Divinity So that there being Three Hypostases or Personalities distinct there must be admitted Three distinct Persons of one numerical Divinity Another Objection which they muster up against us is this We teach that the Persons of the Father and the Son are really identified with the Deity and the same thing with it and yet we declare that the Father and the Son are two Realities really distinct from one another which contradicts that first Principle known by the Light of Nature Quae sunt eadem uni tertio sunt eadem inter se They that are the same thing with a Third are the same thing among themselves Wherein all the Art of Syllogisms is grounded I answer by admitting that Principle as being known by the Light of Nature and that the Syllogistical Art is grounded in it but I deny that our Doctrine is not consistent with the Verity of it for if you consider the Three Persons as contained in the Deity and really the same thing with it they all together make up but One Reality for in this manner you do not consider the Persons as related to one another but only as identified with the Deity which is by Circumincision And in this sence the Council of Lateran hath defined it to be but one thing or one individual Substance by reason of the identity of the Persons with the Deity And here I leave the Socinians to consider more nicely and minutely the Difference between the absolute and notional Expressions in this Matter and their Objective Significations which will prevent any farther progress in framing any more Objections in this matter against us SECT VI. Certain Absolete Opinions of another Novelist are Propos'd and Solv'd A BOOK fell lately into my Hands in the perusal whereof I found certain Paradoxical Opinions destitute of Reason and back'd only by the single Authority of the Author whereof one was the description of the Essential Parts and Nature of an Individuum which he defines to be nothing else but a Self-Consciousness or an exact Correspondence with it self which he produceth no Reason to prove neither did I ever hear or read of any such definition of an Individuum for all Antiquity doth agree in this definition That an Individuum is Indivisum in se divisum à quolibet alio that is it is undivided in it self and divided from any thing else of which Definition this Author makes no mention and therefore doth not impugn it The first Refutation of this Author 's new Opinion is as followeth A Self-Consciousness of a thing with it self argues relation of the thing to it self which is impossible for a relation cannot subsist except it mediates between two Extreams distinct from each other the one is that whereon the relation is founded the other is that to which it is terminated but between a thing and its self there is no distinction for a thing and its self are the self-same numerical Object which cannot admit of any relation and consequently is uncapable of any Self-Consciousness The Second Refutation There can be no Self-Consciousness but by the Vital Acts produced by the Internal Faculties which must have an exact Conformity with the Natural Inclination of the thing from whence they proceed so that here can be no Self-Consciousness of any Object to itself but of the Acts to their Cause The Third Refutation This Self-Consciousness comes too late to constitute the Essential Notion of an Individuum for separate this Self-Consciousness from the Origin whence it proceeds and I demand whether this Origin as now divested of its Self-Consciousness be not an Individuum if so then you have the Individuum compleatly constituted independent of this Self-Consciousness for either you must constitute the whole Essence of your Self-Consciousness in a certain collection of Vital Acts which are really distinguish'd from the Substance of the thing whose Self-Consciousness it is or else you must conceive it to be really identified with its Subject whereon it is grounded if the first you have the Ground and Subject remaining divested of its Self-Consciousness Now I demand whether this Substance that remains separated and divested from its Self-Consciousness be an Individuum or not If it be then you have the whole and adequate Essence of an Individuum independent and precedent to your Self-Consciousness But if it be not an Individuum then it must be a Plurality which is against common sence for it is a singular numerical Substance undivided in itself and divided from any thing else and therefore an Individuum But if you chuse the second by a real Identity with the Substance which is the Ground and Foundation of it then you must by a Metaphysical Distinction prescind it and slice it as a Formality from its Subject And so by your Understanding consider that Substance as mentally separated from its Self-Consciousness and you will find a singular and numerical Substance which is undivided in its self and divided from any thing else which is the essential Definition of an Individuum Here I might introduce other inanimate Creatures as the Elements Metals Stones and the like which have no collection of Vital Acts wherein to place your Self-Consciousness and yet they are all Individuums as appears by the definition by me given Another Opinion I find in this Author whereby he asserts That a Horse is a Person not regulating himself by any Definition or Description of a Person but goes on in a talking way and still remains in the Praeliminaris of the Question in debate without ever penetrating into the Heart of the Difficulty or touching the Sore so that by this not arguing but talking way of Writing nothing can be substantially proved nothing efficaciously impugned Wherefore this Author not having given any definition nor description of a Person I have nothing here to refute but