with such Sublime Realities or Erroneous Foundations support the Truth of Faith in the Opinion of Doubâ—…ers by giving Consonant and Genuine Explications of it 17. The Third Person Divine Love is call'd 〈…〉 Comforter or Strengthener because nothing more gives our Souls such Strength to resist the Assaults of our Spiritual Enemies break thorow â—ll Difficulties and press forwards vigorously to atâ—ain our True End Eternal Happiness which is â—he Sight of GOD than does an Ardent Love of â—im which Every thing acting as it is is the â—â—culiar Gift of the Holy Ghost who is not only by His Common Essence as are also the rest but also by the Particularity of his Person DIVINE LOVE For the same reason He is call'd a Spiâ—itual Unction because it was customary to Anoint â—hose with Oil who were to exert their Strength 〈…〉 any Encounter or Exercise to give their Limbs greater Force and Agility For the same reason He is call'd Fire which in an Ordinary Metaphor is apply'd to an Ardent Love and thence he came down in Tongues of Fire because Fire is the most Active and Purest Body we have and in regard Love does enflame the Spirits to pursue the Good we affectionately long for For this reason also He is call'd our Spiritual Life because Life consists in Self-moving and nothing moves us so efficaciously as Love which is the proper Act of the Will that Faculty that sets all our Inferiour Powers on work And for the same reason He is called particularly the Spirit because as the Animal Spirits in the Body give us all our Natural Motion so Divine Love his peculiar Name and Nature gives us all our Supernatural Tendency to Heaven so that no External or Interiour Actions we perform do avail us or bring us the least Step nearer our True End Eternal Happiness unless either out of an Immediate or Remote Intention it be done out of that Regard or Intuitus Another reason why He is call'd Spirit which properly signifies Breath is Because Breath and Life are in common speech Equivalent While I breath and while I live having the same signification as have also to Expire and to Die Lastly since Heavenly Love which Divines call Sanctifying Grace is our Supernatural Life which as was said the Peculiar Influence of the Third Person does as it were inspire or breath into our Souls hence He is from this Effect by a Specifical Appellation call'd the HOLY GHOST or Holy Spirit For none can think He is call'd Spirit meerly because He is of a Spiritual Nature since this is an Attribute of the GODHEAD and therefore Common to all the Three Persons nor because He proceeds from the Father and the Son by a kind of Imaginary Action call'd Spiration of which I must for my part confess I can make no Conception nor how it comes to be Transferr'd to GOD. 18. I may perhaps incurr some Censure for denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost is to be explicated by Spiration of which Word many Great Men have made use The best way to clear my self from affecting Singularity is to give my Reasons why I dislike it and submit them to the Judgment of our Peers First Faith as was shewn Preliminary V. must have been deliver'd in such Language as is apt to signify our Natural Notions Secondly Hence tho' it may be allowed to Learned Men in Explicating this Mystery to make use upon occasion of some Term of Art which is current in Schools yet is it utterly Disallowable to use any which has not for its Sense some Natural Notion of Mankind otherwise it will Blunder the Explication instead of Clearing it Thirdly It is agreed and most Consonant to Reason that no Notion taken from Material Beings ought to be Transferr'd to GOD but by the Intervention of Spiritual ones to which they are Metaphosically apply'd in regard He is of a Spiritual and not of a Corporeal Nature Fourthly There can be no Spiritual Notion that respects the Internal Nature of a Spirit but Being Knowledge Will and the Objects of these too last which determin their Internal Operations Fifthly There is none of all these that seems Proper to signify the Procession of Divine Love by Spiration Not Being for That if Compleat Stayes in its self as being the most Absolute Notion nor can it respect any other Notion conceivable in GOD otherwise than as an Object Not Knowledge for that is an Immanent Act and is compleated in this that the Object be such in the Knower as it is in its self whereas Spiration has a Notion of something Transitive to Another Sixthly It has too much of Action in it's Formal Notion which may hazard to breed a Conceit of Efficiency and Effect And lastly Because as apply'd here to signifie a Procession from Father and Son it can have no one Notion in it and therefore it has None For since the Holy Ghost does proceed from them according to their Personalities that is from the Divine Essence as Known and as the Knower of it and there can be no one Notion Common to Thing Known and Knower which are so widely Different being toto genere Disparate and Contradistinct but Being my Dulness cannot comprehend what one Notion the word Spiration can signifie since it cannot be Univocally Apply'd to both nor how it sutes with our Natural Notions we have of Spiritual Natures nor in what manner or for what reason it is Transferr'd to GOD which makes me doubt that meerly the word Spiritus apply'd particularly to the Holy Ghost was the best Ground of this recourse to Spiration and not the Notion of any Virtue or Operation which Nature has given us of a Spiritual Being Notwithstanding I doubt not but these Great Divines had some good meaning in it tho' it colours not with my Thoughts Nay that they meant the same in substance which I do tho' perhaps I do more nicely â—ift the Propriety of Words in handling such a Delicate Point than they did And the same I doubt not may be said of all those Learned Writers who have of late Explicated this Mystery variously of which the Anti-Trinitarians do very frivolously make great Brags and hope to get some Advantage by it I say very frivolously For the Article of Faith it self Abstracts from all Explications and stands Firm on it's own Grounds Divine Revelation tho' both They I and Others should all of us fall short in Explicating it right in every particular Thus much concerning the Names and peculiar Attributes of the Three Persons and the Congruous Reasons why we apply such Attributes to each 19. Notwithstanding all that is said above concerning these Appropriations in the performing Different Effects belonging to the Particular Notion and as it were Genius of each Person as such whenever GOD does any thing ad extra or produces any Effect in His Creatures the Whole Trinity concurs to that Action For since nothing can work but it must have the Being or Essence
