vital Sensation Now Sensation will take in Seeing as well as Feeling and then Mutual Consciousness if he keeps to the letter will be Knowing each other in themselves In short Seeing Feeling Knowing each other in themselves are Forms of expressing which he uses promiscuously not very Orthodox indeed but there is no Heretical Sense under them no Sense at all that I know of but as he complements Dr. S th they are Gipsy-Cant Hold I cry him Mercy for Gipsies understand one another's Gibberish His not very Orthodox Expressions may perhaps be better call'd Rosy-crucian Cant for that mysterious Order of Philosophers are the only Persons that I know of besides our gross Tritheists who use Words without any intelligible meaning Mutual Consciousness is really nothing but a shamesul Instance of the Dean's Faculty in putting impossible Cases which it were not difficult to expose but his way is to ease his Adversary of that Labour and do it himself His Self-Consciousness refutes his Mutual Consciousness i.e. if he has desin'd them aright for how should he that by Self-Consciousness feels himself to be himself by Mutual-Consciousness feel himself to be some Body else It is true an intelligible Sense of these words may be given As thus I am conscious to my self of what I think say or do and what is known to me and my Friend of that we two are mutually conscious But the Dean never understands words in their proper and natural signification is never contented till he has made them signify what no Body can understand nor he declare without talking backward and forward so shamefully that were it not for fear of his Vindictive Spirit every Man would do as Dr. S th has done i. e. show him his Picture I had almost said his living and substantial Image But he is sure that Mr. H w can never form any Notion of the Union of Spiritual Essences without Mutual Consciousness It must be his Prejudice then that hinders him for Spiritual Essences may be united by Consent but that 's not the Union he intends he intends an Essential Union and that 's an Essential Contradiction and Substantial Nonsense The Dean fairly recounts that Mr. H w represents the Unity of the Godhead by the Union of Soul and Body which make one Man and by the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature which are said to make one Christ Now he criticises and affirms these to be Personal Unions meaning Unions of divers things which make one Person but cannot be the Unity of the Godhead in which there is a Trinity of distinct Persons I know no inconvenience of allowing according to common Acceptation that Soul and Body make up one thing call'd Man nor know I what Mr. H w can get by it for neither of the two singly is Man or if each of them singly is so together they must make up a double Man Which was the Fancy of the silly Indian in John Dreyden's Play I kill'd a double Man the one half lay Vpon the Ground the other ran away But the Dean rejects these Unions he says because they are not the Unions of distinct Persons But that is not fair for he himself has confess'd once and again that there is nothing in Nature like Three Persons in One Godhead And I must take leave to tell him that if there were Mr. H w is as like to find it as he But since there is not they must e'en both be content with such faint Resemblances as they can get As for the Union of two Natures I have a better Reason for rejecting than the Dean by much it is building Mystery upon Mystery and proving one Dream by the help of another Mr. H w's Unity of the Godhead is such and no other than the Dean speaks it such an Union of Three Spiritual Beings and Individual Natures as together which is fairly call'd by Composition constitute the Godhead Against this Notion he says some things weakly those the Letter takes notice of and perhaps I may also spend my Verdict on them there other things he says well and with sound Reason but in them he is most unlucky for instead of Three Spiritual Beings Three Individual Natures read Three Minds or Persons and his Arguments conclude equally against his own Hypothesis In short what he says well comes to this If all Three are but One God then not any One by himself is that One God and this he says Mr. H w has own'd p. 47. and I think his words come near it which are these When you predicate Godhead of any One of the Persons you express an inadequate Conception of God But to prove himself a sounder Trinitarian he says that he owns and that none are Orthodox Christians but they who own so too that the Father has the whole entire Divinity in himself that the same subsists in the Son the same in the Holy Ghost that each by himself in the most proper adequate Conception is true and perfect God tho all Three are but One and the same God which does plainly and undeniably prove that the Dean and all his Orthodox Christians do believe that the Father Son and Holy Ghost are One and Three in one and the same respect For that Godhead which by them is predicated of every of the Three separately that very Godhead is predicated of the whole Three conjunctly The Dean says that Mr. H w's Notion of the Unity of the Godhead is such that neither the Scriptures nor the Antient Church know any thing of it I am of the Mind that the Scriptures know as much of the Hypothesis of one of them as of that of the other and as for the Antient Church who can tell what he means by it the Fathers beyond the acknowledg'd Rules of good Life neither agree with one another nor any one with himself but I guess his Antient Church to be made up of those particular Doctors whom he judges to have talk'd his Way though I won't sware but they may have drop'd a word or two in favour of Mr. H w's Divine Composition Where any late Socinian Writers have declar'd themselves willing to compound this Dispute of a Trinity of Divine Persons for the Three Attributes of Power Wisdom and Goodness I know not I beg the Dean's pardon if I wrong him when I believe he wrongs them for I observe that they have noted that there are other as essential Attributes of God as the Three mention'd viz. Truth and Justice and so the Mystery will consist of five Parts and that is two more than it did when it had two too-many And then if any of the Trinitarians make but an Attribute of the H. Ghost yet they all do and must allow Jesus Christ to be a Person and they all do affirm him to be one and the same God with the Father which I am very sure the Socinians will by no means agree to Indeed when the Trinitarians explain the Trinity by calling God as
