Unity of Will and Power and Operation from the indivisible Unity of Nature that they are but one Agent and produce but one and the same effect But still as for the main of the Charge That every distinct Person in the Trinity has a personal Substance Life Will Understanding Power of his own which is not the personal Substance Life Will Understanding Power of either of the other Persons is what all who believe a Real Trinity do and must agree in whether they will agree to call these Three Substances Wills Understandings c. or not Nay this is all that those very Persons who assert Three Substances Three Minds and Spirits in the Trinity ever meant by it Own but each Person in his own proper Person to be infinite Substance Mind Spirit and that neither Person is each other and they will consent to any other form of words and not dispute the reason or propriety of them all that they contend for is a real Trinity of true real proper Persons and that they are certain cannot be unless each Person by himself as distinct from the other Persons be Substance Mind Spirit Will Understanding Power This is the only Trinity which Socinus Crellius Slichtingius and others of that Party have hitherto disputed against and therefore certainly they did apprehend that the Christians in their days even all the Divinity-Chairs of Europe did assert such a Trinity and those Learned Men who opposed them did believe so too or there must be very wise doings amongst them tho' our Modern Socinians have now made a discovery that these Realists are not the true Catholick Trinitarians but that the Nominalists are the Church and now they are grown Friends with the Church and Orthodox beyond their own hopes and their business is only to defend the Church against this new Sect of Real Trinitarians Let it be so but still they maintain the same Doctrine that Socinus did and dispute against the same Trinity which he disputed against and therefore these Real Trinitarians are no new upstart Sect but their old Adversaries who will never be cheated by new Names into an accommodation or comprehension with Socinians The plain state of the Case is this Father Son and Holy Ghost are the Christian Trinity now the question is whether this be a Real Trinity or not that is whether the Father be an Eternal Infinite Living Omniscient Omnipotent subsisting Person and did truly beget of his own Nature and Substance a True Living Omnipotent Omniscient subsisting Son and in like manner whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son a True Living Omnipotent Omniscient subsisting Spirit This is the Doctrine of those whom our Modern Socinians call Realists that is of True and Orthodox Trinitarians and without asserting this whatever they teach besides a Trinity is nothing but a name and therefore such men may properly be called Nominalists so that the Realists only are Trinitarians the meer Nominalists whatever they are else are no Trinitarians and this new contrivance of opposing these Real Trinitarians is neither better nor worse than opposing the Doctrine of the Trinity And let but our People understand this and we are where we were and then the Socinians may call themselves Nominalists or what they please To proceed He is as artificial and unsincere in his account of the Nominalists as of the Realists We must not conceive of the Divine Persons say the Nominalists as we do of created Persons Very right there is an unconceivable difference between them as all Realists acknowledge they are perfectly distinct but yet inseparably One they never did never can subsist apart the same One undivided Divinity subsists whole and perfect and yet distinctly in each of them and is as perfectly One in Three as any one thing is one with it self And thus we allow what he adds to be a very great Truth and wish he himself would consider better of it That the conception we ought to have of their Personalities or what they are as they are Persons is as different from the Personalities of any created Beings as the Perfections of the Divinity are paramount to Human or Angelical Perfections This we are sensible of and therefore do not presently cry out of Nonsense and Contradiction when we are forced by Scripture and Reason to attribute such things to the Divine Nature and Persons as we can find no Images or Idea's of in Created Nature for we know that Creatures cannot be perfectly like to God and consequently we ought not to oppose the Idea's of Nature to Revelation But the present question is not Whether Father Son and Holy Ghost are such Persons as created Persons as Angels or men are for it is certain there is an unconceivable difference between them but whether they may be called Persons in the true and proper Notion of the word Person for one who does really and substantially subsist live will understand act according to his Natural Powers And whether there be Three such subsisting living willing understanding Persons in the Godhead or only One Whether as the Father hath life in himself so the Son hath life in himself and as the Father knows the Son so the Son knows the Father and whether the Spirit of life and the Spirit of Holiness and Power and the Spirit that searcheth the deep things of God be not a subsisting living