distinctly understood will be signally Useful to defeat almost all the Arguments drawn from Reason by the Deists and if well reflected on clears many Objectionâ— brought against the B. Trinity by the Sociâ—ians and other Anti-Trinitarians opposing the Christian Tenet of the Unity of the Divine Nature in Three Persons and to confute as far as it impugns that Tenet it self that Treatise Entituled A Letter to the Reverend the Clergy of both Universities concerning the Trinity and the Athanasian Creed Which tho' it seems to be the utmost Effort of those Parties and has a very plausible Appearance to those who either are not well skill'd in or do not well reflect on the Laws of Predication and the Use of Humane Language in parallel Cases yet it is easie to show that that piece of Wit and Fancy is utterly void of Art and good Sense and that the Christian Thesis it self if rightly represented is perfectly consonant to the Nature of the Subject the DEITY and to Right Reason and that there is no more show of Contradiction that that most Simple Being should verifie Sending and being Sent Generating and being Generated and such like tho' they be Opposites than it is that the same Infinite Being when GOD knows himself which themselves grant should notwithstanding it 's most perfect Simplicity verifie that he is the Knower and thing Known which are as much Relatively Opposite as are any of the Others Lastly it may be shown very evidently that all the while they oppose the Doctrine of the Trinity those witty Gentlemen do quite mistake the whole Question by confounding what the Deity is in it's self abstracting from any order to our Conceptions or rather as it is above our Conceptions according to which consideration we cannot think or speak of it at all with what GOD is as conceiv'd by us or what as He is the Object of our Understanding His Infinite Essence obliges us truly to conceive and affirm of Him All which may perhaps particularly and at large be shown hereafter 25. Corol. VI. The same Doctrine clears the Mystery of the Incarnation Which clears Objections against the B. Trinity and against the Mystery of the Incarnation also from the least semblance of Contradiction and shows how not only Possible but consonant to right Reason it is that the Humanity of our B. Saviour may be Assum'd by the Second Person of the B. Trinity and yet not be Assum'd by either of the other Persons As also how that Person may supply to it or be united to it immediately according to the Subsistence or Personality and yet not be thus United to it formally according to it's Nature or Essence And the same may be said of the same Doctrine in order to some other Revealed Mysteries of Christian Faith which I here forbear to mention 26. Corollary VI. Hence is clearly discern'd what is the Difference between Logical and Metaphysical ABSTRACTION The Difference between Logical and Metaphysical Abstraction and that Logical Abstraction is of the Generical or Specifical that is of more Common Notions from the Inferioâ—â— ones which is done by taking from these later that precise Consideration iu which they Agree leaving out those in which they Disagree that is by taking meerly what belongs to the Genus or Generical Notion and leaving out or Abstracting from the Differences Whereas Metaphysical Abstraction regards only this that the Notion Nature or Essence of the One is not the precise Notion Nature or Essence of the Other or that both the One and the Other are different Respects or Considerations of the Thing tho' they do both of them stand upon the same Level and neither of them be Higher or Lower in the way of Predication or in the Extent of their Notion than the other In which later Sense of the word Abstraction we use to say that our Soul works or knows things by Abstract or Inadequate Notions 27. From what is said above 't is manifest that there can be no Actual Parts in any Ens whatever whether we conceive That Excellent and Useful Maxim That There are no Actual Parts in any Compound whatever Defended and Explicated it under the Notion of Ens or of such an Ens call'd Body or as affected with such an Intrinsecal Mode or Accident v. g. Quantity or any of the rest For since to Distinguish cannot belong to the Power it being of it self or of it's own nature utterly Indistinct or Indetermiâ—â—te it follows that to Distinguish must properly and only belong to the Act. Wherefore in case those Parts were Distinct Actually they must have Distinct Acts and by consequence the Power or Subject must be made Distinct by having those Distinct Acts in it that is the Subjects must be More under that Notion Therefore Unum being the Property of Ens in what Sense soever the word Ens be taken as is shown § 22. there would in that case be no Unity nor consequently Entity under any Notion left in the World To explicate this more â—…y and show it particularly In case the First â—â—rt of Power call'd Ens and it's Act Existence â—â—d each of them it 's Proper Act which constitutes a Thing and so were Two Things nothing in the World that Exists would be One Thing â—or consequently Unum being the Property of Ens A Thing or Any Thing Also if the Second fort of Power Matter and it 's Act or Form that constitutes Body were Two Things there would be no One Thing of that Sort or no one Body and consequently there would be No Body in Nature And since as will be prov'd hereafter L. 2. § 16. the Complexion of Accidents is the Essential Form which constitutes Body were those Accidents Distinct Things from the Matter and the Matter from them or were they Distinct Things from one another and therefore each of them were Capable of Existing alone or properly Entia there would be no One or No Individual Body in the World but every such Thing would be a Multitude or Many and perhaps Innumerable Or were the Parts that compound Quantity or which is the same the Parts of Body as precisely having Quantity in them Actually Distinct as many Schoolmen hold then each of them as was lately prov'd must have a Distinct Act of that sort to make them Distinct Actually whence they would be in that case Diverse Quanta or Things having divers Quantities in them Wherefore it being Demonstrable that Quantitas est Divisibilis in semper Divisibilia there could be no Quantum or Thing of that Kind in the World but would contain many Lesser Quantums in it and therefore there could be no One or No Quantum and consequently No Thing that had Quantity in it found in Nature Add that those pretended Distinct Actual Parts must be distinguisht by § 17. from others by some Act and yet most of them could have no Act iâ— them to Distinguish them from their Comparts For the Second Power