ANIMADVERSIONS on a Postscript to the Defence of Dr. Sherlock against the Calm Discourse of the Sober Enquirer As also on the Letter to a Friend concerning that Postscript BEFORE I begin them I shall take a little notice of the several Characters which seem to distinguish each Author THe Doctor or Dean or Defender no matter which I name for they Three are One wants nothing to make him a good Writer but a good Cause and says as much for a bad as any Man can nay and when the Nature of the Cause will bear no more he makes it good with Magisterial Grace and big Assurance He has always Logick enough by him to prove a Trinity of Faculties Relations Modes to be only a Trinity of Names and a Trinity of Essences or Natures to be a Trinity of Gods All that can be said of him is that he takes no care of himself but sacrifices his own Hypothesis to make sure work with that of his Adversary His Adversary the Enquirer steps forth from the Press at his first Appearance in the Cause with all the winning Civility and good Nature in the World He will not be so rude as to say that his Hypothesis is the certain Truth of the Matter only he hopes that his gentle Reader will be so courteous as to grant it possible The Dean would do the Enquirer a singular Favour to let him be now and then of his Opinion but that being not granted put him a little out of temper yet he quickly recovers himself and when he has cut the Dean with a bitter Sarcasm p. 42. he gives him in a healing Parenthesis an Anonydinous Contradistinction In short this is the Case between the Dean and the Enquirer The one deals rude and heavy Blows the other neatly offers dangerous Thrusts You may fancy them engaging like AEneas and Mezentius in Virgil who maintain the Fight Hic gladio fidens hic acer arduus hastâ In the first Page of the Postscript I meet with these words I do not intend to examine the Book nor approve or disprove it and yet he examin'd the Book and that not carelesly neither I have again and again consider'd those Words and perhaps at last have spelt the just Sense and Meaning of 'em and yet but part of 'em for why he should disown intending to examine the Book that I can't account for nor perhaps himself When he avows he did not intend to approve the Book he avows that which is Grammatically and Literaily true it never came into his Head to set his Seal to any thing of Mr. H w's drawing up And when he says he did not intend to disapprove it that is Rhetorically and Figuratively true for by the Figure call'd Apophasis a Man denies to do or say that which he says most emphatically and does most industriously Having now said thus much why may not I be allow'd to guess at the Reason why the Dean profess'd that he intended not to approve or disapprove Mr. H's Book possibly it might be this He can patiently endure any Hypothesis to make good the Trinunity except it be such a sawcy one as sets it self up in competition with his and would impudently take place of it Now better the Article be lost than that the Man who slights the Dean's Undertaking should save it or that the Church should be beholden for preserving her Faith entire to the Wit and Learning of a pitiful Dissenter The Postscript affirms that thô the Enquirer does not in every particular say what the Dean says yet he says what will justify the Dean against the heavy Charge of Tritheism The Postseript makes good this Affirmation thus What the Dean says of Three distinct eternal infinite Minds that Mr. H. says as plainly and in more obnoxious Terms What a lamentable Argument is this Will Mr. H's broad Tritheistical Discourse evince that Mr. Dean has not made just such another Will Clodius's Lewdness absolve all the wild Gallants in Rome He that sets up three Gods and thereby shews what little Reverence he has for the one true God though he may chance to find others who preach and print as perversly as himself is nevertheless a Tritheist their running into the same wicked Error will not at all excuse him Again it is to be noted that the Dean in charging Mr. H. to have used more obnoxious Terms than himself he means more liable to be understood as implying three Gods does grant that he himself has used obnoxious Terms Terms implying three Gods then is he more to be blamed than Mr. H w because though he be an unlucky Tritheist yet does not seem to know it but the Dean professes to know the bad Consequence of his obnoxious Terms and yet is not ashamed to use them The Dean has briefly and fairly recounted what Manner of Representation Mr. H. has given of a Trinity in the Godhead which may be yet more briefly set down thus God can unite two Spirits in as close an Union as Soul and Body which after their Union shall remain distinguish'd by their own individual Essences and distinct by their singular Essences and if he can thus unite Two then Three and if Three then it must be granted possible that Three eternal uncreated Spirits may be united in the Godhead retaining their several Distinctions notwithstanding the close and numerical Union Further the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature in one Person is not more conceivable nor possible than the Union of three distinct Essences or individual Natures in the Godhead Now is Mr. Dean in the Malice of his Heart for sending Mr. H w to Dr. S th to know of him if this be not Tritheism But for my part if I were to die for 't I could find no Difference between them Three distinct Minds or Spirits and Three distinct Essences or Natures with all the Perfections of the Godhead in all and every of them can be no less than three Gods Yet the Dean is pleased to say looking upon Mr. H. as a convicted Tritheist without a word to offer for his Hypothesis that the Animadverter charges him the Dean with Tritheism only by consequence Bless us how would he be charged He has had the Luck hitherto and I hope will have the Wit hereafter to forbear the asserting in plain Terms that there be Three Gods but his Hypothesis plainly implies it and Mr. H w's does no more and Dr. S th has proved his Charge against the Former No no says the Dean for three distinct Minds are not three distinct Substances or Essences No! What are they then Why they are three distinct thinking Beings Defence of Dr. Sher. Notion p. 86. This Dean may advance what Notions he pleases and never stand in fear of any Arguments which can be brought against him for as Mr. Bays in the Rehearsal out-wrote all his envious Brethren by the help of a Drama Common-place-Book so he with the help of an Ecclesiastical-Polity Common-place-Book
signification of Words which he calls also Theological Signification as being content to let words go for what they us'd to do except in Church-Matters and Mysteries And Mr. H w has once and again caution'd us to forbear determining what is or is not in God beyond what God hath plainly told us in his Word or made our own Faculties plainly tell us Yet does this Man labour to perswade us that Three Persons Three Natures may be in God tho nor God nor our Faculties have plainly told us so by suppositions of things which he himself thinks only possible dares not say are Actual and Real and if they were not only Possible but Actual and Real are yet confessedly below the Matter not able to represent it much less to prove it But after all his grand Supposition is as impossible as any of the Dean's who allows himself to suppose what neither is nor can be when Reason fails him to credit his Fancies for a Spirit and a Spirit and a Spirit every one distinct cannot possibly become but one Spirit if he means by Spirit the same thing all along but if he takes the Subject in this Enunciation in the proper and natural signification of the Word and the Predicate in the improper unnatural Theological Signification then I confess Three may be as few One may be as many as he pleases I have heard in Table-talk I cannot say have read that the late famous Dr. More makes it part of the Definition of Religion that it be competently obscure let Mr. H w and the Dean alone for making good this part of the Definition if they have not by their Spirits and Minds Self and Mutual Conscious by their Three distinct without separation their One individual without singularity by their