conditions he there mentions But there is one thing here especially to be noted that several Expressions are rejected by the Fathers of the Church not that they are absolutely uncapable of an Orthodox sense but because they are apt to lead to a false or Heritical sense as for instance In Trinitate datur alius alius sed non aliud aliud The rigid'st of the School-men allow aliud aliud suppositum in Trinitate the Axiom is understood of aliud in an Arian sense of aliud naturâ Again If ever it be lawful to use a new Phrase in this Mystery it will then be lawful when the antient allowed Phrases are rendred in a manner insignificant when three Persons are Expounded by three somewhat 's or are declared to be Metaphorical This seems to me to be the case of the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls by three Persons in this Mystery says he are to be understood three intelligent Beings Vindication of the Trin. p. 66. l. 24. three distinct Infinite Minds to say they are three Divine Persons and not three Infinite Minds is Heritical and absurd that is contains the Heresy of Sabellius and contradicts the Scripture which as the Reverend Dean observes represents Father ibid. Son and Holy Ghost as three Intelligent Beings not as three Powers or Faculties of the same Being which is downright Sabellianism The Animadvertor laying hold on the Novelty of the Phrase of three Infinite Minds took occasion to Write and Publish one of the most spiteful and malicious Books that perhaps ever saw the Sun For he is not content to note That this is a Phrase difused by the Church but he calls it a silly Heretical Notion Pref. p. 3. ibib p. 2. solely of his own invention a notion immediately and unavoidably inferring three Gods and p. 376. a Monstrous Assertion by which he holds and affirms the three Divine Persons to be three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits which I the Animadverter shew unavoidably and irrefragably inferr'd them to be three Gods Now that I may render these Papers more useful to my Reader I shall enquire into the reason why the Church refused several Phrases in this Mystery in what sense the same Phrase was allowed and in what other it was disallowed and more particularly have an Eye to the Animadvertor's Objections against the Phrase of three Infinite Minds It being certain both from Phylosophy and Religion P. 116. l. 5. n. 2. That there is but one only God or Godhead in which Christian Religion has taught us that there are three Persons It is ominous to stumble at the Threshold these two Terms God and Godhead are formally distinct and therefore ought not to be Confounded Every thing which may be affirmed of one of these Terms cannot with equal Truth and Propriety be always affirmed of the other The Christian Religion has taught us That there are Three Persons in the Godhead or in the words of the first Article of our Church in the Unity of the Godhead For the Unity of the Godhead and the Unity of the Trinity are equipollent Articles and there are certainly Three Persons in the Trinity in the Unity of the Trinity But if we take this term God as distinct from Godhead we can by no means say That there are three Persons in God or in one God The Christian Religion compels us to acknowledge that each distinct Person is God which would be impossible if there were three Persons in God For how can that Person be God which wants something which is in God for each distinct Person has not three Persons in him Hence the 11th Council of Toledo Nec rectè dici potest ut in uno Deo sit Trinitas with the Animadvertor's leave the Heretick Sabellius and not the Christian Religion taught this Article that there are three Persons in one God It had been to be wished P. 116. l. 12. n. 3. I confess That Divines had rested in the bare Expressions delivered in Scripture concerning this Mystery and ventured no farther by any particular and bold Explication of it But since the Nature or rather Humor of Man has still been too strong for his Duty and his Curiosity especially in things Sacred been apt to carry him too far those however have been all along the most Pardonable who have ventured least and proceeded upon the surest grounds both of Scripture it self and Reason Discoursing upon it Does the Animadvertor consider the import of those Words of resting in the bare expressions delivered in Scripture If I understand them they forbid the shortest Paraphrase they except not the most necessary Vindication of the Scripture Expressions from the false interpretations of Hereticks Again Is this the best Defence the Animadvertor can give for the Fathers of the Church who have not only exceeded the bare Expressions delivered in Scripture but expressed their Faith of this Mysterious Article by Sundry extrascriptural terms such as Trinity Person Hypostasis Substance Essence Consubstantial c. Was this only a wanton Humour in them an Humor too strong for their Duty a Curiosity which carried them too far Was this a fault and crime tho a pardonable one When it served the Animadvertor's design against the Reverend Dean these extrascriptural Terms were neither ambiguous faulty nor improper Animadv c. p. 147. l. 3. but much the contrary though now he condemns the Inventors of them as acting contrary to their Duty All are in some measure faulty even those who have ventured least those who have proceeded upon the surest grounds both of Scripture it self and of Reason discoursing upon it which I am satisfied is his own notion and not an over-wise one that we cannot escape a fault even where we proceed upon the surest Grounds not where we proceed upon the surest Grounds both of Scripture and Reason The Arians of old and the Socinians of late and some favourers of them or who otherwise occultum virus fovent in the words of Calvin have embraced some False and Heretical Notion of this Mystery are very angry with the extra scriptural Terms used by the Church in this Mystery But the Apology which the Nicene Fathers made for themselves was That the Arians and other Hereticks were the occasion of it these Hereticks Equivocated in the sense and meaning of the bare Scripture Expressions and the more ancient and simple Phrases of the Church so that the Church was obliged to use new Expressions to detect the Frauds of subtle and cunning Hereticks The Church chose not these Terms to express a new Faith by to say more than the Scripture had said but to say that in short which the Scripture had scatteringly delivered in several places And such I affirm the ancient Writers and Fathers of the Church Ibid. and after them the School-men to have been who with all their faults or rather infelicities caused by the times and circumstances they lived in are better