knowing working Spirit and this is the reason why the Church calls them Three Persons which the Scripture does not call them because the Holy Scripture distinctly Attributes life will knowledge power to these Three Father Son and Holy Ghost which is the Notion all men have of a Person when applied to Creatures and to talk of Three Divine Persons who are not subsisting living knowing Persons destroys the only Reason for calling them Persons But he adds as the Doctrine of the Nominalists That God is but One Being but One Substance Mind or Spirit with One only will understanding energy or power of action But is not this in a true Catholick Sense the Doctrine of the Realists also as I observed before But this is what this disinterested Person would be at to distinguish the Realists and Nominalists by Three Substances and One Substance of the Divinity And were this the whole Truth the Realists would certainly be Hereticks and the Nominalists might be the Orthodox Church Whereas the Realists as they own Three real subsisting living Persons so they as constantly profess the Homoousion or One undivided Substance and Nature subsisting and acting distinctly but indivisibly and inseparably in Three which is a real perfect subsisting Trinity in perfect Unity But the Nominalists truly so called as they own but One Substance in the Divinity so but One single Person which is their One God and can find a Trinity only in a Trinity of Names or Properties or meer immanent Acts. That there are many such Nominalists among us I fear is too true but I must say again that the
the Holy Ghost without any division or partition of Substance And this is the Doctrine of the Lateran Council That this One supream Thing is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 veraciter truly and really Father Son and Holy Ghost Three United Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tres simul Personae and each of them distinct from the others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ac singulatim quaelibet earum And therefore there is only a Trinity not a Quaternity in God as Abbot Joachim had objected And that each of these Divine Persons is this Divine Substance Essence and Nature All this Athanasius himself would have subscribed who yet with the other Catholick Fathers rejected the Notion of a singular and solitary Divinity They add That this one supreme Nature Substance Essence which is Father Son and Holy Ghost neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds Nor did ever any Man in his Wits assert That the Divine Nature and Essence as common to Father Son and Holy Ghost that is That the whole Trinity did either Beget or was Begotten or did Proceed This belongs to Persons not to Nature formally considered as they expresly teach That the Father Begets the Son is Begotten and the Holy Ghost Proceeds so that there is a distinction of Persons and Unity of Nature That the Father is alius another the Son another the Holy Ghost another but not aliud another thing but what the Father is and what the Son is and what the Holy Ghost is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are all perfectly the same that according to the Catholick Faith we may acknowledge them to be Consubstantial for the Father from Eternity Begetting the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave his own Substance to him as he himself witnesses The Father who gave them me is greater than all Nor can it be said that the Father gave part of his Substance to his Son and retained another part himself for the Hypostasis or Substance of the Father is indivisible as being perfectly simple Nor can we say That when the Father Begat the Son he so communicated his own Substance to him as not to have it himself for then he must cease to be an Hypostasis Substance and a substantial Person himself So that it is evident That the Son when Begotten received the Father's Substance without any diminution of the Father and thus Father and Son have the same Substance and Father and Son and Holy Ghost are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one and the same supreme Nature and Substance which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Unity of Sameness and Identity This is true Catholick Doctrine and the very Language of the Nicene Fathers And if Joachim rejected this Essential Unity of the Trinity and asserted a meer collective Unity as many Christians are one Church as the Council affirms he did he was very justly Condemned and the Nicene Fathers themselves would have Condemned him The only thing which looks like an Innovation in this Decree is That whereas the Catholick Fathers allowed of those Expressions A Begotten Nature Begotten Substance Begotten Wisdom Begotten God and that Substance begets Substance and Wisdom begets Wisdom c. This Council denies That this One supream Divine Essence Nature or Substance which is the Blessed Trinity does either Beget or is Begotten or Proceeds which some Schoolmen think absolutely condemns those Expressions That Substance begets Substance and Wisdom Wisdom That the Son is Deus Genitus and Natura Genita Begotten God and Begotten Nature and Begotten Wisdom which is to condemn all the Catholick Fathers who used these Expressions