his Absolete Position of introducing unreasonable Brute Beasts into the number of Persons in order to which I must here give an essential definition of a Person which is this Rationalis naturae individua completa Substantia that is A Compleat Rational and Individual Substance By which definition all Vnreasonable Creatures are excluded from the notion of Persons and only GOD the Angels and Men are admitted SECT VII Two other Opinions of the same Author are Propos'd and Solv'd A THIRD Opinion I find in this Author whereby he affirms to be contained in the Deity Three Infinite Minds not proving nor attempting to prove his Position by any Argument This Doctrine and the Consequence of it I cannot brook for by admitting Three Infinite Minds in GOD he will hardly avoid the admitting of Three GODS which were Blasphemy to assert and which I thus prove The Mind is a Vital Faculty belonging and appertaining to the Vnderstanding a Term not notional nor relative but absolute and singular in the Deity and therefore to admit Three Infinite Minds is the same as to admit Three Infinite Vnderstandings which being an Absolute Attribute can no more be multiply'd than the Godhead itself which is common to all the Absolute Attributes of the Deity which all together make but one Substance with GOD himself whence I conclude that the admitting of Three Infinite Minds in GOD is of dangerous consequence and not easily to be maintained for it hath a direct Tendency to Paganism A Fourth Opinion of this Author is That the Unity of the Three Divine Persons consists essentially in the Mutual Consciousness of them to each other whereby the Three Divine Persons are made One by their mutual correspondence and exact agreeing in the Faculties of their Understanding and Will with each other This Opinion is no more prov'd by Reason nor Authority than his former Opinions but meerly asserted which Opinion I thus impugn Separate at least with your Understanding this Mutual Consciousness from the Three Persons and there will remain Three Substances without their Unity These Three Substances are either created or increated if the first then the Three Persons are meer Creatures which is rank Socinianism if the second then they must be really identified with the Divine Nature and if so then in vain do you seek for another Unity for you have here the strictest Unity that possibly can be namely by a real Identity with the Divine Nature which is precedent to your Mutual Consciousness And this is the True Notion and Orthodox Doctrin of the Divine Trinity Besides this Unity that you affix to the Divine Persons is only moral or metaphorical no better than it would be between three Men or three Angels which is a great Indignity to the Infinite Perfection of the Great God who has in himself all Perfections possible and no Defect Note briefly here That an Object of Three Substances or Persons must first have its compleat Being before it is capable of your Mutual Consciousness Consider it therefore in its original Existency which was from all Eternity and ponder with your self if there were not in that state an Vnity in the Trinity and Trinity in Vnity without the least mention or cooperation of your Mutual Consciousness And here I conclude this Treatise of the Ever Blessed and Most Sacred Trinity all which and every part thereof I humbly submit to the Judgment and Censure of Those upon whom it is incumbent to regulate the Faith Belief and Doctrine of the Protestant Church of England FINIS
last Syllogism cannot be deny'd the rest is clear and evident and therefore I here leave the inconsiderate Atheist to ponder the Force and Energy of this Demonstration and so I proceed to the Socinians SECT II. The Main Objection of the Heterodox Unitarians is fully propos'd and solv'd by the Orthodox Trinitarians HERE our Adversaries do agree with Vs in the acknowledgment of One Only Omnipotent and Infinite Wise GOD but they deny the Divinity of the Three Persons Father Son and Holy Spirit acknowledging but one Hypostasis or Suppositum in the Deity To prove which they propose this following Argument The Divine Nature is the Father The Son is the Divine Nature Therefore the Son is the Father So likewise to prove the Holy Spirit to be but one and the same Person with the Son as they suppose they have prov'd the Father and the Son to be but One Person and thus they reduce the Trinity of the Persons to only one Hypostasis or Personality To effect this they frame this Syllogism The Divine Nature is the Son The Holy Spirit is the Divine Nature Therefore the Holy Spirit is the Son By these two Syllogisms they intend to reduce the Paternity of the Father the Filiation of the Son and the Passive Spiration of the Holy Spirit to be but one Hypostasis or Personality grounding themselves upon that Orthodox Principle of ours That there is a real Identity between the Deity and each of the Three Persons without which Identity they could not be Divine For Answer to this Achilles or efficacious Argument as the Socinians do suppose I reply by denying the Consequence of both Syllogisms for neither of them concludes for want of the distribution of the medium or middle Term which is the Divine Nature To this the Socinians answer That the two foremention'd Syllogisms are both expositary and therefore do conclude with greater Perspicuity and Certainty than either of the Moods contained under the three Figures which Aristotle hath setled for the Rules of Disputation which likewise is the Opinion of all Philosophers and Logicians since Aristotle's Time The reason is because an expositary Syllogism hath all its three Terms singular and neither of them capable of Multiplication so that the distribution of the medium is needless as in this