Essences and Natures coexistent in one Essence or Nature while each of the Coexistents is that self-same One which all of the Coexistents are together by their State of Real and Vital Union with continuing Distinction made it obscure enough then I know not what those words plain and obscure mean I am perswaded that neither of these Writers can flatter himself so far as to imagine that his printed Hypothesis has gain'd one Proselyte or confirm'd one wavering Trinitarian I can assure them they have both scandaliz'd and lost several thorow Trutarians and I have Reason to think that the Unitarian late Tracts would not have been half so much enquir'd after if the Trinitarian Writers by their absurd and contradictious Explications had not shock'd and unsettled the Minds of many honest Christians who were bred up to the Article and out of Reverence to Authority took it upon trust without any manner of examination P. 19. The Dean professes that as far as he can understand no other Union will satisfy the Enquirer but such an Union of Three Spiritual Beings and Individual Natures as by their Composition constitute the God head as the Composition of Soul and Body does the Man Mr. H. resents this as a wilful Injury and says the Dean has a cross Understanding which may be true but not for what Mr. H w complains of for he assures his Reader that he has peremptorily denied all Composition in the Godhead and it is true he has in terminis deny'd Composition in the Godhead But then again it is as true he has in plain Synonimous words affirm'd the very thing Both Mr. H and the Dean have afferted that to be in the Godhead which Composition doth properly and naturally signify but according to what it does improperly unnaturally and theologically signify they have both denied Composition in the Godhead so that neither the one nor the other of them is an Heretic but in a proper and natural true way of speaking But now behold an odd Scene While the Dean objects those very Opinions as Errors to Mr. H which the Dean has after his own way himself profess'd Mr. H summons all his Art to deny the Charge which he is not willing to deny and to defend the Doctrine which he is not willing to own Of which I will give Instance when I have first set the Matter even between them concerning Simplicity and Composition Mr. H has disputed earnestly against the Universal Absolute Omnimodous Simplicity of the Divine Nature Against it also has the Dean strenuously reason'd and it 's manifest that Three Self-consciously distinct Mutual-consciously united Minds are as far from Omnimodous Simplicity have as much of Composition as Three distinct Natures eternally vitally united The plain Truth which with abundance of Theological Stuff these Learned Barterers disguise is this God's Simplicity is his Singularity his Unity of Essence or Nature If there be more Essences than One in the Godhead then the Godhead is not Simple but Compound But if God is but One Essence or Nature then he is summè Simplex which I would English truly Simple or Single or One but that one Thing or Person should be more Simple Single One than another that is a by-whim of Mr. H w's a good Mantling for a ridiculous ' Scutcheon It does not contradict the Simplicity Singularity Unity of any Being that it has several Excellences and divers Powers of acting Mr. H w's talk of Simplicity which excludes Modes is pure Banter and Amusement The Simplicity and Singularity of his own Person is still the same notwithstanding the different Figures which he makes when he is preaching a plain honest useful Sermon at Pinners Hall and when he is penning and publishing calm Discourses and vindictive Vindication Letters The Dean objects that Mr. H w will not endure Wisdom Power and Goodness to be the same thing in God Mr. H w thinks himself civil for not giving him the Lie He makes bold to tell him it is not fairly said and here it is that he uses his Art in denying and admitting the Charge so that 't is impossible for the Reader to find out his Sense of the Matter As an Argument that it was not fairly said by the Dean he declares that he only intimated we are not instructed in Scripture to conceive Power Wisdom Goodness in the Abstract to be the same thing and that our Difficulty is great to apprehend them undistinguishable Now I note that if it be difficult to apprehend them undistinguishable then he seems to judg them really undistinguishable tho 't is difficult to apprehend them so But the Dean knowing Mr. H w able to see through a Difficulty ought not to have charg'd him with holding them to be divers Things but then presently after this forgetful Man says 't is a great Weakness of understanding to define them alike If they cannot be defin'd alike then they are really distinguishable and if he thinks them truly defin'd when they are desin'd differently then he cannot possibly apprehend them undistinguishable and then the Dean has dealt fairly and the cross understanding is Mr. H w's The Dean urges that Mr. H by his distinction of Power Wisdom and
when he has advanced foolish and inconsistent Notions shall easily reconcile himself to himself and make good that Conclusion which best sutes his present Purpose or when the worst comes to the worst puzzle the Cause save his Honour which is all he cares for and hide his Nonsense The Rules of that wonderful Book are said to be these The first Regula fiduciae or the Rule of Assurance This Rule directs him first in causa simplici as thus If the Importunity of Hereticks forces us to find Names for that to which nothing in Nature answers if they will not give us leave we must take leave to use such Names as we can find Def. p. 14. 2dly It impowers him to cut off the dangerous Horns of a merciless Dilemma with a Fore-stroak the one with a Back-stroak the other as thus If a sawcy Adversary charges him with Self-contradiction he tells him that it is impossible to know what a Contradiction is and when himself charges a Transubstantiating Blockhead with Self-contradiction then it is possible to know what a Contradiction is Vindic. of Trin. p. 4. His Second Rule is Regula consortii or the Rule of Company it may be call'd Regula recriminationis this Rule may have two Intentions both which he follows with this one Resolution not to be damn'd alone give him Company and it 's another thing Hence you have him frequently returning Railing for Railing and he can hardly forbear in open-words the base Language of grinning-Dog to Dr. S th Def. p. 39. He does give it him by Rhetorical Insinuation and when he has made his Adversaries Opinion appear as absurd as his own he thinks himself safe for why may not he have the luck to be thought in the Right when they that oppose him cannot mend the Matter Thus when Dr. S th tells him that Three distinct Minds are Three distinct Substances he replies that according to the received Definition of a Person which is Substantia individua naturae rationatis Three Persons are Three distinct Substances and let the Doctor bring off Three Persons he will do as much for Three Minds Def. p. 89. And thus he disputes and is too hard for all that own the Athanasian-Creed and explain the Mystery otherwise than he does If saith he every distinct Person in the Trinity be not a distinct infinite eternal Mind there 's an end of the Dean's Notion but then there will be an end of a Trinity of Divine Persons also