contrary to all the Maâ—…ims of Sound Philosophy 34. Lastly If All the Ideas or Notions be Innatâ— and there can be no reason why some should be so and otheâ— Eighth Proof not since the Soul is equally capable of All as of Some only then since to be Actually in a Knowing Power is to Actuate or Inform that Power that is to render that Power Actually Knowing it would follow that the Souâ— in that case having in her all those Notions of which her Nature is capable that is All Notions whatever she would either know all things while she is here or else she would have while here Innumerable Ideas or Materials of Knowledge which never come to be Excited and so are perfectly Useless Which makes the Immediate Act of the First Being which Infus'd them Frustraneous and to no purpose For their own Principles must force them to confess those Ideas which shall never be Excited cannot in that case either serve for Reasoning Contemplation nor Outward Action and therefore the Imbuing the Mind with them here is Preposterous Suâ—…ous and to no end 35. 'T is equally Groundless and Unphilosoâ—…cal in many regards to affirm That the Soul cannot Elicit Ideas out of her self from many heads 〈…〉 the Soul has a Power to Eliâ—… or Produce such Ideas in her â—… upon Occasion of such an Imâ—…ssion made on the Senses For â—… the Reasons given above I mean those â—…hich have been produced § 28 29 30 32. â—… in a manner equally disprove such Ideas â—…se which are properly Innate Secondly 〈…〉 impossible to show by their Grounds any Natural Connexion between that Impression on the â—…ve and the Production of such or such an 〈…〉 nor as far as I can see do they so much 〈…〉 pretend to show how this Effect does ex naâ—…a rei spring from that Cause For 't is conâ—… that the Stroke on the Nerve and the Idea which starts up when it is made there are utterly Unlike one another By which lame account any kind of Impression provided it be Unlike may occasion the Production of any Idea whatever and therefore there would be no Reason why 〈…〉 particular Impression more than another made 〈…〉 the Body should concur any way no not so much as a sutable Occasion to the Production of any particular Idea at all Thirdly Hence they make this Impression on the Nerve to be only an Occasion that is a kind of Conditio sine quâ non and not any sort of Cause contrary to the whole Intention and End of all Philosophy which is to refund Effects into their Proper Causes Fourthly They put the Soul which is of an Indivisible nature to Act upon it self and to be the Sole Cause of such an Idea which is against divers Principles confining upon Self-evidence and easily reducible to it Such as are Nothing that is meerly iâ— Power to such an Effect can reduce st self to Act. Nothing Indetermin'd can produce a Determinate Effect Nothing can change it self An Indivisible Entity cannot work upon it self A Thing in Rest cannot move it self Or in a word the Whole Course of Causes consisting in this that One Thing which is in Act it self is to work upon Another which is in Power to receive that Act is by this Extravagant Doctrine made Needless Absurd and Incoherent 36. Corollary XII From what 's Deduc't above it follows that that Position of That the Position which makes the Soul and Body Two Things hinders the Right Explication of Christian Faith the Cartesians which makes the Soul and Body in Man to be Duae Res or Two Things does not seem to sute well with Christian Faith For since Cartesius does therefore make them Two Things because he finds them to be of Different Natures 't is Evident that he does not Distinguish between the Notion of the Thing which has the Nature in it and of the Nature which is in the Thing or is had by it Whence follows that whereever and whenever there are those two Distinct Natures there must also be two Distinct Things But the Second Person of the Trinity will ever retain the Humanity of Christ and the Humanity of Christ will ever consist of the Corporeal and Spiritual Natures call'd Soul and Body therefore there will ever be according to this Doctrine two distinct Things in the Humanity of Christ-Again since these Two Natures in Christ's Humanity which they call Two Things are Individually or Numerically such and an Individual Thing is the same as a Suppositum the Followers of this Doctrine must hold there are Two Suppositums in Christ according to his Humanity Wherefore since 't is a Fundamental of Christian Faith that there is also in Christ the Divine Suppositum they must be forced to put three Suppositums in Christ GOD and MAN which is strange Language in Christianity Nor will it avail them to alledge that the Divine Personality by Assuming Humane Nature sâ—pplies the Subsistence of both those Natures for this takes not away the Distinction of the Two Natures in the Humanity wherefore if whereever there are two Natures there must be Two Things and those in our case Individually such of force there will remain two Individual Things that is Two Supposita in Christ's Humane Nature and consequently Three in all Whence since Verum vero non contradicit the Christian Tenet of but One Suppositum in Christ being True the Cartesian Doctrine that the Soul and Body in Man are two Things because they are of such Different Natures must needs be False and our main Tenet that the Soul and Body in Man do make but One Thing is both Evident to Reason and Consonant to Faith and to the Creed of St. Athanasius 37. Corollary XIII Hence also it follows from this Thesis of the Cartesians that every Individual Man in This Tenet makes overy Man to be a Monstrous Chimera the World is a Perfect Chimera nay a more Monstrous one than a Hircoceruus a Centaur or any other we use to Instance in For since all Created Beings are either Pure Acts or Compounded of Power and Act that is Matter and Form by Ch. 1. § 33. and the Word Thing signifies What 's Capable of Existing and therefore Two Things must be Capable of Diverse Existences and if they exist actually must actually have Two Existences It follows that the Soul and Body even in this State they have here must have actually Two Diverse Existences Again since their Nature the one being Corporeal the other Incorporeal are far more Distant and more vastly Different than a Goat and a Stag or any other Natures amongst Bodies to clap two such Things thus actually distinct under the Notion of Thing and Existing thus Distinct into One Species call'd MAN makes all the Individuals under that Species to be Chimerical nay greater Chimera's than is a Compound made of any two Things in Nature which are of divers Corporeal Species and exist actually by distinct Existences as a