without any scruple nay who thought that the Mystery of the Divine Generation could not be secured without them But I confes I am of Petavius his mind though I find the Learned Doctor Bull dissent from him that this Council never intended absolutely to condemn all such Expressions when Personally used For though the Divine Nature in a general Notion as common to all Three Persons neither begets nor is begotten yet the Father begets the Son by a true and proper Generation and a true and proper Son and therefore that Learned Jesuit tells us That the Lateran Council considered the Divine Nature absolutely and in it self and as abstracted from the Three Persons not as subsisting distinctly in each Person for so it is very Catholick to say That the Divine Nature in the Person of the Father begets the Divine Nature in the Person of the Son For we cannot understand what a Person is without its Essence and Nature and it is absurd to say That the Son receives his Person from the Father without receiving that without which he cannot be a Person And the reason he gives why they rather chose to say that the Father begets the Son than that Essence begets Essence was to avoid the ambiguity of that Expression which might signify the production of another Essence as well as the generation of another Person whereas this Divine Generation is the communication of the same Eternal Essence which is in the Father to the Son which gives existence to a second Person not to a second Nature This is indeed very subtil but there is some sense in it and while they acknowledge that the Son by an Eternal Generation receives a true Divine Nature from the Father and is in his own Person true God but yet not the Father this is the Old Catholick Faith how new soever the Expressions may be Thus I have done with his General Councils and I hope every one sees how well he understands Councils or how honestly he deals with them What concerns the Church of England needs no answer after what I have already said and the Story of Valentinus Gentilis is much to the same purpose for he was so far from being a Realist that he was a down-right Arian But that he may not think himself and his Nominalists so secure of all the Divinity-Chairs in Europe I will refer him to the Learned Spanhemius to learn how it lately fared with some of them in the United Provinces who were censured and condemned by various Synods and by the publick Judgment and Authority of several Universities The first Proposition condemned was concerning the name of Son and his Eternal Generation of the Father that this is not to be understood properly of a true and proper Generation as if the Father who begets were a true and proper Father and the Son who is begotten a true and proper Son but that these Terms in Scripture only signify 1. That the Second Person has the same Nature and Essence with the First Person and did coexist with him from Eternity Denying the manner of his having the same Nature by an ineffable Generation and the Personal Subsistence of the Father who begets and the Son who is begotten and consequently that true relation between Father and Son which the Scripture constantly teaches which gave just suspicion either of Sabellianism or Tritheism 2.
That all these Names of Father and Son begetting and being begotten c. respect the Oeconomy of the Covenant of Grace the manifestation of the Second Person in the Flesh as in the visible Image of God to execute the Mediatory Office for which purpose he was given by God the Father In which sense to beget is the same with to manifest and to be begotten to be manifested This he says is coincident with the Socinians and resolved into that Fundamental Error That the true and proper generation of the Son though acknowledged ineffable contradicts those natural Ideas which are imprinted in our minds by God and are the foundation of all Assent and all true and certain Knowledge And that we must not think that God has revealed any thing in his Word which cannot and ought not to be examined by men according to these Ideas or that God proposes nothing in his Word to be believed with a certain and firm assent which a man of a sound Reason cannot clearly and distinctly perceive according to these Ideas And now let our Author judge whose Character this is and on which side these Belgic Synods and Chairs have given Judgment SECT IV. The Arguments of the Nominals against a Real Trinity of proper subsisting Persons Examined And the Three First Arguments Answered SEcondly Let us now briefly examine his Reasons which he thinks so demonstrative that the so much talk'd of Mathematical certainty is not superior to them But I have heard some men brag much of Demonstration who have had nothing to say that would amount to a good Probability Now to make my Answer plain and easy I observe first That all his Arguments to prove the Realists to be guilty of Tritheism and to assert Three Gods are levelled against a Trinity of distinct real subsisting intelligent Persons as he himself owns for those invidious terms of Three Substances Three Minds and Spirits and Wills and Understandings signify no more than Three each of which in his own proper Person is Substance Mind Spirit Will Understanding So