account of the Divine Attributes by Essence and a Mode is this in his own Words Ibid. The constant unanimously received Doctrine of Divines School-men and Metaphysitians in their Discourses upon God Can a Reader unacquainted with these Debates believe that by the constant unanimously received Doctrine of Divines School-men and Metaphysitians we are to understand the single Aninmadverter alone and yet that is the truth So p. 51. l. 3. he with the same confidence and something else tells us That all Divines hitherto have looked upon and professedly treated of the Divine Nature and Attributes as different and distinct from one another still considering the first as the Subject and the other as the Adjuncts of it What must we say when a Person shall set up for a Critick in the most mysterious Article of our Religion and himself understands not the first Elements of Divinity Did any Divine before himself compound God of Subject and Adjunct Did any Divine before himself assert that Holiness Goodness Truth Knowledge Eternity c. were Adjuncts in God Does he know what an Adjunct is Quod alicui preter essentiam adjungitur something added conjoyned to the Essence of a Being Do not all Divines teach That the Divine Attributes may be predicated in abstracto of God God is his Wisdom his Power his Goodness but a Subject cannot be so predicated of its Adjunct But I am ashamed of confuting so weak a Notion yet our Animadverter has the Face to say That without this Notion it is impossible to discourse intelligibly of the Divine Attributes Ibid. p. 217. P. 223 Qu. 3. n. 27. What is the Substance or Nature of God I answer It is a Being existing of and by it self Incorporeal Infinite Eternal Omniscient Omnipotent c. The Animadverter triumphs over this and some other questions the Reverend Dean had made as easie and trifling for that is the natural Sense of calling them not so very formidable c. But I conceive that he mistook the Reverend Dean's Mind in asking this question which probably was What Notion we can frame in our Minds of the Substance of God of an infinite immaterial Substance However I shall wave that and tell him That he has extremely failed in the answer of this easie Question First When he tells us that the Nature of God is a Being God is properly called a Being but his Nature ought to be stiled an Essence and not a Being when we speak properly and according to the formal Conception of things Secondly To be a Being existing of it self is not of the Nature or Essence of God otherwise the Son and Holy Spirit are not each of them God for certainly neither the Son nor Holy Spirit exist of themselves to be a Being existing of it self is a personal property of the Father alone Thirdly Existing by it self is but an explication of being an Hypostasis or Suppositum which indeed agrees to Father Son and Holy Ghost but yet by the Consent of sober Divines is not esteemed an essential Predication and consequently ought not to be put into the Definition of God Fourthly Incorporeal Infinite c. are Attributes that is according to the Animadverter Adjuncts to the Essence or Nature of God how come they therefore to make up part of the Definition of the Nature of God But I am tired and have reason to believe my Reader so with the observation of the Animadverter's Mistakes and therefore I have omitted very many I did observe and doubtless a more attentive Reader would find many which escaped my notice The Animadverter in this Book has concern'd himself chiefly with three Articles Christ's Satisfaction His Incarnation and the Doctrine of the Trinity and I do not find upon the strictest Search that he understands any one of them Concerning the last of these Articles the Reader cannot have a clearer Proof than by Examination of the Animadverter's eighth Chapter wherein he professedly endeavours to lay down the positive Faith of the Church concerning this Article CHAP. VII I judge it neither improper nor unusefull to represent what the Church has hitherto held and taught concerning this important Article of the Trinity p. 240. l. 2. n. 1. as I find it in Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern Make room for this mighty Man keep silence and learn what Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern have taught in this important Article Goliath himself was not more compleatly armed Cap-a-pee but Goliath wanted little David's Sling he came not in the name of the Lord. And it seems this great Opiniator has forgot his Bible behind him quite forgot Christ and his twelve Apostles in the Crowd of Fathers and School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern Shall I need to remind this great Critick that if Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern have determined I will not say against but without a sufficient Foundation of Scripture their determination is no rule of a Protestant's Faith Article 8. Our Church receives the Creeds themselves because they may be proved by most certain Warrants of Holy Scripture I acknowledge it a great Confirmation of my Faith as to this Article that Councils and Fathers have explained the Scriptures in the same Sense in which I believe them The Ecclesiastical Phrases and Forms of Speech are very usefull to detect aequivocating Hereticks or as they speak in short what the Scriptures deliver in several places or as they are Arguments ad homines to those who acknowledge their Authority p. 240. l. 14. n. 2. Now the commonly received Doctrine of the Church and Schools concerning the Blessed Trinity so far as I can judge but still with the humblest Submission to the Judgment of the Church of England in the Case is this That the Christian Religion having laid this sure Foundation that there is but one God and that there is nothing i. e. no positive real Being strictly and properly so called in God but what is God and lastly That there can be no Composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being distinct from the Deity it self and yet the Church finding in Scripture mention of three to whom distinctly the God-head does belong it has by warrant of the same Scripture Heb. 1.3 expressed these three by the Name of Persons and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence allotted to one and the same God-head and these also distinguished from one another by three distinct Relations First The Complement is very high to the Church of England that he will submit the Faith which he finds in Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern to the Judgment of the Church of England but whom does the Animadverter mean by the Church of England this is his Character of the Churchmen the Clergy of the Church of England in