and we shall have nothing left but a Trinity of Modes Postures Names Def. p. 8. His Third Rule is Regula personae or the Rule of Disguise By this Rule he winds and turns things as he pleases shows how things are true and how false and how neither true nor false For example when he had never a good material Image of the Trinity nothing but a faint Resemblance or two of it he says that the proper and natural Signification of Words cannot reach the Mystery a Theological Use of words perhaps may represent it Def. p. 13. and to prove the Trinity they must be forc'd to use improper Words in unnatural Significations for says he the Names of Distinction in ordinary use not only distinguish but divide and separate their Subjects but in the Trinity the word Person is us'd in the Sense of Distinction and not of Separation i. e. in a sensless Sense in a Sense whereof we have no Idea in an impossible Sense or to speak fully in the Dean's Sense A Trinunity in the proper Signification of Words is a Figment in the improper an Article of Faith But now for un ' coup Maltre to disguise all perhaps 't is nor Figment nor Article of Faith for in his Vindicat. of the Trinit p. 4. he confesses that he neither understands nor comprehends the thing whereof he speaks and if he don't no Body else does that 's certain so then 't is to no purpose to dispute the Controversy but 't is direct madness to fault his Explication His Fourth Rule is Regula Meiosios or the Rule of Extenuation and lessening the Matter when it looks gross and like an overgrown Monster Thus he pleads that his new Divinity may not disgust his Reader Custom indeed has not made the Form of his Expressions Orthodox but they have no Heretical Sense in them Again Tho the living Image is the same Man with the Prototype yet 't is no mortal Sin against Logic and common Sense to say that a Man and his living Image are two distinct Men. Def. p. 31. His Fifth Rule is Regula Suppositorum or the Rule of putting Cases not such as the Gentlemen of the Timple put which have happen'd and may do so again but of putting Cases which never did never can happen This is a singular Rule and of infinite use for let him coin a Notion like which there is nothing in all Nature such as the natural Unity of mutual Consciousness why 't is but supposing an impossible Case and the airy Notion is as easily convey'd to your Mind as you could wish Def. p. 33. O the wonderful Virtue of an impossible Case suppos'd to convey the true meaning of an incomprehensible Mystery to the Mind of a Man Again thus He supposes a Man with a living substantial perfect Image of himself which living substantial perfect Image of himself is but the very same Man as himself tho sometimes perhaps they may be two Men i. e. when they don't agree Dif p. 31. Once more He supposes a Beast to be a Person not that he thought the Expression proper but only by way of Allusion and Accommodation the better to represent the Union of Two Natures into One Person which are Two Persons or something as like Two Persons as their Natures will permit them when they subsist apart Def. p. 46. What if I should put an idle Case Had I this Man's Deanery could not I talk as wisely His Sixth Rule is Regula Tenebrarum or the Rule of darkning the Matter Thus having often granted that the whole Divine Essence was in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Ghost to prevent the Consequence that then there are Three Divine Essences he carefully distinguishes and tells his Reader that the whole Divine Essence subsists thrice not by multiplying but by repeating it self There 's a Vail thrown over the Matter now and where 's the Man that has that Eagle's or Epidaurian Serpent's Eye as to pierce through it But after all I could wish that he had forbore this Distinction for hence may arise a knotty Question which may give Posterity much trouble viz. Whether a Sinner that repeats his Injustice Intemperance and Lying may be said to multiply his Iniquities or whether all is but one Fault subsisting often by frequent repetition He has many darkning Dictinctions some in common with his Trinitarian Friends and Enemies such as Creation Generation Procession other peculiar to himself such as 't is one thing to consider a Person
distinctly and by himself another to consider him separately and apart but for a thick cloudy one you shall not meet with one more serviceable than this The Divine Nature is one individual Nature but not one single Nature Def. p. 18. I come now to his last Rule which indeed and in truth is no Rule but he uses it so frequently one might imagine it was his main Rule consider it separately and apart from the rest and it is plain that it is no Rule of his but consider it distinctly and you 'l find that it is a Rule to him ay and that more proper words could not have been thought on to represent it for it is call'd Regula obliviscentiae or the Rule of Forgetfulness By this Rule without blushing he tells Dr. S th that three distinct Minds are three distinct thinking Beings not three distinct Substances Def. p. 89. tho p. 19. he had disputed against the Being of but one single Divine Nature in the Godhead quoted and consented with Victorinus Aser that 't is not lawful to say there is but one Substance Thus also p. 26. he says that he does professedly teach that each of the three Persons has entirely all the Perfections of the Divine Nature Divine Wisdom Power and Goodness and therefore each of them is an eternal infinite Mind distinct from each other tho he had said p. 26. that neither the Son nor Holy Ghost was an absolute compleat independent God and yet one would think the Person that has all the Perfections of the Godhead should be a perfect God 'T were easy to give more Instances of his practice of the Rule of Forgetfulness but I will not forestal Dr. S th I only take leave to observe that it is a very shameful Practice and not to be indur'd in any Man but the Dean but in him it may be indur'd because he can shade it by the Rule of Darkness Rule the Sixth or alter the Looks of it by the Rule of Disguise Rule the Third or throw the disgrace of it upon his Adversaries by the Rule of Company or Recrimination Rule the Second or prove it no shameful Practice by the Rule of putting Cases Rule the Fifth or take off from the Odiousness of it by the Rule of Extenuation Rule the Fourth and if none of all these help him in his Distress he has his first Rule the Rule of Assurance which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which he will outface the Matter in re malâ animo si utare bono juvat ut nihil suprà But after all these helpful Rules of his Ecclesiastical-Polity Common-place-Book as a Friend I would advise him to consider whether he be concern'd in that of St. Paul to Timothy If any Man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesom Words even the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the Doctrine which is according to Godliness He is proud knowing nothing but doting about Questions and strifes of Words whereof cometh Envy Strife Railings evil Surmisings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strife of Words Erasmus notes quod Interpres Graecus dixerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which but for the tried and known Loyalty and Orthodoxy of the Dean I would render seditious Reasonings To return from this long Digression if