it should be said they are hard Shells without a Kernel and truly so I long thought them and a great deal more of other Mens Writings on this Controversy Nor can I forbear observing by the way that the learned pious holy and orthodox Dr. Hammond could not or did not find room so much as for one Section nay that I remember not one Question and Answer for this whole Controversy in his Practical Catechism which yet excellently instructs us in many other Controversies wherein Holiness and Christian Devotion is concerned But in all likelihood he judged what