Syllogism This Angel is sent from God Gabriel is this Angel Therefore Gabriel is sent from God In this Syllogism grant the Premises and deny the Consequence if you can And a Thousand more such Examples might be produc'd wherein the distribution of the medium is superfluous To this I answer by granting the Force of an expositary Syllogism but denying that either of the two first Syllogisms is expositary for though the medium in them both which is the Divine Nature appears singular yet it is capable of Multiplication by reason that it contains not only all the Infinite Perfections and Attributes of the Deity which are all singular and constitute but one singular Divine Substance yet the Deity contains in it also the Notional Predicates and Relative Perfections of Three Persons which are really distinct from each other And therefore if the medium be not distributed the Syllogism is not in form and concludes nothing Here the Socinian out of a civil compliance rather than lose his fast hold will accommodate himself to the Genius of his Adversary by distributing his Medium which he thus effects All that is contain'd in the Deity is the Father The Son is contain'd in the Deity Therefore the Son is the Father This Syllogism is in form and concludes rightly neither can you deny the major for you acknowledge that the Deity is one singular indivisible and individual Substance you grant also a real Identity between the Father and the Substance of the Deity therefore by a rigid necessity you must grant a real Identity between the Father and the whole Real Substance of the Deity for it contains no Parts nor Particles really distinct from each other I answer by distinguishing the major All the absolute Perfections contain'd in the Deity are the Father I grant it All the notional Predicates and relative Perfections contain'd in the Deity are the Father I deny it for the Filiation of the Son and the passive Spiration of the Holy Spirit are contain'd in the Deity and yet are really distinct from the Father To this the Socinian replies That according to this distinction we must admit two Parts really distinct from each other whereof the one is Identified with the Father the other not where of force we must swallow a plain Contradiction or admit two Parts in the Deity really distinct from each other and both compleatly endow'd with the Deity which is to admit two Gods and so to dethrone and ungod the Omnipotent who is the great Creator Framer and Preserver of the whole Universe To answer this Objection I do declare That it is very remote from our Thoughts to admit in the Divinity more than one Real and Divine Substance so that your Allegation of our granting Two Gods is frivolous and injurious to us As to the other part alledged in the Objection of admitting a Contradiction Scotus with all his School of the Scotists do answer you That here is no appearance of a Contradiction by reason of a Distinction which they call distinctionem mediam or Ex Natura rei that is not real but more than formal which hath no dependance upon the operation of the Understanding By this they distinguish between the Divinity and the Notional Perfections of the Persons so that the Extreams of your pretended Contradiction are not the same Many other Learned Divines do admit of a Virtual Distinction between the Deity and the Notional or Relative Predicates of the Persons by which your pretended Difficulty vanisheth to Smoak But because I have in the Treatise of the Trinity impugned and rejected both these Opinions my Answer is That a formal Distinction which is made by the Understanding and supposed by the very Objection is sufficient to evacuate this pretended Difficulty for hereby it will appear that the pretended Contradiction is not ejusdem de eodem as the Philosophers say that is both parts are not of the same Predicate in order to the same Subject which is necessary to make up a formal Contradiction as all Philosophers do require So that we neither do admit Two Parts really distinct in the Deity nor are we hereby forc'd to swallow a Contradiction as our Adversaries do most falsly pretend SECT III. A farther Attempt of the same Adversaries is Propos'd and Solv'd HERE the Socinian begins to faint as having run himself out of breath and spent the best part of the Vigour and Energy of his Intellectual Faculty to support his Position yet will not leave his Cause so incompleatly accomplish'd and therefore doth summon up the remainder of the Force and Vigour of his Understanding to accomplish his Design And thus he proceeds The Doctrine contained in the Answer
to my last Objection is not consistent with what you have formerly acknowledg'd in this Dispute which is That there are Three Hypostases which are all Notional Predicates belonging to the compleat Constitution of the Three Persons which are really distinct from each other and yet all Three compleatly furnish'd with all the Perfections of the Divinity by a real Identity with it How then doth this consist with the admitting no more than one singular and numerical Substance in the Divinity for you admit Three distinct Persons really Identified with the same Divinity To solve this I must have recourse to the Doctrine of Circumincision The Object in question may be consider'd several ways but to accommodate my self to the Fancy of the Socinians I must consider it by way of Circumincision for when it is so taken then the Divinity includes the three Hypostases namely the Paternity of the Father the Filiation of the Son and the passive Spiration of the Holy Spirit as it were inveloped and implicated within it self and under this Consideration it is numerically but one singular and individual Substance because all the Hypostases Relations and Co-relations