such it be for though it is off from the Postscript yet not altogether beside the Matter The Dean justly and truly observes that Mr. H w's Three Spirits and Essences and Individual Natures which make up the Unity of the Godhead as he has represented it do not seem to be Infinite for that which Three become by being united not any one of them can be suppos'd to be consider'd by himself If each cannot be consider'd by himself then the Three cannot be distinguish'd if each can be consider'd by himself each must be consider'd as not wholly the same with all the Three in Union But the Dean forgetfully and untruly says that he allows but One Divine Essence and One individual Nature for not to take notice of that pitiful Nonsense One Divine Nature repeated in Three Persons without Multiplication P. 91. of his Self-Defence he has these express words The Dean knows no Divine Substance or Essence distinct from the three Divine Persons but that the Essence makes the Person What he means by the Essence makes the Person I do not well know but 't is most manifest that if a Divine Essence and a Divine Person be the same without distinction that then there are as many Essences as Persons and Persons as Essences nor more nor less In my mind Three Divine Essences are too many by two he had better lose two Persons than be overstor'd with Divine Essences for one Divine Essence and one Divine Person is enough for any truly honest and religious Man When the Dean declares that to own Three Esserces and Three individual Natures in the Godhead without making Three Gods seems to have some Difficulty methinks he seems to fear Difficulty methinks he seems to fear that the same may be said of his Three Minds But as I have above noted Three single Essences he can admit of and they will go for Three individual Essences with any Man that has a thinking Mind and no mysterious By-cause to serve Mr. H w having said in his Sober Enquiry that the Dean's Hypothesis left out the very Nexus that should unite the Three Persons and that mutual Consciousness between Two or Three Spirits will not constitute them one Thing The Dean answers him with studied Respect to his Rule of Disguise Mutual Consciousness says he is not a Mutual Inspection or Insight into one another but a feeling each other in themselves But for my part I hate a Disguise and therefore I will make as bold with him as he with the Unitarians and if he will not give me leave I will take leave to pull it off Mutual Consciousness says he is not a Mutual Perspection or Insight into another but a Feeling each other in themselves Now I will prove that it is both a Seeing and Feeling nay and a knowing too each other in themselves Def. p. 73. Persons essentially one by Mutual Consciousness do see and know and feel each other in themselves as every single individual Mind seels its own Thoughts and Passions If the Dean will except against this Author there 's an End of my Argument but I think he has more Veneration for him than so Now by this which I have here observ'd I do see and feel and know that the Dean's study is not to frame an Answer to his Adversary's Objection agreeable to his first Explanation of his barbarous Terms but to say what is necessary to be said for the putting by a pressing unmannerly Objection whether it agree with his Explanation or not And then again it is worth noting he is pleased to call a Feeling each other in themselves by which he defines Mutual Consciousness an internal
the Creator Father as the Redeemer Son as Sanctifier the Holy Ghost the Socinians say for Peace sake they can endure this but then they also say 't is a harsh Way of speaking and in my Judgment off from the Question for suppose that some Trinitarians could part with the personal Deity of the Holy Ghost yet they are all pertinaciously zealous for this impossible Piece of the Mystery that Jesus Christ is one and the same God with his eternal Father and then though they may perhaps sometimes think good to shelter themselves under the Prosession of One God for various Reasons variously denominated yet they cannot compound the Controversy about Three Persons for Three Attributes Jesus Christ is a Person and I think they all make him one in the Trinity and they may as well make three Persons to be one God as two and as well some other number as three The Dean egregiously mistakes one thing viz. that the Socinians are afraid of the Hypothesis of Three Divine Persons each of which is God but I will assure him 't is no such thing though they are asham'd of it 't is so infinitely absurd and manifestly impossible they need not be afraid of it for Reason will never recommend it only Persecution may fright them from examining it who were bred up to it On Mr. H w's Letter in reply to the Postscript Nec quenquam jam ferre potest Caesárve priorem Pompeiusve parem Could Caesar and Pompey have agreed to share Empire between them they might have manag'd Rome and the World as they pleas'd but Pompey proud of his early Fame and long Prosperity would needs be uppermost while Caesar's Success against the Gauls prompted him to endure no Superiour so they divided their Interests the Event was Caesar was too hard for Pompey by his Valour Brutus and Cassius by their Treachery too hard for Caesar Would Mr. H w and Dean Sherlock agree to share the Honour of explaining the mysterious Doctrine of the Trinity between them it would be a great stroke towards perswading Church-men and Dissenters to Orthodox Tritheism but as ill-luck will have it to the Prejudice of every Diotrephes whether of Church or Tabernacle the Dean is pertinacious for his Hypothesis there must be Three distinct Minds in one Numerical Godhead or no Trinity and Mr. H w that could be contented to have his Scheme admitted as possible cannot endure to have it set by as Heresy So they expose one another to the scoffing Railery of Theists and Atheists to the Scandal of weak and to the Contempt of wise and good Men. This appears on the Dean's part from what I have said in my Examination of his Postscript and will appear from what I have to say on Mr. H w's Letter Mr. H w reduces the Dispute between him and the Dean to these two Heads 1. Whether the Enquirer has said more than the Dean or more than is defensible of the Distinction of the sacred Three in the Godhead 2. Whether the Dean hath said so much as the Enquirer or so much as was requisite of their Union Of the first I affirm they have both said more than is defensible there is indeed some Difference in the Sound of their Terms but their Sense on both Sides is equally Absurd and Tritheistical Three Minds and Spirits Three Essences and individual Natures if every of them is suppos'd to have all Divine Perfections every of them is suppos'd to be a True God and all of them to be Three Gods One and the same is the Hypothesis of these two angry Writers only varigated with different Terms of Art They catch and cavil at one another for some little By-sayings or Omissions but return not one wise word to the plain Arguments wherewith they condemn one another for Tritheists They are mutually self-conscious of their Pagan Error and that suppresses the Pride of their Hearts so when they fain would raise their Voices to a triumphal Jö all they can reach is I will vindicate Three Minds from being Three Gods as well as you Three Natures and I will assert Three Natures to be but