be forced to say that what 's meant by the word GOD is not only Common in respect of those others but also that 't is a Common Suppositum and that it is the Common Suppositum which is Verify'd of all those Particulars And since it cannot be Verify'd or Predicated of them as a Genus or Species because These do necessarily include Indetermination and Potentiality which are Inconsistent with GOD's Purest Actuality therefore it must be Predicated of them after such a manner as is not Generical or Specifical but in such a way as a Notion which is in One Line is predicated of such Notions as are conceiv'd to be Formally in Another 2. These Particulars can be but Three tho' there seems to be two Conjugations as it were of mutually Opposite Relations Because Divine Love ought to proceed from the Greatest GOOD that can be conceiv'd to belong or be Connatural to GOD as He is of a Spiritual Nature viz. the Knowledge of Infinite Truth or which is the same from Infinite or Divine Truth Known in the Divine Knowledge which amounts to this that Divine Love proceeds from the Two other Particulars formally according to their Relations Whence no Correlation can be from those other Persons to Divine Love which thus proceeds from them because Relation is Grounded on that which it Refers or Relates It being then Evident that whatever is the Ground of Relation or Related must be some Absolute Notion and not such a one as is Relative it follows that there cannot be any Correlation where the Immediate Ground is a Relative it self 3. These Three Distinct Particulars Verify'd of GOD and therefore Truly in the Divine Nature are properly to be called PERSONS because â—here being no Accidents in GOD there is noâ—hing in the Divine Nature to be Distinguish'd or â—articulariz'd but his Substance and Particulars â—n an Intelligent Substance are properly called PERâ—ONS There are therefore Three Persons in GOD. Amongst which since Knowledge formally proceeds from an Object of the same Nature in both the Knower and thing Known and to communicate a Living Nature to another Living Particular is to GENERATE hence this Procession is truly call'd GENERATION and therefore the Divine Object Known from which Divine Knowledge thus proceeds is truly tho' in a Spiritual Sense call'd a FATHER and the Divine Knowledge a SON and the former of these is the First by way of Origin because Knowledge must be conceiv'd to proceed from the Object and not the Object or Thing to proceed from the Knowledge unless that Knowledge makes it to be or Creates it as the Divine Wisdom does Creatures The Third Person is properly call'd Divine Love because Love proceeds from that which is our Greatest and most Connatural Good perfectly and expresly Known or as we phrase it conceited or fully conceiv'd to be such Now the Greatest Good of GOD who is of a Spiritual Nature is Essential TRUTH which as was said consists in this that GOD knows Himself or which is the same that the Divine Object is in the Divine Knower By which is seen How and Why the Holy Ghost who is Divine Love proceeds from both the Father and the Son 4. Wherefore since as appears by those oftrecited Words on which we build our Explication the Common Suppositum exprest by the word GOD has in it All the Perfections that can be imagin'd and this Infinitely hence all the Three Persons having the common Suppositum or the GODHEAD in them are Coeternal Co-omnipotent c. and in every respect Co-equal as is exprest in ihe Creed of St. Athanasius Whence all Objections of their being before one another for some Time or some Instant as also of Dependence on one another and all Distinction in Nature or imagin'd Plurality of Gods are Diametrically opposite to the Doctrine of the Trinity Lastly hence all pretended Arguments taken from Fancy for from True Reason none at all can be drawn are by the respective parts of this Explication shewn to be frivolous and either Answer'd or else Forestall'd and Prevented 5. If the Anti-Trinitarians have any Objections in their Quiver I have set them here a fair Mark at which they may level them They may see here that I do not wrap my Discourse in Ambiguity of words but I distinguish my Notions as exactly as is possible and draw my Conclusions consequently Nor have I any Deductions which are nor grounded on Principles But I foresee that they will not be able to raise any Opposition which is not built on Faneies taken from Material Beings which are too grofs to be made use of when we are discoursing of GOD and altogether unfit to be Transferr'd in their rude sense to so sublime a Majesty or else that they are occasion'd by perfect Ignorance of Spiritual Natures and their Operations The main Distinction between which and Bodies is this that whereas Bodies being Divisible Entitites can have nothing in them Matter supposed but their own Accidents or Modes which Determine the Matter thus or thus and thence make it this or the other Individuum so that a Corporeal Suppositum or Thing can have nothing in it but its own Nature and its own Intrinsical Modes which have no Being but Its A Spiritual Being which is so far Superiour to it that it is constituted by its Difference Indivisible which is of a Contradictory Nature to it can therefore by its Proper Operation Knowing have all other Essences or Natures in it besides its own and engraft them as it were on its Stoek of Being and in such a different manner from the former that as they are in It they are no Part or proper Mode of the Spiritual Nature it self nor any Intrinsical Accidents of it but they are there formally as Others or as Distinct from it nor are they Dependent on the Spiritual Nature that Knows them for their Being as were the Corporeal Modes on their Subject but they have a Proper Being of their own out of the Understanding and Independently on it So likewise when they have an Act of Love they have a Propension Tendency or Panting after the Object of that Love and an endeavour to be Conjoyn'd and United to it by way of Attainment or Fruition of the Good they conceive to be in it Whence 't is plain that they are carry'd to it as it is Another or as 't is Distinct from themselves So that even when an Angel or a Soul Knows and Loves its self they must in some Respect or other be Distinct from themselves as they are the Object of that Knowledge and Love as the very word Object does Evidence and as manifestly appears from the Antithesis between Knower and Known Lover and Loved Only because as was shown above in Creatures which are not Self-Beings this Knowledge and consequently Love are Accidental to them in regard that even their Existence which this Knowledge and Love presupposes is Extrinsical and Accidental to their Essence therefore this Distinction