that all these Arguments are against the Catholick Faith of a Real Trinity that is to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity to be Tritheism for that which is not a Real Trinity is no Trinity And therefore these Arguments do no more concern Dr. Sherlock and some few others whom this Author would fain single out from the Body of Catholick Believers by the Name of Realists than all other Christians who heartily Believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost and own Christ Jesus to be the Eternal Son of God and true and perfect God himself Secondly I observe That all these Arguments are no farther considerable than as they directly oppose the Catholick Faith in its full Latitude that is a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity The Scripture assures us That there is but one God but teaches withall That the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God We believe God concerning himself and his own Nature and Unity because he best knows himself and therefore we believe that there is but one God but not that there is but One Person who is God for there are Three in the Unity of the same Godhead and each of them true and perfect God so that it is not enough for these Demonstrators to prove That there is and can be but One Eternal Divinity or one God for we readily own it and as heartily Believe it as they do but we say withall that this one Divinity subsists distinctly and indivisibly whole and perfect in Three and that therefore there is a Trinity in Unity Nor is it sufficient to prove That in the Trinity of the Realists there are Three each of which is by himself true and perfect God and therefore that there are Three Gods for we own such Three but say that these Three are not Three Gods but subsist inseparably in one Undivided Divinity and therefore that there is a Vnity in Trinity But if they would consute either the Trinity or the Unity they must prove That there are not and cannot be Three real subsisting Persons in One insinite undivided Essence and then they will effectually Confute the Scripture and a Trinity with it or they must prove That though Three such Persons should subsist distinctly in one undivided Essence yet they are not one and the same Divinity or one God and then they will Confute not only Scripture but common Sense That Three which are One are not One or that One Divinity is not One God Having premised this let us now consider his Arguments 1. In the first place he says Three infinite Intellectual Substances or Three Eternal Omnipotent Minds or Spirits or which we have heard is the same thing Three infinite intelligent Persons can never be but One God because 't is evident nay confessed That One such Spirit Mind or Substance is One absolute and most perfect God If the Definition is multiplied the thing defined is also therewith multiplied Seeing then 't is the definition of One God that he is One infinite intellectual spiritual Substance One Eternal Omnipotent and Omniscient Spirit or Mind Therefore if we multiply our definition by saying Three Infinite intellectual spiritual Substances c. we thereby multiply the thing we pretended to Define namely GOD which is to say we affirm more Geds as many Gods as such Substances and Spirits Here our Demonstrator stumbles at the very Threshold I grant That an infinite intellectual spiritual Substance an Eternal Omniscient Omnipotent Mind or Spirit is the Definition of One who is God or of a Divine Person but I absolutely deny That this is the Definition of One God that he is One Eternal Omniscient c. Personal Mind or Spirit as he fallaciously and absurdly represents it and in so doing instead of proving what he undertakes he very modestly and humbly begs the Question He is to prove That Three infinite Substances Minds or Spirits are Three Gods His Argument is Because One infinite Substance Mind or Spirit is the Definition of One God and if you multiply the Definition you multiply the thing defined and therefore Three infinite Substances and Minds must be Three Gods but how does he prove that One infinite Substance and Mind personally understood as we understand it is the Definition of One God for this is the thing in dispute which certainly no Trinitarian will grant him and therefore ought to be proved Those who Assert as all Trinitarians do That Three infinite intelligent Persons each of which is infinite Substance Mind or Spirit are but One God will not be so good-natur'd as to grant That One infinite Substance and Mind or One Divine Person is the definition of the One God this would not be to Dispute but to beg the Cause on one side and to give it away on the other But this may be thought perverseness to put men upon proving what is self-evident For Is not an infinite intelligent