except Innascibility or the property of being unbegotten which notifies not a difference of Essence or a different essential Dignity but a personal Property even as Adam being unbegotten for he was immediately formed by God and Seth begotten for he was the Son of Adam and Eve proceeding out of the side of Adam for she was not begotten differ not in Nature for they are all Men or human Persons but in a distinct personal Property These words need no Comment Seth's Birth and Eve's Procession of the Rib of Adam are not their Personalities not their Modes of Subsistence but their personal Properties not that which constituted them Persons but that which distinguished them in our Conception one from another that which constituted them distinct Persons one from another Besides the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not of it self capable of any other Interpretation to be unbegotten a negation See Ch. 2. n. 10. can never be the Father's Mode of Subsistence his Personality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the Animadverter is a term not importing in it any positive Relation but only a meer Negation of all Producibility by any superior Principle Anim. c. p. 248. This term therefore cannot signifie causally and consequently not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here stiled contrary to the Animadverter's Observation I acknowledge to the Animadverter that every Person Ibid p. 250 251. and consequently the Divine Persons are formally constituted such by a Mode of Subsistence or what we are obliged to conceive of as a Mode of Subsistence that is each distinct Person has a distinct Mode of Subsistence and the three Divine Persons have in our Conception three distinct Modes of Subsistence Nay I will add further that I believe that no Man who understands the meaning of the term Hypostasis and uses it without Aequivocation will or can deny any part of this The Reverend Dean expresly acknowledges this truth A Beast is a Suppositum Vind. of the Trinity p. 262. that is a distinct living subsisting Being by it self But I do here deny to the Animadverter that the Ancient Fathers did ever assert that the Divine Relations were in this proper formal Sense Modes of Subsistence or that That Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applied to the Divine Relations and much more when applied to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was by them understood in the proper formal Sense of which we are now enquiring Secondly If the Animadverter could get over the first Difficulty Anim. c. p. 120. he would find a second behind how one simple Being which is the Animadverter's Hypothesis of the Trinity can have three Modes of Subsistence The whole School of the Thomists and Scotists assert an absolute essential Subsistence and consequently one Subsistence of the whole Trinity they esteem the three Divine Persons to be unum subsistens unum suppositum aut personam incompletam says Cajetan one of the most famous Commentators upon Aquinas to which Suarez only replies Suarez de incar q 3. Act. 1. disp 11. S. 5. p. 285. Cavendus est hic loquendi modus utpote alienus à modo loquendi conciliorum Patrum Theologorum that is have a care lest Hereticks hear us and take advantage at such a novel Expression otherwise Suarez finds no fault with the Doctrine and indeed to say That Existence or Subsistence by it self is Relative is a contradiction to the very Phrase Subsistence by it self denies all relation to any other So that according to the Thomists and Scotists the three Personalities are not three Modes of Subsistence not three Subsistences but one essential absolute Subsistence with three Relations or three relative Modes or three Modes of Incommunicability But of this I have already spoke Chap. 1. n. 11 12 13. Thirdly To allot three Subsistences to the God-head is to contradict the Ancients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Properties are not Names of the Essence of the God-head but of the Persons The God head does not properly subsist but the Divine Persons subsist Cajetan may inform the Animadverter what is the consequence of ascribing Subsistence to the God-head even the same with calling it a suppositum or incompleat Person where the term incompleat is only added to avoid the grossness of the Phrase otherwise they ascribe all the Divine Acts to this unum subsistens unum suppositum and call them essential Acts whereas the Notion of Philosophers is that actiones non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attribuuntur that Actions ought not to be attributed to the Nature but to the Person endowed with such Nature The Person is the principium quod Nature only the principium quo the power by which the Person acteth The School-men retain in words the personal Acts of the Divine Persons that Generation is the personal Act of the Father Incarnation the personal Act of the Son Sanctification the personal Act of the Holy Spirit Active Spiration the personal Act of the Father and Son But these are meer words Generation according to the School-men is the reflex Act of the Divine Understanding whereby it knows it self and this singular individual Act they ascribe in common to Father Son and Holy Ghost So every thing that is an Act in Incarnation is according to them the Act of the whole Trinity they pretend indeed that the same singular reflex Act of the Divine Understanding only generates as it proceeds from the Person of the Father and that the Incarnation is only terminated upon the Person of the Son But what Pretence to invent for Sanctification I do not find that they are yet agreed The sacred Scriptures give Sanctification for the distinguishing Character of the third Person he is so called in the very Form of Baptism to deny this distinguishing Character was Sabellianism to the Ancients Yet this the School-men have undeniably done in the Act of Sanctification The Maxim of the Ancients was that Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa They have not only misconstrued indivisa for confusa but in reality left out the Exception ad extra and confounded the Actions ad intra as well as those ad extra So Spiration to the School-men is that Act of the Divine Will whereby it loves it self and this singular individual Act they also ascribe to the Holy Spirit equally with the Father and the Son Only say they The Divine Will 's loving it self is not Spiration in the Person of the Holy Ghost but only in the Person of the Father and Son How much better is it with the Ancient Fathers to confess these to be inscrutable Mysteries than to expose the sacred Article by such bold and abstruse Definitions and yet these are the Gentlemen whom the Animadverter commends for venturing little for preceding upon the surest grounds of Reason and Scripture Again Sanctification which the divinely inspired Writings give us as the peculiar