which Self-Knowledge and Self-Love makes in them and which is the Immediate Ground of those Relations cannot make Distinction in their Substance Whereas in GOD in whose Essence there can be no Accidents nor any thing Accidental but purely Substance Self-Knowledge and Self-Love must necessarily Distinguish and consequently Particularize the Substance and hence Particulars of a Substance which is Intelligent being in proper Speech call'd Persons it obliges us to put a TRINITY of PERSONS in the same Divine Nature or in the UNITY of the GODHEAD 6. Perhaps it may be Objected That I am inconsistent with my self while I say that there are no Accidents in GOD and therefore only His Substance is Particulariz'd whence we infer Plurality of Persons and yet we put Relation in GOD which is an Accident I answer that as appears by our State of the Question we do not put Relations in GOD as He is in Himself but only as He is Conceiv'd by us and that as we conceive Him according to our Natural Notions it is impossible to conceive or speak of Him otherwise To the Objection 't is Reply'd that we do not Transfer the Notion of Relation to GOD without stripping it first of its Imperfection which is to inhere in GOD as in its Subject or as a Mode of it which implies Potentiality in the Subject and Dependence on it in the Form We have already shown that Relation meerly as Relation does add no Perfection or Imperfection to that on which 't is Grounded and which has an Absolute Notion As Likeness between two Things that are White adds in neither of them the least Perfection or Imperfection to their Absolute Notion that is it makes neither of them more or less White Wherefore the Relations in GOD are as Essential to Him as is the Knowing and Loving Himself which Grounds these Relations Nor is this Peculiar in the Relative Notions we apply to GOD for Mercy Justice Goodness c. and the rest of such Attributes are Qualities in us and exprest as such and yet they are Essential to the DEITY and have their Natures which they had as Accidents Dignify'd to be several Inadequate Conceptions of the Divine Essence it self SECT X. Of what vast Importance and most Efficacious Influence the Belief of the Blessed TRINITY is to Christian Life and to the raising our Thoughts and Affections towards Heaven 1. I Doubt not but the Anti-Trinitarians will complain sadly of the Christian Church as barbarously Uncharitable for cutting off from the Body of their Society Excommunicating and delivering over to Satan so many well-meaning Persons who embrace their Sentiment They will ask why the Denying a Tenet which is meerly Speculative should be so hainously taken and severely resented They will be apt to liken Church-Governours to those hot-headed School-Divines who all-to-be-Heretick those who will not allow their Opinion They will pretend that as long as Men do sincerely Worship the only True GOD and keep His Commandments which they will profess they do from their Hearts hold and intend no more can in reason be requir'd Is not this enough will they say for Salvation Must the Seamless Coat of Christ be torn and shatter'd to pieces Charity and Church-Communion be violated in the height for the sake of a Speculative Tenet which however it may please some can sute with the Fancies of very Few perhaps None if they would but lay aside their Customary Belief which Education and not Judgment has given them and set themselves seriously to reflect how Uncouth it is to their Reason and how utterly Unuseful Ineffectual and of no Influence at all it is to Good Life Piety and Virtuous Action Thus they will plead for their Impious Doctrine and Schismatical Fact and their Apology will be receiv'd with Applause by all the Latitudinarian Party For nothing is so Cheap and Costs so little and withal is so Necessary for those who are destitute of Solid Reasons as 't is to Affect and have Recourse to Godly Cant 2. In Answer First we will speak to the Persons and their Guilt or Innocence then to the Point it self We ask then those Rabbies of the Anti-Trinitarians Who taught them that piece of Doctrine which they proceed upon as if it were a a Self-evident Principle that the way to determine what we are to Believe what not is to begin our Enquiry by scanning the Articles of Faith themselves by our Common and Obvious Reason and to make This the Test of what we are to Accept what to Reject For First they cannot but see â—hat this takes away the very Notion of Faith out â—f the Hearts of Mankind I suppose by Reason â—hey mean Evident Reason for otherwise they â—ust grant that this Rule of theirs is Uncertain â—nd therefore can be no Rule at all And if they will not believe but upon Evident Reason then 't is Science and so farwell all Faith Secondly If they say they intend only to Evidence the Opposite Tenet to be False and not any Point of Faith to be True we are but where we were For where the Tenets in Question are Contradictories as 't is here he that Evidences the Trinity of Persons in the GODHEAD to be False does with the same Labour and at the same time Evidence the Unity of Person in the same GODHEAD to be True Since then this later is a Point of Faith with them they must still grant that by Evidencing this they turn Faith into Science Thirdly This Tenet amongst others was held by themselves e're they renounc'd it to have come to them by Divine Revelation wherefore they are convinced by recurring to this New Rule of Humane Reason to bid adieu to all Divine Revelation and so they fall in with the Deists For why should one Point of Faith be received upon their Rule of Humane Reason and not All. Fourthly They are False to their own Rule and their own Pretence and therefore are not to be Credited nor without some straining of Charity to be excus'd as to their having Sincere Intentions An Evident Proof can be no other but a clear Demonstration and to this I have not observ'd they ever so much as pretended 'T is easie to call any pretty probable Proof an Evidence so it be but sutable to Fancy But Demonstration carries something that is Manly Decisive and Victorious in its Notion to which therefore 't is dangerous for Plausible and Probable Discoursers to pretend A True Demonstration must be built on Principles that are Evident and finally reducible to Self-Evidence So must the Consequence of it too and the Medium must be such as is most necessarily Connected with the two Extremes What I affirm then is that they have not Produc'd so much as One Demonstration however they would have it â—hought they have though they cautiously mince it in the Expression If they have any such let us see it let us hear of it I will grant them that any One which is truly such will