One God as well as you Three Minds Before I read Mr. H w's Letter I could not have imagin'd that he would have rivall'd his insolent Adversary in this weak Absurdity but I see an indefensible Cause will shame a Man of excellent Parts and high Provocation put a calm Enquirer beside his Temper For thus p. the 7th Mr. H w denying the Charge of having expresly said and extenuating his having implied that the sacred Three are Three distinct Substances is content with this sorry Reply There is somewhat more considerable in the Notion of Substance according whereto if the Dean can make a shift to avoid the having of any inconvenient thing prov'd upon him by consequence I hope the Enquirer may find a Way to escape as well Mr. H w never rose above hoping well of his Hypothesis here he seems to despair and the mysterious Article may go where it will if his Honour be but as safe as the Dean's Indeed it is a reasonable Desire to escape but as well as the Dean and it is ill luck if he does not yet I believe he is not like to escape much better neither The Dean in his Self-defence takes the Confidence to affirm that he allows but one Divine Essence one Individual Nature in the Godhead Mr. H w is content to intimate that he believes the Dean has said the contrary in his Vindication I am sure on 't and shall make bold to point to one notorious Place it is p. 47. there he teaches that the Divine Persons are substantial Beings and that if each Person be God each Person has a real Being a real Nature and Essence of his own This is enough a conscience Three distinct Persons with each his real Nature must needs make Three real Natures and if each Person is God each Nature is God for 't is the intelligent Nature which constitutes the Person and then there be three Natures which three Natures are three Gods To the Dean professing to own but one Divine Essence Mr. H w slightly objects that the contrary appears from his Hypermetaphyfical Fancy upon that Passage The Son is the express Image of his Father for the Dean descants that the Image and the Prototype must be distinct and two in number and he illustrates it by the Similitude of the Man and his living Image which must needs make two Men if there be such a thing as a living Image of a Man and if there be not who can help it 't is no fault of his And after all may not an impossible Supposition to use Mr. H w's Phrase though it does not come to the Matter yet serve to free our Minds and disentangle them from being under a necessity to conceive things to be after such a manner as will be found to differ nothing from Socinian Heresy But enough of the Dean's
nauseous Nonsensical Meraphysicks Mr. H w spares the Dean upon his Distinction between one individual Nature and one single Nature only throws him one Pun to confound him if the Divine Nature be not a single Nature it must be a double a triple c. and then concludes fairly that the Dean has asserted Three Divine Natures unless all ordinary forms of Speech must be abandon'd and forsaken and I will be bound to dispute this Cause with either of them ay and let them change the ordinary forms of Speech of which the one is as guilty as the other provided they will define their new Forms and in their Discourse keep to their own Definitions As Mr. H w tells the Dean if the Divine Nature is not a single then 't is a double c. so I tell him if the Divine Nature is not simple it is compound and so the Dean and he may shake Hands But Mr. H w desires it may be noted that there is this great Difference between him and the Dean The Dean speaks positively dogmatically and proudly whereas he Mr. H. does but suppose what he says as possible not certain the two last words had been better omitted and by the way for him to endeavour to prove his Hypothesis possible is to suppose it uncertain Well 't is granted there is such a sort of Difference between him and the Dean Mr. H w has a Passion for the Article Mr. Dean for his Exposition of it Mr. H w does what he can to make out the Matter he would give any thing it were made out ay though it were by his Adversary he hopes it will be made out though he is afraid not by himself but the Dean positively affirms that the Doctrine is plainly true after his particular Manner and he ridicules all his Brethren who being equally concern'd for it would take up with any lower sort of Trinity than a Trinity of Three distinct Minds P. 13. Mr. H w comes to examine whether the Dean has said as much for the salving the Unity of the Godhead as himself the Enquirer and he rightly notes all that the Dean has said is Mutual-consciousness but what he supposes against its Sufficiency to salve the Unity of the Godhead is as weak as the Dean could wish Three intelligent Persons as Mr. H. argues must be pre-united before they can have vital Perception of one another's Sensations But the Dean supposes the Three Persons in the Trinity eternally united and eternally Self-conscious that indeed is as wild a Supposal as a Visionair can make but the Dean is us'd to suppose impossible things and Mr. H. not us'd to argue well against them Mutual-consciousness will never come up to do service and credit the Trinitarians common Dream of Essential Union for should we suppose that Three distinct intelligent Spirits are conscious to one another's Thoughts yet they will still remain Three distinct intelligent Spirits and not one intelligent Spirit their Knowledg of one another and perfect Harmony will come to no more than a Socinian Unity an Unity of Agreement a knowing and willing the same things and so far as I see the Doctor 's Hypothesis is not pure from Heresy for all his Three Gods P. 16. Mr. H comes to consider over again his own way of maintaining the Unity of the Godhead and to defend it against the Dean but first he premises what I must reflect upon he says the Dean's Temper of Mind in what he writes p. 105 c. is such that no Man whose Mind is not in the same Disorder will apprehend any thing in it but such Heat as dwells in Darkness i. e. devilish Heat Mr. H w's Calmness is not so senslesly dull as to oblige him to die in the Dean's Debt This was a rude Stroke but in the next Line he stabs him with a clean and artificial Sarcasm The Dean had gracefully began his Letter thus True Divine Wisdom rests not on an ill-natur'd and perverse Spirit I understand it says H w while the ill Fit lasts So Joab hugg'd Abner when he smote him under the fifth Rib This was enough a Conscience Mr. H needed not have wonder'd that the Dean could write that excellent Saying without Self-reflection So Ovid spoil'd Omnia pontus erat with deerant quoque littora Ponto P. 17. Mr. H w speaks thus The thing to be reveng'd is that the Enquirer did freely speak his Thoughts wherein he judg'd the Dean's Hypothesis defective his not taking notice of what he reckon'd naturally Antecedent and fundamental to Mutual Consciousness a most intimate natural necessary eternal Union of the Sacred Three Now it is true that it is not safe to make too bold with the Dean or his Hypothesis nemo illum impunè But if a Man shall find fault with him who takes as little Care as the Dean to write nothing amiss he must expect to be ill us'd and to say the truth he deserves it But what is that which the Dean should have taken notice of and did not Why the intimate natural necessary eternal Vnion of the Sacred Three Now I am of the mind