three I turned over with great speed to p. 229. where in the front of the Page in Italick Characters I found this innocent Syllogism Tritheism c. p. 229. Three Distinct Infinite Intelligent Persons are Three Gods But there are not Three Distinct Gods and therefore there are not Three Distinct Infinite Intelligent Persons in the Godhead The Major of this Proposition is false but what other fault to find with it was past my Skill in Logick I therefore consulted the Animadverter in the following words Ibid. In which Syllogism we have these two Terms viz. Three Distinct Infinite Intelligent Persons and Three Distinct Gods But as for the third Term I desire this Author to shew it me for I must confess I cannot find it Alas Who can help the Animadverter's blindness the Reverend Dean's Son at the Vniversity The meanest Sophister of a years standing in the Animadverter's own words could have solved this riddle for this profound Logician and Philosopher In all Syllogisms there is a Major and Minor and Medius Terminus It is clear that Three Distinct Gods is the middle Term as not entring the Conclusion So that if any Term be wanting it must either be the Major or Minor Terminus that is either the Predicate or Subject of the Conclusion Now let me ask this great Logician Can there be a Conclusion a Proposition as this is without a Subject and Predicate that is in other words Can there be an Affirmation and nothing affirmed a Negation and nothing denied Can there be a Proposition of one Term Can there be a Term and Copula and yet nothing coupled Will not that be a Marriage of a Man to himself Is there any thing denied of Three Distinct Infinite Intelligent Persons in the Godhead in the Conclusion or not But I am ashamed to spend the Reader 's time and abuse his patience to teach this great Dictator in Philosophy and Divinity the first Rudiments of Logick the Verb substantive est or sunt in Latine is in these Cases resolvendum hoc modo says Dutrieu Logica Dutrieu p. 3. est existens sunt existentes and the Conclusion in the Reverend Dean's Syllogism is resolved into this and therefore Three distinct infinite intelligent Persons in the Godhead are not existing which term existing is the third term in this Syllogism and to be supplied in this Syllogism both in the Minor Proposition and Conclusion and none but a person of no Logick could have been ignorant of it The Animadverter adds Ibid. I know well enough how this Socinian Syllogism must be supplied and perfected and therefore though it is not my business to correct his Blunders but to expose them I shall set it right for him thus Three distinct infinite intelligent Persons are three distinct Gods but Father Son and Holy Ghost are not three distinct Gods and therefore Father Son and Holy Ghost are not three infinite intelligent Persons Thus I say this Socinian ought to proceed c. First The Animadverter has changed the whole Syllogism the Conclusion was universal or equivalent to universal in the first form in this last it is particular in the former it was simply universally denied that there are any infinite c. Persons in the Godhead in the latter it is only particularly denied that Father Son and Holy Ghost are infinite intelligent Persons Secondly In the Conclusion of the last Syllogism not the Subject but the Predicate was to be supplied Three infinite c. Persons in the former Syllogism was the Subject and not Predicate of the Conclusion whereas in the Animadverter's Syllogism he has made three infinite Persons the Predicate From whence it is plain that this profound Logician who so often upbraids others with the want of Logick does not yet know the Subject and Predicate of a Proposition the Subject commonly precedes the Verb or copula and the Predicate commonly follows but let me tell this great Critick that this Rule is not Vniversal and I find that he cannot yet tell when it fails And now let the Animadverter jeer others of their mistakes in Orthography and the like slips more tenderly for the future since I persuade my self that a Syllogism with two terms and a Proposition with one term which is included in the former will not easily be forgotten or pardoned to such an insulting Adversary Shall I be pardoned if I add one Error in Divinity out of the same Book Error did I call it it is too mild a name I esteem it a downright blasphemy p. 230. The Animadverter notes this for an absurd and illogical Proposition to say that God is the Father How often do the sacred Scriptures tell us that God sent his Son gave his only begotten Son Are these Expressions absurd and illogical I blush to relate such blasphemous stuff since I challenge the Animadverter any other ways to expound them than by the term of the Father viz. The Father sent his Son gave his only begotten Son Our Saviour Truth it self says I am the Son of God Is this an absurd and illogical Expression since the undoubted meaning of these words are I am the Son of the Father St. Paul tells us That to us there is one God and Father Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Are all these absurd and illogical Does not Scripture all the Creeds use the Expression of God the Father Had the Animadverter that skill in Logick he so often upbraids others with the want of he would have known that God the Father is equivalent in Logick to this that God is a Father and if a Father the Father He would have understood that if this Proposition be true The Father is God it is by the Rules of Logick capable of a conversion of putting the Predicate in the place of the Subject and of the Subject in the place of the Predicate without any alteration of the signa Logica omnis nullus aliquis c. where the Subject and Predicate are both singular as I believe them in this Proposition The Father is God and I have the consent of the Schools on my side And where the Predicate is a terminus communis as the Animadverter contends that God is there a particular sign is to be added to the Predicate when it becomes the Subject as Peter is a Man some Man is Peter And now I leave it with the Animadverter to consider whether he will speak with the Scriptures the Catholick Church the Schools in saying that God is the Father or condemn all these for absurd and illogical Dances and declare that we ought to say that some particular God is the Father as some particular Man is Peter I challenge him to avoid one of these Phrases if he can by the Rules of Logick unless he denies the Divinity of the Father denies that the Father is God The same Expressions of Scripture confute what the Animadverter tells us Tritheism c. p. 130.