though it may look very Plausible that ought to shock us or make us entertain an ill Opinion of our Principle it self But it must be such a Solid Reason as may be held more Evident than the Principle was on which they and the Body or Community they were in had built their former Faith otherwise it cannot with any Sense be held able to cope or contrast with it much less to overthrow it 4. They ought I say in such a Case to consider that they were formerly in a Christian Community or in some Church and were Actually Members of that Body from which they must separate and so be guilty of a very Criminal Schism if they divide themselves by Apostacy from it which makes it plain to the meanest Capacity that the Reasons which are oppos'd ought to be most Evident and most Cogent This ought to make them cautious and wary in admitting such Objections for true Reasons lest if they hap to be prov'd False they run themselves desperately into such a dangerouâ— Precipice Wherefore they must be Certain those Reasons were indeed most Evident which we call Demonstrative and not only Probable by Resting on which they hazard such a Miâ—chief to their Souls Plainest Reason tells them that no Truth in the World could remain long settled nor any Government continue long on Foot if the Subjects or Inferiours may be allowed upon every Probable Reason to break from the whole Body and Rebel against Superiours and Governours Now not to mention that they can never bring any such Proof as can in the Esteem of a Vulgar Understanding be held Conclusive or Demonstrative it is Evident by the Carriage of the Rabbiâ—s of those Dissenters that they never did even pretend to bring any Demonstrative Proof against the Trinity For did they ever lay any Self-Evident Principles or build on them as those to which those Proofs are finally reducible 'T is unheard of and yet without these 't is impossible there can be any True Evidence or Demonstration For whatever pretends to be Evident must either be Evident of it self or be made Evident by something that is moro Evident than it self is which must either run on Endlesly or terminate at length in something that is Self-Evident A Demonstration if truly such and clearly propos'd obliges all Humane Nature to assent to it if they be Unprejudic'd If they can pretend they have any such Demonstrative Argument that the Doctrine of the Trinity is such Nonsense and so Impious why do they not produce it stand to it show the Principle it is grounded on and the Connexion it has with that Principle One such Argument would decide the Cause and put an end to the Whole Controversie But alas they dare not so much as say I am sure they never did that they have any such kind of Argument They never concern themselves with examining the Qualification of Arguments or what Proofs Conclude what not but content themselves to talk rawly prettily and plausibly 'T is not their Design to convince Men of Learning but to Over-reach and work upon the Weakness of the Ignorant Whence follows that since no Proof can be even pretended competent to break Church-Communion but such as is evidenty Conclusive or Demonstrative and they neither produce nor profess to bring any sueâ— their Reasons ought not to weigh with any Man of Sense so as to make him for their sake hazard the Guilt of Schism 5. They ought to consider next when they have left the Particular Church in which they were and in which there are Church-Governours and a great Body of Christians with whom they do joyn in Faith Prayer Sacraments Discipline and other Spiritual Duties with what Church-Governours and what Body of Men they will joyn in Prayer and such Devout Offices Can a few Men scatter'd here and there who sculk in Corners do not own themselves openly nor barefacedly protest and preach against this Doctrine which if False is so manifestly Idolatrous can I say such a Rope of Sand such an Unconnected Multitude who thus let GOD's Honour go to wrack have the Face or the least show of a Church With whom then will these New Proselytes joyn hemselves in Prayet Sacraments Church-Government and other such Concerns This is so shameful to their pretended Church that though 't is against all Conscience and Sense they are content to joyn in Prayer and other Religious Duties with our Churches though themselves must hold them most abominably Idolatrous rather than make a ridiculous show of their own Party alone Perhaps too Interest and Indemnity are two powerful Motives to induce them to this Brotherly Compliance and Correspondence For such Men do not use to be guilty of such a Zeal for GOD's Honour or for their own Persuasion as to hazard Martyrdom no not the less of any Temporal Advantages for GOD's or Truth 's sake They are cast in a new Mold from that of other good Christians and approach to the Deists as in other Prudent Methods so in this 6. If those Unstable and Dissatisfy'd Men say they are not able to Judge whether the Reasons they bring are Conclusive or no they plainly confess they hanker after them out of the bewitching Humour of Singularity and Novelty since they consent to alter their Former Faith upon such Reasons as they know not whether they be Good or Bad Solid or Aiery fit to be yeilded to or no That is in plain Terms they have an Inclination to that Party but yet they do not well know why If they alledge that their Reasons seem more easie to them than those brought by others I Answer First That Easiness is not a sign of Truth The Highest Truths especially those belonging to Spiritual Natures are the Hardest to conceive and yet not a jot the less True 'T is easier to conceive GOD to be a Body and perform all his Actions by Motion as we do ours and yet it is so far from True that it is a damnable Errour and destroys the Nature of the DEITY Or rather it is a vast Prejudice against all their Arguments and their very Way of Arguing For tho' each single word in which Faith was deliver'd was easie so that the then Believers could have a right Apprehension or Notion of what was taught them yet when the Point comes to be canvast by Disputation and Reasons produc'd Pro and Con and that the Point is of what passes in the Divine Nature which is not only Spiritual but Infinite 't is a certain sign that if the Reasons either Party produces be Easie to Vulgar Fancies 't is I say a most certain sign that they are merely Superficial and do not reach the Nature of so abstruse a Mystery or so High a Subject 7. They may also be made sensible how impossible it is that 318 Bishops of the Eastern and Western Churches should meet together in the First Council of Nice who by their Station must needs know the Sentiment of the then