of the Persons are really identified with the Divinity and so make but one Substance with it And it is in this sence the Council of Laterane cited by me at large in the first Section of the first Disputation of the Treatise of the Trinity Cap. firmiter and Cap. daemianus De summa Trinitate defines That the Deity with all its Relations and Personalities constitute but unam summam rem that is but one chief Being for in this sence the notional and relative Perfections of the Persons are not to be confider'd And this is the true meaning of Circumincision But if you will dissolve the Circumincision and take abroad and unfold all that is in it then the Personalities of the Three Persons will appear really distinct from one another and yet are the same individual Substance with the Deity And herein consists the Mystery of the Divine Trinity which all the extent of Nature cannot furnish us with one Example to parallel so that from the different acceptions of the same Object you raise a different sense of it and hence ariseth the Difference between you and your Adversary for if you do not cautiously distinguish between the absolute and notional terms you must needs confound the objective Signification of them which notwithstanding are very different from each other and this grounds a Confusion in your Understanding SECT IV. The Objections against Circumincision Solv'd BUT the Socinian is not satisfied with this Doctrine of Circumincision but objects That we grant with the Council of Lateran but One Reality made up of the Divinity and the Three Persons and yet we admit That when the Circumincision is unfolded and taken abroad there are Three Personalities really distinct from each other Which involves a plain Contradiction for we assert The whole is but One Reality una summa res only One Reality and yet we likewise assert That there are more Realities contained in it which is a plain Contradiction To this I answer That these Two Propositions there is but One Reality There is more than One Reality These two are not contradictory if taken in a different sence for the first is meant by Circumincision the second by Extension which hinders the Contradiction Here the Socinian replies That these several Acceptions or different Senses of the same Object are but different Considerations of the Understanding which constitute only Formalities why then do you obtrude them in this Discourse where we dispute only of Realities which is a meer Trick and Evasion to involve the whole matter into obscurity and confusion which in a fair way of disputing ought not to be done Here the Socinian is brisk and confident of his own Cause yet give me leave to answer That my Solution of the Difficulty propos'd is very proper for the Divinity is a singular and indivisible Substance and by a real Identity is the same thing with the Three Persons so that all together constitute but One Reality whereas if you consider the Persons apart you will find Three Realities distinct whereof the one is incarnate the other two are not which is an evident sign of a real Distinction Here the Socinian replies again alledging That to solve one Contradiction we incurr another for we say That one Person is incarnate the other not so that of the same Reality we say This Reality is incarnate and this same Reality is not incarnate And thus we prove both parts of the Contradiction The Father is not incarnate This Reality is the Father Therefore this Reality is not incarnate The affirmative part of this Contradiction we prove thus The Son is incarnate This Reality is the Son Therefore this Reality is incarnate I answer by denying the two ' fore-mention'd Propositions to be contradictory for the negative Proposition is verified only of the Father and the Holy Spirit not of the Son whereas the Affirmative is verified only of the Son not of the Father nor the Holy Spirit Whence you may plainly perceive the pretended Contradiction is not ejusdem de eodem it is not of the same Predicate in order to the same Subject which is repugnant to the known Rule of Contradictories for else these two would be contradictory Man is like other Animals and Man is not like other Animals for as being a living sensible Creature he is like other Animals and as being endow'd with Reason he is not like other Animals and yet his Animality and Rationality are but two Formalities distinguish'd only by the Understanding Now if the passing from one Formality to another hinders the force of a Contradiction much more will it hinder by passing from one Reality to another for the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are really distinguish'd from each other But now the Socinian is ready to prosecute his Design farther which we shall declare in the next Section SECT V. Wherein the rest of the Unitarian's Arguments are Propos'd and Solv'd HERE the Socinian pretends to drive us to another great Inconvenience which is to deduce out of the precedent Doctrine a necessity of admitting Three Gods for we admit Three Hypostases or Relations really distinct from each other and every one of them to be compleatly furnish'd with the Divinity and each of them constitutes a compleat Godhead for they being Three in number there must of necessity be admitted Three Gods To this Objection I answer That the denomination of GOD signifies principally and in recto the Divinity and in obliquio the Hypostases or Relations and is thus resolved The Divinity fubsisting by Three distinct Hypostases Now because there is but one singular and individual Divinity there can be but one singular and individual Godhead Whereas the denomination of a Person signifies principally and in recto the Hypostases or Person and is thus resolv'd The Hypostases or Subsistonce of the