Unity also is an absolute Attribute We say that God is One in the masculine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 3.20 We say also that the Father is One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Son is One that the Holy Ghost is One in the masculine gender But we cannot say of Father Son and Holy Ghost that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unus One in the masculine gender but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unum One in the neuter gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is we cannot deny that Father Son and Holy Ghost are truly Three I esteem these two last Arguments the more because they are grounded on the express words of Scripture they are each singly and much more conjointly sufficient to overthrow the universality of that Axiom of St. Augustin Quicquid ad se dicitur Deus c. But what will then become of the Arian Objection I answer That I conceive that Objection a weak Sophism and capable of an easy Solution Augustin lib. 5. de Trin. cap. 3. I will give it in St. Augustin's own words Quicquid de Deo dicitur vel intelligitur non secundum accidens sed secundum substantiam dicitur Quapropter ingenitum Patri secundum substantiam est genitum esse Filio secundum substantiam est diversum est autem ingenitum genitum diversa est ergo substantia Patris Filii To this sense All the Predicates concerning God or the Divine Persons are either substantial or accidental Predications Not the latter because nothing is mutable in God if the former then to be unbegotten is a substantial Predicate of the Father and to be begotten is a substantial Predicate of the Son But to be unbegotten and to be begotten are contrary one to the other therefore the substance of the Father and Son are diverse or different St. Augustin seems not to acknowledge an accidental Predication concerning God and it is confessed that to be unbegotten or to be begotten are necessary and not accidental Predications of the Father and Son St. Augustin answers to the Objection That there was a middle Predication betwixt these two substantial and accidental which was a relative Predication Now it is very true that there is a middle Predication betwixt these two an essential Predication and an accidental one Secondly it is as true that in the Objection of the Arian this middle Predication was a relative Predication But with all submission it was error non causoe pro causâ to assign the relativeness of the Predication as the reason of its being a middle Predication The Objection is a plain Sophism equivocating in the phrase Substantia which has a double sense in this Mystery sometimes it signifies the same with Person or Hypostasis sometimes the same with Essence in the former sense the Conclusion is sound and orthodox that the Substance that is Hypostasis of the Father and Son is different And the Solution of this Objection is plain and easy A personal Predication is a middle Predication betwixt an essential and an accidental Predication and that a personal Predication may be as necessary as an essential one amongst humane persons the difference of Sex is a personal yet necessary Predication Amongst the Divine Persons to be unbegotten to be begotten to proceed distinguish the Persons but divide not the Essence Paternity is necessary to the Person of the Father but not essential to Him for then Paternity would be common to the whole Trinity St. Augustin could not have failed of this true Answer had he read the Greek Fathers and from them learned the true Distinction of Hypostasis and Vsia Lastly What Rule can I my self give concerning the plural or singular Predication of any Attribute concerning the Divine Persons I answer First That all plural Predications are either equipollent with or reducible to this one allowed Proposition That there are Three Divine Persons This is plain and needs neither Illustration nor Proof Secondly That all singular Predications are equipollent with or reducible to this other allowed Proposition viz. That there is but One God Is not this the same Distinction of an essential and personal Predicate which I have before declared insufficient I answer That so indeed the Schoolmen expound it To them this fundamental Article of Natural Religion there is but One God is the same with this that there is but One Divine Essence But I conceive that these are distinct Articles The Unity of the Divine Essence is but the Explication of the Unity of the Trinity and is not a question to any one to whom the Doctrine of the Trinity is not in some measure revealed Whereas the Article of the Unity of God is an Article of Natural Religion no Mystery but capable of being found out by Natural Reason alone One great occasion of this mistake was the expressing the Article of the Unity of God and of the Unity of the Trinity by the same Phrase The Unity of the Trinity is often expressed by this Phrase that the Trinity or Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God But tho they are the same Words they have a different import when predicated of the whole Trinity conjointly and when they are part of that fundamental Article of Natural Religion that there is but One God A just Exposition of this prime Article of Natural Religion will as I conceive give a Rational Account of these hitherto esteemed insuperable Difficulties of which by God's Grace in my Second Part. CHAP. IV. IN reference to the sacred Articles of Religion N. 1. we ought to have a double care not only to think but speak inoffensively to take care that our Words as well as our Opinions be Orthodox and especially ought we to be thus cautious in the Mysterious Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation where a word disordered I had almost said a Comma misplaced may render us in the judgment of the warm contending Parties guilty of no less than Heresy 'T is St. Augustin's Observation concerning the Mystery of the Trinity that Nec periculosius alicubi erratur Lib. 1. de Trin. cap. 3. nec laboriosius aliquid quoeritur It is no where more dangerous to Err nor more difficult to apprehend than in this Mysterious Subject A Wise Person will have a great care therefore to keep the beaten Path to speak in the received Language of the Church The Learned Calvin gives us his own Experience Expertus pridem sum quidem soepius Calvin's Instit lib. 1. cap. 3. n. 5. quicunque de verbis pertinacius litigant fovere occultum virus That they who obstinately quarrel against the Phrases of the Church are Hereticks in their Hearts It were to be wished that himself had sufficiently considered this when in the same Section he wishes Vtinam sepulta essent hoec nomina viz. Trinitas Persona Hypostasis Essentia Consubstantialis c. That the Ecclesiastical phrases were all buried or laid aside upon certain