catching at little Expressions snatcht out of Authors here and here and improving them dexterously to his Advantage but otherwise he seem'd quite destitute of Logick or any other Philosophical Science Hence he was a very Weak Reasoner a Rash Concluder and incapable of Arguing from any Principles which he quite disregarded and sleighted What concerns my purpose is that he show'd me divers Citations which he had pickt up out of Heathen Authors in which they own'd a Trinity and would needs pretend that the Christian Church had borrow'd forsooth that Tenet among other Superstitions from the Heathens I told him that this made against himself and rather arguâ—d that all Mankind who reflected deeply upon the Essence of a Spiritual Nature especially if they held it to be Infinite had some rude Sentiments of a Trinity or perhaps that some few Iews might have it from some Persons that were Englighten'd after a special manner and that the Heathens had it â—â—om Them I wish my Recommendation might prevail with some Learned Man of our Universities where they have plentiful Libraries to confute that Book of his in compiling which I could discern by his Discourse he had been assisted by his whole Party inspecting Libraries in divers Countries and picking out what they could find to their Advantage I believe they will find it wants no Insincerity a judicious Friend of mine whom I intreated to peruse it having as he told me discover'd much foul Play in divers Places 13. The same Unlearned Readers may also be admonisht that they ought not to read or at least heed such Books lest wading too rashly out of their Depth they come to Sink For since such Books pretend to show that the Tenet of the Trinity is full of Contradictions and such Readers are not skill'd nor are able to know how many Requisites do go to a Contradiction it is manifest they wrong their Reason by over-weening or taking upon them to judge of a Point of which they are Ignorant what the very Terms mean 14. Yet if they have good Mother-Wits they may be made to a great degree capable of Discerning the Folly and False Reasoning of such sleight Discoursers It will not be hard to make such Men see there can be no Contradiction unless we Affirm and Deny in the same Respect V. g. That there is no Contradiction to say that a Table is Three according to the Notion or Respect of such a Figure call'd a Corner or Three-corner'd and yet is but One according to that Respect call'd a Table or but One Table Or that a Man who is a Father a Son and a Husband may be Three according to that Respect or Notion call'd Relation or have Three Relations in him and yet be but One according to the Notion of Thing or but One Man Which done let but the several Notions or Respects that belong to this Mystery be Distinguish'd by Confounding which those Men do pretend to show it Contradictious and a little Instruction will let them see plainly that at least many of their Objections if not all are merely Frivolous and Insignificant 15. To make this sink better into their Apprehension it were not amiss to Instance in some one Paragraph of the aforesaid Letter concerning the Trinity and Athanasian Creed Wee 'll take one of the shortest but withall the Pithiest and Shrewdest in their way of Arguing 'T is found p. 7. Col. 2. in these Words If the Father is an Infinite All-perfect Being and if the Son is Distinct from the Father he must if he be a GOD be a Distinct Infinite All-perfect Being for the same Being can be no way Distinct from its self And certainly two Distinct All-perfect Beings are two Distinct GODS How currently and smoothly this glides over the Fancy Yet when examin'd and brought to the Test it will appear by and by that 't is so incomparably Weak and Silly that 't is scarce possible to croud more Nonsence into so narrow a Room Which I show thus 16. 'T is acknowledg'd the Father is an Infinite All-perfect Being for he has the Divine Nature in Him which is Infinitely Perfect or truly GOD. He Proceeds and if the Son is Distinct from the Father In what Sense I beseech him or according to what Notion or Respect do we hold He is Distinct In that of Being Not one Man in GOD's Church ever said it What we hold and maintain is that He is only Distinct from Him according to that Notion or Respect calld Relation And what Man so stupid as not to see that what differs only in Relation may be the same Many or the same Being still A Man is Marry'd and has never a Child and then he is a Man but is not a Father Afterwards he has a Son and then he is a Father and yet he is the same Man or the same Being he was though to be a Father and not to be a Father abstractedly conceiv'd be Contradictories It follows and therefore he must if he be a GOD be a Distinct All perfect Being And why must this follow when the Distinction affects the GODHEAD only according to that Respect called Relation and not according to that Respect called Essence or according to the GODHEAD it self or the Divine Nature 'T is strange that these Men cannot Reflect that when we say God knows Himself or which is the same GOD â—i known by Himself what 's mean't by Knower and Known do formally signifie the Relation and the word GOD and which is the same Himself do signifie the GODHEAD or the same Infinite All-perfect Being in Both. But the Reason he gives for this Consequence exprest in the words For the same Being can be no ways Distinct from it self is such a most Profound piece of Ignorance that 't is Unparallell'd Indeed a being can be no ways Distinct from it self under the Notion of Being for this were to be the same Being and not to be the same Being but that it can be no ways as he says Distinct from it self but it must have a Different Being is against our Common Notions the Common Language and the Common Sense of all Mankind A Child is the same THING or the same BEING when it is grown up to be a Man wherefore this same Being which is now a Perfect or â—ipe Man is now Distinct from its self according to its Quantity which is One Way of being Distinct from its former self The same Man was yesterday in Health and now is Sick and therefore he is Distinct or Different from himself according to those Qualities which is Another Way He was before no Father and now is a Father therefore he is Distnct from his former self according to the Notion or Respect of RELATION which is a Third Way and yet all this while he is the self-same in respect of his Beâ—ng Innumerable are the particular Ways Endless are the Instances that might be given how the same Thing or Being might differ from its self