true and proper Personality of the Son and Holy Spirit were very absurd and guilty of Heinous Nonsense in saying That the Son is Eternally generated and the Spirit Eternally proceeds These are Nice Speculations which the Arian Controversy engaged them in but the Nicene Fathers contented themselves to affirm no more concerning the Eternal Generation than that the Son was begotten of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light Very God of Very God And this Notion of an Eternal Generation our Author has no Objection against and we do not think our selves bound to answer for all the Subtilties either of the Fathers or Schools nor to determine every Curious Question which Perverse and Heretical Wits can start concerning the Divine Generation and Procession which is above the Comprehension of Angelical Minds and which we know no more of but that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds And yet this Reasoning is very absurd when applied to an Eternal and immutable Nature Things which have a beginning which are made which are successively and gradually perfected by Art are incompleat and unfinish'd while they are a-making and if they are always a-making or always incompleat but a Generation or Procession without a Beginning and without Succession must always be perfect and always the same if it be at all here is no new Production no making any thing no transient Action in which sence the Catholick Fathers denied the Divine Generation to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Action but only an Essential 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habitude relation between Father and Son who both perfectly and eternally subsist and co-exist with each other but so that the Son is of the Father and the Holy Spirit of Father and Son Thus they were without any Beginning and thus they always are and this is all they meant by an Eternal Generation and Procession and this the Immutability of the Divine Nature forc'd them to own for though external Acts and Relations make no Change in the Divine Nature yet what is ad intrà does and therefore could we conceive any distinguishable moments in Eternal Duration when God was no Father when he begot a Son and when he ceased to beget this would make an internal Change in the Divine Nature it self which is inconsistent with perfect Immutability But the Son always was and is of the Father and this is his Eternal Generation and the Holy Spirit always was and is of Father and Son and this is his Eternal Procession and thus the Divine Essence always was and is the same a Trinity in Unity and this is the perfect Immutability of God And yet his Philosophy is very absurd when he argues from an Eternal Generation and Procession that therefore the Son and Holy Spirit must be incompleat and unfinish'd for this will not be granted him even in created Nature much less in the Divinity They are no mean Philosophers who tell us that the World may very properly be said to be perpetually created that what we call Preservation or upholding all things in being is the very same Act and Power which at first gave Being to them and such a permanent Act is Creation still though no new Production of any thing But these Men would scorn any one who should hence conclude that there is no compleat or finish'd Substance no really subsisting substantial World Much more absurd is it to conclude this of an Eternal Generation which produces nothing new nothing that ever began to be and is the same that ever it was without any Succession And he defends the Nominalists just as wisely and philosophically as he opposes the Realists as if his only design were to expose both He says this Eternal Generation proves the Son and Holy Spirit to be only immanent Acts in God reflex Wisdom or the Wisdom that resulteth from Original Minds Eternal Contemplation and Knowledge of the Divine Nature and Perfections and the everlasting Spiration of Love that must proceed from the Original and reflex Wisdom of the Deity And here we have just such a Trinity in the God-head as there is in every particular Man his Mind and the immanent Acts of Wisdom or Reason and Love which all Learned Men know to be one kind of Sabellianism That the Son is the Wisdom and Power of God and that the peculiar Character of the Holy Spirit is Love is the language both of Scripture and Fathers but not as immanent Acts but the living subsisting Wisdom of the Father and living subsisting Love eternal and infinite Persons co-eternal and co-equal with the Father But it is a new Language unknown to Scriptures and Fathers to call an immanent Act of Wisdom a Son and the Minds producing such an Act its generating or begetting a Son and to call such an immanent Act in God the Son of God and God by which Rule every Thought or Act of Reason in any Man is Man and the Son of that Man whose Thought and Act it is And it as new Philosophy to talk of immanent Acts in God for there can be no immanent Acts but where there are Powers and Faculties which is the Imperfection of the Creature-State not incident to the perfect Simplicity of the Divine Nature But besides this what does he mean by the Eternal Generation and Spiration of an immanent Act an immanent Act according to all the Accounts I ever met with of it and as every Man may feel in himself is not an abiding as he calls it but a transient Act it has no permanent stable Nature no Subsistence of its own but vanishes and dies assoon as generated to speak in his language which is a necessary Reason to remove all such immanent Acts from God in whom there is nothing vanishing nothing successive but if Men will attribute immanent Acts to God reflex Wisdom as opposed to a living