Divines and soberer Reasoners than any of those pert confident raw Men who are much better at despising and carping at them than at reading and understanding them tho wise Men despise nothing but they will know it first and for that very cause very rationally despise them First I believe that the Animadvertor is the very first Person who commended the School-men for venturing little or for proceeding upon the surest Grounds both of Scripture and Reason The Boldness of the Schools is known to a Proverb he that has but cast his Eye upon Aquinas his Sums must from his own Experience confute the Animadvertor this Character of the School-men that they ventured little puts me in mind of a certain Person I once knew who commended Aristotle for Writing excellent Latin I leave the Application to the Animadvertor himself The second part of their Character is almost as proper they and the Animadvertor proceed upon the surest Grounds of Scripture much alike This last in his Eighth Chapter wherein he professedly endeavours to state the Doctrine of the Trinity quotes only one single place Heb. 1.3 and even that he has mistaken The School-men's Principles were for the most part St. Augustin's Authority as to the first Schoolmen for the latter generally Transcribed one from another A wise Man will no more praise than he will despise any thing till he first knows it and for that cause rationally praise it and not as the Animadvertor has done praise them for venturing little and for proceeding upon Scripture Grounds when it is notorious that they were guilty of the contrary faults After all Praising the School-men is Dispraising himself and his own Hypothesis The Modes of the School-men are only such in name in our imperfect Conception of things the Animadvertor's Modes are such in reality but of this hereafter P. 119. n. 4. Argument I. Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits are three distinct Gods c. Here I shall enquire into the import of these two Phrases Three infinite Spirits and Three Gods An Explication of these two Phrases is sufficient to solve this Objection and indeed the whole difficulty The rigid'st of the School-men allow That Father Son and Holy Ghost are Tres infinitam Spiritualem naturam habentes nor can there be any dispute either from Grammar or Logick that infinitus Spiritus and infinitam Spiritualem naturam habens are in sense exactly Equipollent and if these two are Equipollent in the singular number I would fain know a reason why the plural Number of these two Phrases should not be Equipollent that is why tres infiniti Spiritus should not signify the same with tres infinitam Spiritualem naturam habentes If any shall object the distinction of the Schools concerning Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective that Spiritus is a Noun Substantive and therefore according to them implys a multiplication of the form viz. the Spiritual Nature whereas Spiritualem naturam habens is an Adjective and only implys a multiplication of the Suppositum First I Answer That the distinction is groundless in it self and needless in respect of the difficulty it pretends to solve Secondly Allowing it to be true It only causes the Phrase to be less accurate not as the Animadvertor pretends absolutely Heretical the Phrases of the Athanasian Creed non tres aeterni c. observe not this rule yet the School-men charge not Athanasius with Heresy with denying a plurality of Persons but choose to say that he understood those Phrases Substantively the same favourable Construction ought a School-man to make of this Phrase viz. that Spiritus in this Phrase ought to be taken Personally Adjectively for Spiritualem naturam habentes and then it is Orthodox But if I will not allow this Criticism of the Schools concerning Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective how came no Man to venture upon it before the Dean of St. Paul's I Answer First That there is a very good reason why this Phrase is not to be found in Antiquity the reason the Reverend Dean himself gives viz That though there are three Holy Spirits yet not three Holy Ghosts in the Trinity that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Spiritus was by the Ancient Fathers Appropriated to signify the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or tres Spiritus would accordingly to them have implyed Three Holy Ghosts strictly so called And for the same Reason the Phrase of one Spirit in reference to the whole Trinity is not that I know of above once to be found in all Antiquity and that in that bold Father St. Augustin Lib. 5. de Trin. cap. 11. Hom. 5. in Jerem. who was not afraid to say of the Phrase of Three Persons Non ut illud diceretur Secondly I find Origen quoted for the very Phrase Tres Spiritus David in Psalmo confessionis postulat Amongst the Moderns the learned Genebrard a Man of great Note in his Time and of great Skill in relation to this Mystery Genebrard Resp ad Scheghium p. 52. not barely justifies the Orthodoxness of the Proposition but declares that it was Propositio vera ac fide ab Ecclaesia Catholica omnibus temporibus recepta a true Article nay an Article of Faith and received as such by the Catholick Church of all Ages The Proposition is thus set down by Genebrard Tres sunt Spiritus oeterni quorum quilibet per se Deus there are three Eternal Spirits whereof every single Spirit is God with much more to the same purpose in the same place The same Answer will serve in reference to the Animadvertor's Objection That three Infinite Spirits are three Gods Tres Dei when it signifies the same with tres Deitatem habentes with tres Divinae Personae is Orthodox Genebrard lib. 2. de Trin. p. 155 Hear the learned Genebrard Si mavis dicere tres Deos id est tres Divinas Personas possis dicere atque interpretari Nam vocabulum Deus aliquando sumitur Hypostaticè ac ultrò citroque commeat cum Divina Persona sive Hypostasi ut cum in Niceno Symbolo legitur Deum de Deo c. But this Objection of Polytheism against the Doctrine of the Trinity I reserve to be handled at large in my Second Part. p. 119. lin 29. n. 5. My Reason for what I affirm viz. That three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits are three distinct Gods is this that God and Infinite Mind or Spirit are terms equipollent and concertible Every Page of the New Testament confutes this assertion This term God is a thousand times in Scripture appropriated to signifie the Person of the Father as in these and the like Phrases The Son of God the Spirit of God God sent his Son c. But this term Infinite Mind or Spirit is not capable of such Appropriation any more than the Phrase of a Divine Person can be appropriated to that signification Infinite Mind or Spirit is therefore