adds to it still more Indetermination and what 's Common to All and Indeterminate to Any Thing cannot particularize or constitute This or That Thing and only This or That Thing and not Thing in Common or what 's Indeterminate to every Thing can exist in Nature It follows that either there must be no Particular Bodies in Nature that is No One Body or which is the same No Body at all in the whole World or else it must be granted that there must be such an Act corresponding to this Sort of Power which so determines it as to constitute This or That Body in particular Which Second Sort of Act is call'd by the Schools the SUBSTANTIAL or ESSENTIAL FORM and this Second Sort of Power which answers to that Act and is Determin'd by it is call'd MAâ—TER 18. Hence those Things which include in their Natures this Second sort of In what Sence Bodies are said to be Compounded of this Power and its Act. Power and its correspondent Act which use to be call'd Matter and Form are said to be Compounded of them because such a kind of Thing involves in it self and consequently causes in us and verifies the Conceptions of somewhat according to which that Thing is Indeterminate and somewhat according to which it is Determinate under the Notion of Thing or Ens which two Considerations do comprehend all that can be conceiv'd belonging to the Nature of such a kind of Thing as to that Notion precisely which kind of Compound Thing we call a BODY 19. This Second sort of Power called Matter is the sole Ground of all Change and Mutability For since whatever This Second Power Matter is the sole Ground of all Mutability Thing is Determinate is Fixt by that which formally Determines it to be That Thing it is and no Other 't is manifest that from the nature of that Act or Form which by Determining the Matter makes that Thing be what it is no Change into another can proceed Wherefore since by § 17 18. there can be nothing else Conceivable belonging to such a particular Thing or Body but its Power to be such a Thing and its Act which Determines that Power and formally constitutes it such a Thing that is the Matter and the Form and from the Act or Form as far as is on it's part no Mutability or Change from what that Act made it â—…n proceed it follows necessarily that all Change and Mutability under the Notion of Thing must proceed from the Power or Matter Again since all Accidental Acts or Modes do no less in their way Determine and Constitute the Thing to be actually such as that Accident is apt to make it or to be after such a Manner as well as the Essential Act or Form did Determine and Constitute it to be This Thing and no other Thing and that their whole Notion or Nature is terminated in their making it Actually such it follows that from those Accidental Acts or those Modes precisely nothing can have any Ground to be Alter'd or to have Another Mode or Accident Wherefore all Change and Mutability whether Substantial or Accidental can be refunded into nothing but meerly into the Power or Matter as it 's only Ground 20. Corollary IX Hence is demonstrated that if there can be any Pure Acts which have no Power or Matter Hence Pure Acts are Immutable in them as will be shown hereafter there can such aâ— are Angels and Souls Separated they must be naturally Immutable both Substantially and Accidentally See Method to Science B. 3. L. 7. Thesis 6. and Raillery Defeated from § 49. to § 59. 21. The Third sort of Power is that which the Thingâ— consisting of Matter The Third sort of Power respects Accidental Acts. and Form and having over and above it 's Ultimate Act of Existing has to the Modes or Accidental Acts belonging to it as was mention'd § 2. and shown particularly in my Methodâ— B. 1. Less 2. 22. Tho' these Accidental Acts or Modes aâ— is shown above Coroll III. and in my METHOD B. 1. Less 4. § 1 2. Which tho' not properly Things have yet Analogical Essences are not Things in the First and Proper signification of the word Thing but only in a Secondary Improper and Analogical Sense yet they have notwithstanding their Improper and Analogieâ— Essences as has also every Abstract Notion of Conception we have of the Thing and consequently their Nature is sixt to be what it is and no other Whence they have also their Improper but yet Real Metaphysical Verity and First Principles peculiar to their Natures as well as Things properly so call'd or Substances have So that whoever in Discoursing of Quantity â— g. or Action makes Quantity by consequence 〈…〉 to be Quantity or Action not to be Action but destroys the nature of those Modes is as evidently convicted of Contradiction as if he had destroy'd the nature of a Man or an Animal or any other Substance and had made them by consequence not to be what they are as all False Discoursers do 23. Hence is clearly seen what is meant by Metaphysical Divisibility and Composition and that they are not What Metaphysical Divisibility and Composition are â—â—ch as are found between Thing â—â—d Thing in re for this kind of Composition and Division would destroy the Unity and Verity of the Thing beâ—…es that such a Composition is Proper to Artificial things and is contrary to the Constituâ—… of Natural Entities Natural Composition 〈…〉 was shown § 17 18. being made by the â—…eting of the Matter and Form in one such â—… or one Body That Composition and Divisibility then which we call Metaphysical is of the Parts as it were of the Thing as it is in â—our Understanding or of the Thing as concelv'd by us thus and the same Thing as concelv'd by us otherwise For out of our Conception or Understanding there is no Actual Distinction of Matter and Form of Substance and Accidents c. tho' there is Ground in the thing as it is the Object of our Imperfect pitch of Understanding not able to comprehend all that may be thought of it at once why we thus frame Abstract Partial and Inadequate Conceptions of it or which is the same why we thus Divide or Distinguish it And hence it comes that since there can be no Contradiction nor consequently Impossibility unless we Affirm and Deny in the same Respect therefore as there is no Contradiction in such a case in our Understanding because these Respects there are Diverse so there is no Impossibility in Nature but the Thing may be Chang'd Distinguisht Acted upon or Act according to some of those Respects or Conceptions and yet be not-Chang'd not-Act or Suffer according to others of them as will be seen by Instances hereafter 24. Corollary X. This Doctrine particularly this last Clause were the words Ens or Substance Nature Suppositum Person Existence and Subsistence exactly Distinguisht and