subsisting personal Wisdom they must speak of them according to the known Nature of such Acts and then an Eternal Generation of such an immanent Act which vanishes assoon as generated can signifie no more than an eternal successive Repetition which is a Contradiction of the Acts of reflex Wisdom that as one vanishes another succeeds that though God has always this reflex Wisdom yet he has not always the same Act of reflex Wisdom but produces it a-new every moment which he calls an Eternal Generation just as it is with Men who may have the same Thought for kind some time together but yet every moment it is new produced To talk of such an Eternal Son as this and such an Eternal Generation is Heresie in Philosophy and in common sense as well as in Christianity and it would be loss of time to expose it I must no more omit than he another surprizing Argument whereby he proves that the Catholick Church did believe that the second Person is the reflex Wisdom of God and the Third Divine Love because for this reason as he tells us this
Doctrine of the Nominals which I hope they can give a better account of but for fear some Men should not believe it he takes great pains to prove that it is so Now this is a very formidable Objection for if the Nominals have revived Sabellianism and Socinianism they have been condemned many hundred Years since by all those Catholick Fathers and Councils who condemned Noetus Sabellius Photinus Paulus Samosatenus and such like Anti-Trinitarian Hereticks And this justifies the Realists and undoes all that he has hitherto been doing for there is no Medium between a Real and a Nominal Trinity a Trinity of three real living subsisting Persons and One living subsisting Person with a Trinity of Names Offices Modes or immanent Acts and therefore as far as the Authority of the Catholick Church reaches the Condemnation of a Sabellian and Nominal Trinity must justifie a Trinity of real subsisting Persons And what now does he answer to this Why he owns it and says the Socinians at length see it and hope to make their Advantage of it That it is indeed an invidious Objection and that is the whole strength of it Invidious I confess it is because all sincere Christians abhor these Names and it would in a great measure put an end to this Controversie were our People satisfied that a Nominal Trinitarian and Socinian perfectly agree in renouncing the true Catholick Faith of the Trinity though the Nominalist still retains the Name of Trinity and Persons which the Socinians have hitherto rejected but are now willing to use them for Peace sake since they learn from these Men that they signifie nothing and that the Church never intended to signifie any thing real by them This is what he tells us with great Triumph Our English Socinians claim in their Writings that they are the Discoverers that the Feud between the Church and them was ill-grounded For that in very deed both the Nominals whom he calls the Church and the Socinians say the same thing As they pretend to this Honour so they are sufficiently paid in that themselves have the whole Benefit of it They may enjoy thereby that Peace and Tranquillity that Ease and Security from the Laws themselves which they before owed to the Indulgence or Connivence of Princes and Magistrates This now is very plain dealing and I hope will be a fair warning to all serious Christians how they suffer themselves to be cheated out of their Faith by the loud groundless Out-cries of Tritheism or imposed on by the old Catholick Names of Trinity and Persons without that Catholick Sense in which the Church always used those Words And I think those Persons to whom this Author affixes the Name of Nominals if they be not Sabellians and Socinians which God forbid ought to vindicate themselves from this heavy Imputation and not only deny the Charge but so explain themselves as to let us see wherein their Doctrine concerning the Trinity differs from the old condemned Heresies of Sabellius Photinus and Socinus And I doubt not but this will produce a much happier Agreement and put an end to this scandalous Distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians 2. But our Author is much more troubled with the second Objection That the Predications or as others speak Attributions given in Holy Scripture and by the Catholick Church to the Divine Persons seem not well to consist or to be intelligible on the Hypothesis or Explication of the Nominals His Instance concerns the Son or second Person in the Trinity who is called God and we say he was Incarnate and all things were made by him In some places an Omnipresence in others Omnipotence and Omniscience are ascribed to him But how can we with any tolerable Propriety say that a meer reflex Wisdom is God created all things was incarnate is omnipotent omniscient omnipresent Or how can any of these things be affirmed of or applied to our Saviour in regard of the Incarnate or inhabiting Logos or reflex Wisdom the which also how it should be incarnate will be another unaccountable unintelligible Paradox This is a very notable Objection he has brought the Nominals on let him see how he can bring them off again Now in the first place he is not willing to own that any such things as these are