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Holy Ghost relating to the Creatures to a temporal Act can never be the Personality of the Holy Ghost but only a personal Property of the third Person of the Blessed Trinity The School-men take shelter in the Term Spirit which of it self is common to the whole Trinity and call the Procession of the Holy Ghost by the Term Spiration But the whole Greek Church believe the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son and yet denies the Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and whatever may be said for the pious Credibility of this Article in the Sense of the Western Church yet I find that our greatest Divines Laud Stillingfleet Chillingworth c. have deny'd that this is an Article of Faith or that the Greek Church is guilty of Heresy in denying of it Further from St. Augustin we learn that this Sense of this Term Spiration was unknown to the Latin Church in his time Lib 5. de Tr. cap 11. Ille spiritus sanctus qui non Trinitas sed in Trinitate intelligitur in eo quod propriè dicitur spiritus sanctus relativè dicitur cum ad patrem filium refertur quia spiritus sanctus patris filii spiritus est sed ipsa relatio non apparet in hoc nomine Nor has the Mission of the Divine Persons which to the Ancients was a sacred proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Blessed Trinity fared better in the Exposition of the Schoolmen than the internal personal Acts. According to their Master they affirm that the Son was sent not only by the Father and the Holy Spirit Lib. 1. Sent. Dist 15. which last may be allowed in an improper Sense but also by himself So true is that ancient Observation of Athanasius Athan. graecolat apud comel Tom. 1. p. 516. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who assert the Trinity to be a Monad with the Animadverter a simple Being will find themselves obliged to adulterate the Divine Mission and Generation The Personalities by which the Deity stands diversify'd into three distinct Persons P. 241. l. ult n. 3. are by the Generality of Divines both Ancient and Modern called and accounted Modes or at least something Analogous to them since no one thing can agree both to God and the Creatures by a perfect Univocation I intreat the Animadverter to inform me where he learnt that new Phrase of a Deity diversified Many have scrupled the Phrase concerning the Divine Persons are afraid of asserting that the Divine Persons differ or are diverse Himself tells us Anim. c. p. 175. that they are distinguished from one another and no more But to tell us of a singular Deity diversify'd which is the Animadverter's Hypothesis is to me new Divinity Secondly The Personalities are called and accounted Modes c. Does the Animadverter know no difference betwixt these two in our treating of God or a Divine Person The former I allow the latter I as positively deny and I find the Animadverter's heart failed him Modes or at least something analogous to Modes I desire the Reader to compare these words with what he lays down p 285. l. 13. That it is equally absurd to deny Modes of Being to belong to God where equally absurd from the foregoing Line is the same with grosly absurd and this explained p. 284. To be a gross Absurdity and no small proof of Ignorance Now this gross Absurdity this no small proof of Ignorance was the Assertion of the Reverend Dean That there are no Accidents or Modes in God Himself allows no Accidents nor do the Reverend Dean's Words in the least deny a Distinction of Modes and Accidents but rather confirm it As to the Animadverter's Distinction of them I have already spoken to it Chap. 1. n. 2 5 c. and shall only repeat that all the new Philosophers despise it and leave him to harangue by himself P. 284. that none of them have any skill in Logicks or Metaphysicks that they are grosly absurd Philosophers and have given no small proof of their Ignorance by such their opinion The same Absurdity the Animadverter lays to the charge of this other Assertion That there are no Modes in God and this the Animadverter will prove both from the manifest Reason of the thing P. 285. and from unquestionable Authority Ibid. n. 4. First for the reason of the thing If Modes of Being should not be allowed in God then I affirm it to be impossible for any distinction and consequently for any Person to be in God This Argument as he has framed it is built upon a mistake in Divinity If we take this term God in a Concrete Sense for habens Deitatem in the singular number there is no Distinction nor any Persons in habente Deitatem See Chap. 4. n. 2. The Argument ought therefore to run thus If Modes of Being should not be allowed in the Trinity then I affirm it to be impossible for any Distinction and consequently for any Persons to be in the Trinity and even thus framed I take it to be the boldest Assertion I ever met with in Divinity Another Person would certainly have worded the Argument thus Then I conceive it to be impossible or it seems to be impossible but this pleases not our positive Animadverter he affirms the thing to be impossible I deny the consequence which the Animadverter proves thus If there be any Distinction in God or the Deity or the Trinity it must be either from some distinct Substance or some Accident or some Mode of Being For I desire Him or any Mortal breathing to assign a fourth thing beside these But it cannot be from any distinct Substance for that would make a manifest Composition in the Divine Nature or Trinity nor yet from any Accident for that would make a worse Composition and therefore it follows That this Distinction must unavoidably proceed from one or more distinct Modes of Being To which I answer briefly That three distinct Substances make no Composition in the Trinity Three distinct Substances make no Composition in a Trinity of Angels Every Plurality is not a Composition but when the Plurality is by way of component Parts But the Father a Divine Person is not a part of God that is the Heresy of Sabellius The Father a Divine Person is perfectly compleatly God An Accident would make a Composition in God because it is impossible that a Divine Person should solely consist of an Accident A Divine Person is certainly a Substance if therefore we add an Accident we compound a Divine Person of Substance and Accident By the same Argument a Mode of Being inferrs a Composition A Divine Person the Father can never be solely a Mode but must consist of Substance and Mode See cap. 1. n. 14. and become a modal compositum as Substance and Accident inferr an accidental compositum Secondly A Mode is in its own Nature