that the Dean looks upon his Mutual Consciousness as the intimate natural necessary eternal Union according to him the Sacred Three ever were and could not but be thus united and therefore they might again shake Hands if there were nothing but the Philosophy of the Mystery between them But since they will not be Friends I that am a stander by will see fair Play It seems the Dean had objected that the Enquirer represents the Unity of the Godhead by the Vnion of Soul and Body and by the Vnion of the Divine and Humane Nature c. Mr. H w confesses he partly does so but more fully by the supposed Union of Three created Spirits Now if ever Mer that pretended to Reason discours'd more senselesly than both the one and the other of these Disputants they shall burn me for an Heretic They both confess that there is no exact Representation no perfect Example of any such Union in Nature and yet they will be representing it over and over again sometimes by a Tree and its Branches sometimes by the Sun and its Light sometimes by a Mind and its Faculties sometimes by Body and Soul and that nothing may be wanting in them toward the representation of it they represent it at length by that which is not an Essential Union of a Divine and Humane Nature and by a supposed Union of Three distinct created Spirits The Dean as I have above noted has told us that the proper and natural Signification of Words will not reach the Mystery Then if he were not very much at leisure he would not make words about it for his Readers must judg of what he writes by the proper and natural signification of his words or be content to be ignorant of his meaning for he has not and I guess will not publish an English Glossary to settle his improper unnatural
Goodness prepar'd his way to make a natural Trinity in Unity of them In truth any Man might have guess'd so as well as the Dean But the Enquirer tells us his Discourse was never intended to terminate in such a Trinity tho it seems plausible or not absurd It is a great Fall from possible to not absurd and then that it only seems not absurd is another great Fall Why did Mr. H concern himself with such an Hypothesis an Hypothesis of so ill a Nature Why he did it to disentangle Mens Minds from an apprehended necessity of conceiving the Three Attributes to be One and the same Thing A Proposition that only seems only not absurd is no very fine Argument to disentangle Mens Minds from Error but to let that pass who are they that apprehend a Necessity of conceiving the Three Attributes to be One and the same Thing Not the Unitarians he knows it none that ever wrote for he challenges the Dean to name that Writer that does not distinguish them at least ratione ratiocinatâ in contradistinction to ratiocinate let him no more than preface his Discourse with this natural Trinity in Unity unless he designs to disentangle the Dean's Mind with it and if so let him make his best on 't Upon his Success I will promise him Egregiam laudem magnum memorabile nomen He cannot get much more by freeing the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Difficulties in which it is entangled P. 26. Mr. H w teaches that the Son is from the Father by necessary eternal Promanation the Holy Spirit from Father and Son and that the Three most celebrated Attributes though I know not why Truth and Justice should not be celebrated as much as they are necessary Emanations con-natural to their Original Now all this must be taken in the unnatural improper theological Meaning of the Words which what it is none but the Sons of Art know and 't is against their Rule to make it common But from the proper natural Meaning of the Words the Wit of Man cannot make out an intelligible agreeable Proposition If Mr. H. thinks otherwise let him try and define what Promanation is what Emanation what Procession c. if he has any Idea in his Mind of what those Words signify he may desine them if he has no such Idea then let him confess himself beholding to the Dean who teaches a puzzled Trinitarian to rest his Terms upon a Theological Bottom But methinks the People are very hardly us'd when they are requir'd to believe Mysteries which will endure no Explanation but in Words that are to be taken in a Sense which neither they can find out nor will their Teachers tell them But I recal my self I think the People are not put to such hard Terms of Communion but Preachers only nay whether they are or no I am not positively certain for Assent and Consint may be as well interpreted cum grano salis in this Matter as it is generally in some other and as for the damnatory Clause at the End of one odd Creed very few are of that strong Stomach and Unchristian Temper as not to be sick and asham'd of it In the three next Leaves I meet with nothing but barbarous Stuff about Composition between the two Antagonists On which all I shall note is that the Dean puts a word or two out of joint which is no great matter in such a perplext Dispute and Mr. H. falls upon that and thence takes occasion to overlook the Intention and Force of his Adversary's Argument Mr. H. p. 33. brings in the Dean disputing against the Hypothesis of Three distinct Essences Natures Minds Spirits necessarily and eternally united in the Divine Being after this manner God is eternal and unmade but whatever has Three such Essences in it must have a Maker Mr. H. is the less concern'd for this Argument because it does the Dean's Business as well as his but concern'd for the Cause more than the Dean and therefore he will rub it off as well as he can and so he defies the Dean to prove that there is any Inconsistency between a Thing 's having Three distinct Essences naturally and necessarily united in it and its being eternal and unmade To this the Dean might answer whether consonant to his Hypothesis or no that troubles not me nor perhaps when he comes to answer will it affect him Be it granted that the Terms naturally and necessarily united are not inconsistent with those other eternal and unmade for Wisdom Power and Goodness I will add Justice and Truth are naturally and necessarily united in God and also eternal and unmade but then Three distinct Essences cannot be naturally and necessarily united and yet eternal and unmade because the Maker of all things is one Essence one single Essence and cannot possibly consist of Three distinct Essences which is Composition and that appears because the Three distinct Essences must either be suppos'd every of them God in an adequate Sense or only in an unadequate Sense Three distinct Essences each of which is God in an adequate Sense are without Contradiction Three Gods and Three distinct Essences two of which are God only in an inadequate Sense are in a just and true Sense less than God and what is less than God cannot be essentially united to him but does depend upon him and was made by him If there can be such Things as Three distinct Essences naturally and necessarily united they must then as the Dean said have a Maker and must differ in Union from what they were in Distinction as the Whole does from a Part or else must be one and three three and one in one and the same respect P. 34 and 35. Mr. H. strives not to understand the Dean which he ought not to do because the Dean is so oft not to be understood let who will strive to understand him but Mr. H. is to be excus'd because that which he is not willing to understand he is not able to answer In short all that I shall here offer is if Mr. H. determines that every of the Three Persons in his Trinity are adequately compleatly fully perfectly God then it is plain that his Trinity is a Trinity not of Persons only but of Gods also and if he determines that no one by himself but all Three together are perfect God then his Three Persons and Natures are no better nor worse but the Parts of a Composition as the Dean calls them and finite Parts as all things must be called whereof no one is perfect God will never make an infinite Composition which Truth though very obvious came not into my Mind till I read a Paper of that great Man's the Author of the Considerations P. 36. Mr. H. will not admit that the Three Persons are of a different Kind or Nature but that they differ only in Number that is as much as to say that they are all Three eternal which in terminis was too
the Writer suggests to us the Reason of that Appellation viz. the Dignity and Power bestowed on him by the Father For which reason also Moses Solomon and others are dignified with the same honourable Appellation Plainly told of Three that are each of them God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How hard a thing is it when a Man is engag'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to serve a Cause to make a Conscience of what he affirms We are indeed as he truly notes plainly told of Three and some things are spoken of each which cannot be truly spoken of all but this only proves that the Three cannot be essentially the same so that if any One of them be truly God the other two must be Creatures Mr. H is strangely rash to affirm that the Scripture plainly tells us of Three distinct Persons each of which is God for had that been true this Controversy had never been It is as Mr. H. judges easier to count Three than to determine of Infiniteness But then how bold is he to determine of the One as he does and how unlucky is he in counting the other for he determines that each of the Three distinct Persons are the Infinite God sometimes perhaps he uses abating Expressions and he counts God the Father God the Son God the Holy Ghost for One God The Dean had argued that if all Three Persons by Composition are but one God neither of them by himself is true and perfect God Which invidious Consequence he charges Mr. H to have own'd Mr. H replies that this is most untruly said and that for his part he denies both Antecedent and Consequent too If Mr. H can indulge himself to deny in one place what he has affirm'd in another he shall always have something to say for himself whatsoever is said against him but the Dean's Charge was honest for Calm Disc p. 47. Mr. H writes thus Father Son and Holy Spirit being suppos'd necessarily existent in this united State they cannot but be God Instead now of Composition put in the word together in the Dean's Argument and then surely Mr. H will not be so hardy as to deny the Antecedent and still the Consequence holds witness the good Man's next words When you predieate Godhead or the Name of God of any One of them you express an inadequate Conception of God And pray what is that but a half Conception of God a Conception short of what God is Indeed Mr. H did put in another Epither and with that his Phrase sounds thus A true but inadequate Conception But that is a Contradiction in Terms for a true Conception of a thing is an adequate full Conception of it and an inadequate Conception is not a true One What follows p. 41 and 42. is nothing but a sensless Stir concerning a Similitude of the Trinity which they both have us'd and both confess'd nothing to the purpose Mr. H says He brought the Union of Soul and Body not to illustrate Personal Union but Essential and yet his Business was to prove it possible that Three Persons might become one God So then by his Confession when he was to prove his Point he talk'd off from the Matter as many a fluent Orator has done that he might not lose but puzzle the Cause and so save it P. 42. Mr. H plays upon the Dean with scoffing Sarcasms But to his Argument returns nothing but plain dull Falshood or rather Theological Banter 1st He says that the Dean to make out something against him foists in a Supposition which never came into any Man's Head but a Socinian's and his own This is by a Rhetorical Hendiadis to call him a Socinian as if the Dean had wrote his Vindication of the Trinity to no purpose But herein Mr. H does him manifest wrong for on my Conscience he is no Socinian now whatever he may have been formerly But Mr. H has a Plaister for the Wound which that Imputation gives He said what he said if we will believe him contradistinguishing the Dean to the Socinians that so it might appear more strange that the Dean should foist in a Socinian Supposition Thus the Dean is excus'd from being a Socinian and to mend the Matter set out for a Man of no Conscience who being in truth an Anti-Socinian yet argues against Mr. H by virtue of a Socinian Supposition and that foisted in too Mr. H will not bate him a jot of being a Foister I see the Calm Enquirer is no Angel for he brings against the Dean a railing Accusation which is more than Michael did against the Devil a worse Creature than Dr. Sherlock by a great deal Come we now to the Supposition it self said to be foisted If God be a Person he can be but One. Now this Socinian Supposition or Argument or whatever it be does not look like a very unreasonable One and if the Dean should be ashamed of it because it is said to be Socinian he may for the same Reason be ashamed of the most unexceptionable things which he ever wrote But where 's the Foisting If Mr. H. did not say that God was a Person may not the Dean suppose it and argue from it Dares Mr. H. deny it Indeed he dares but with as empty metaphysical Pretence as can be imagin'd The Name of God says he is the Name of the Essence not the distinguishing Name of a Person This is perfect Theological Banter empty Words to which he cannot fix an intelligible Meaning But if Person signify an intelligent Being as both these Antagonists admit then the Essence and Person of God cannot be distinguish'd but are of the same Import then the Name of God is the Name of that Person or Intelligent Being which is God And if God be but one God then there is but one Person or Intelligent Being which is God Mr. H. pursues his Reasoning thus If Three Intelligent Natures be united in one Deity each will be Persons he should have said a Person and each will be God and all will be one God I grant it for Dato uno absurdo sequuntur mille Let me try my skill If Three Intelligent Natures may be united in One then Two may be so united and then the Dean will be Mr. H. and Mr. H. the Dean each will be a Trinitarian and both will be one Trinitarian The truth is nor Three nor Two Intelligent Natures can be united into One the same Intelligent Nature Nor can Mr. H. and the Dean be united into the same Man they come indeed close up to one another and are together by the Ears but they can never be united into One. Mr. H. thinks it makes for him tho I know not which way that he hath as Divines commonly do stil'd the Father Fons Trinitatis What is the Theological Sense of that Phrase I am not able to say the plain Sense is that a Trinity of Gods flow from the Father and Three and One makes Four unless some other Mystery forbid To