second Substance So says Thomas Aquinas in his own quotation Anim. p. 272. Hoc nomen Hypostasis apud Graecos significat tantum substantiam particularem quoe est substantia prima sed Latini utuntur nomine substantioe tam pro primâ quam pro secundà P. 249. lin 24. n. 13. The word Subsistentia being by them looked upon as barbarous and not in use St. Augustin manifestly derived Substantia from Subsistere St. August lib. 7. de Tr. cap. 4. and in that Sense translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet argued against the Plurality of the Phrase Nam si hoc est Deo esse quod subsistere ita non erant dicendoe tres substantioe ut non dicuntur tres essentioe Si autem aliud est Deo esse aliud subsistere sicut aliud Deo esse aliud Patrem esse vel Dominum esse relativè ergo subsistet sicut relativè gignet relativè dominatur Ita substantia non erit substantia quia relativum erit Sicut enim ab eo quod est esse appellatur essentia ita ab eo quod est subsistere substantiam dicimus absurdum est autem ut substantia relativè dicatur omnis res ad seipsum subsistet quanto magis Deus Nothing is more evident than that St. Augustin thought relativè subsistere to be a great Absurdity which is his Objection against the Phrase of three Hypostases and also three Persons that they signified absolutely Ibid. cap. 6. yet the Animadverter has the Confidence to quote St. Augustin p. 267. As stating the divine Personalities upon Relation for founding Personality in and upon something relative Nor on the other side P. 249. lin 29. n. 14. would the Greeks acquiesce in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor admit of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for fear of falling thereby into the contrary Error of Sabellius I doubt not that the Sabellian Heresy was the cause why the Greeks were not content with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they did not refuse to admit of the Phrase but thought it alone insufficient but required afterwards either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vide Pet. lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 2. S. 9. N. 15. I. that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are three kinds of Sabellianism The first is the most common the confounding the Persons of the Blessed Trinity which was otherwise called the Patri-passian Heresy which asserts That Father Son and Holy Ghost are only three Names or three Offices of one Person and consequently that the Father suffered this is properly the Heresy of Noetus and not of Sabellius Sabellius Petav. lib. 1. de Trin. cap. 6. S. 5. says Epiphanius expresly denied the Father to suffer However the Latin Fathers scarce knew any other Species of Sabellianism which with Submission I conceive to be one cause why they are less accurate in treating of this Mystery than the Greek Fathers II. A second Species of Sabellianism is the Contraction of the Trinity to the single Person of the Father acknowledging the Father to be a true proper Person asserting the Word or Son to be not strictly and formally the Person of the Father but an Attribute of the Father His personal Wisdom in the same Analogy as Wisdom is an habit of Man in like manner asserting the Holy Spirit to be the personal Power of the Father This Sabellius himself embraced and explained the Trinity by the Similitude of the Body of the Sun its Light or Ray and its Heat The first Epiphan Hoer 62. he resembled to the Father the second to the Son the third to the Holy Ghost this the ancient Fathers called Judaism that is such a Trinity which a Jew would own and by the same reason it may be stiled a Socinian Trinity No Socinian in this Sense will scruple a Father Vide Sti. Basilii Ep. 64. a Word and an Holy Spirit A third Species of Sabellianism is the compounding the Divine Persons which is contrary to a Confusion of them this asserts a real distinction betwixt the Divine Persons but then it makes Father Son and Holy Ghost to be as three parts of some whole Petav. Addenda ad Tom. 2. de Trin. p. 866. So Petavius varius à seipso discrepans videtur Sabellius fuisse ut interdum personas tres quasi partes alicujus totius esse diceret ut ex Epiphanii loco colligitur Petavius undoubtly alludes to that other Similitude of the Trinity mentioned by Epiphanius Epiphan Haer. 62. That the Trinity was by Sabellius sometimes compared to the Body Soul and Spirit in one Man These three are but one Hypostasis These three are Co-essential Parts of one Man which possibly moved Sabellius to invent this Hypothesis to have an evasion to assert in some Sense an Homoousian Trinity Vide Pet. lib. 1. de Tr. cap. 6. S. 3. This kind of Sabellianism was by some of the Fathers called Atheism This Hypothesis in reality ungodding Father Son and Holy Ghost Not the Body alone or the Soul alone or the Spirit alone but all three conjoyntly are one Man so not the Father alone or Son alone or Holy Ghost alone but all three conjoyntly are God whereas the Catholick Faith is that each distinct Person is God The Father is God the Father the Son is God of God the Holy Spirit is in the Language of the Church God the Holy Ghost See both these kinds of Sabellianism condemned by Athanasius in his Oration contra gregales Sabellii Now the Phrase of three Hypostases is contrary to all the Forms of the Sabellian Heresy Of the first there is no doubt the second is as plain to be an Hypostasis and to be an Attribute are inconsistent and contradictory So also to be an incompleat Part a component Part and an Hypostasis are inconsistent It is essential to an Hypostasis to have totale attributum to be a compleat and perfect whole so the Words of the first Article of the Augustan Confession quoted by the Animadverter p. 278. Et utuntur nomine personae ea significatione qua usi sunt scriptores Ecclesiastici ut significet non partem aut qualitatem sed quod propriè subsistet That which properly subsists can neither be as a Part of any Whole nor as a Quality or Attribute of any Being The Scripture says the Reverend Dean of St. Paul s Im sure represents Father Son and Holy Ghost Vindication of Trinity p. 66. as three intelligent Beings not as three Powers or Faculties of the same Being which is downright Sabellianism The very Dreggs of Sabellianism as I take it worse than Sabellianism for as the Reverend Dean adds Faculties are not Persons no nor one Person neither A Million of Faculties and Attributes will not make one Person A Million of Qualities will never make one Substance and a Person is a Substance