said of Christ and therefore tells us We should do well to consider the Interpretations of the Texts wherein these things are said or seem to be said And here he is at his old Trade of admiring his Critical Interpreters whom he prefers much before Divines and of disparaging those Copies we have of the Scriptures the Mystery of which is That some Criticks give up some Texts of Scripture out of Wantonness and Vanity which the Catholick Church always thought good Proofs of the Divinity and Incarnation of our Saviour and he thinks it a better way to judge of the sense of Scripture by some new Critical Pointings or the Mistakes of some old Copies which may furnish them with various Readings than by the whole Series of the Discourse and the Traditional Interpretations of the Catholick Church but I shall not dispute this Matter now He is certainly so far in the right that the safest way of answering all this is to deny it all and this is what he means when he says It were easie to make such an Application of this Reflection as would perhaps offend many but would for all that be most true Now I would only ask the Nominalists how they like this way of answering these difficulties by criticizing away all the Proofs of the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ This their pretended but treacherous Friend says is the best and truest way and he is a Man of Skill in these Matters and seems to be ashamed of any other Answer but this which will unavoidably entangle him in unaccountable and unintelligible Paradoxes I verily persuade my self that many of those whom this Author calls Nominals abhor the Thoughts of this and therefore ought freely and openly to declare themselves in this Matter and not to suffer this bantering Socinian to impose upon the World in their Names But if this Answer don't please our Author has another for them as good to the full Let us says he distinguish the two Natures in Christ his Divinity and Humanity and rightly understand the Doctrine of the Incarnation This looks very promisingly for to acknowledge two Natures in Christ and rightly to understand the Doctrine of the Incarnation will rectifie all other Mistakes Let us then hear what he has to say of this As to the Incarnation every body knows that the most Learned Interpreters do not limit the Incarnation to the Person of the Logos or Son But they say the whole Divinity or as St. Paul speaks the fulness of the God-head was incarnate or dwelt in Christ. Who these most learned Interpreters are I can't tell unless he means the Patripassion Hereticks for all Catholick Christians believe
he has both imperfectly and falsly represented the Opinion of the Realists 1. He tells us They say that the Holy Trinity or the Three Divine Persons are Three distinct infinite Substances Three Minds Three Spirits Now any one would hence conclude That this is the Universal Doctrine of all the Realists and that this Phrase of Three Substances Minds and Spirits is the Parting point between the Realists and Nominals That all who believe a Real Trinity own Three Infinite Minds and Spirits and that no man can believe a Real Trinity who does not own this Now this is manifestly false as our late Experience proves The greatest number of Realists as far as I can guess who believe a Real Trinity a Real subsisting Father a Real subsisting Son and a Real Subsisting Holy Spirit do yet reject those Expressions of Three Infinite Minds and Spirits which are liable to a very Heretical Sense either Arianism or Tritheism and therefore were very sparingly and with great Caution used by the Catholick Fathers tho' they used Three Hypostases in the very same Sense and did not condemn Three Natures and Substances when personally used as we have seen above And therefore the late Dispute about Three Minds does not in it self divide the contending Parties into Realists and Nominals as the Socinians too hastily conclude and think to carry their Cause by it Very good Catholicks may dispute such expressions as we know they did the Homoousion it self for One Substance is as liable to an Heretical Sense as Three Substances for that may be Sabellianism and the other may be Arianism or Tritheism and both of them rightly understood may be very Orthodox but whether they are or no must be judged by the Sense in which they are used and the Catholick Fathers like good Christians have easily yielded to each other in a dispute of words when it has appeared that the difference has been only in words not in the Faith What Athanasius says upon a like occasion is a very good Rule to maintain Christian Peace and Unity To corrupt the Faith is always unlawful tho' we palliate it with the most popular and orthodox forms of speech but a true and holy Faith does not degenerate into Impiety and Heresy by some new improper expressions while he who uses such words has a Pious and Orthodox sense But to proceed Tho' all Realists do not agree about the use of those words Three Minds or Substances yet they all do and all must agree in what follows viz. They are Three such Persons that is as distinct and as really subsisting and living as three Angels or three Men. They are so without doubt if they be real proper Persons for a Person lives and subsists and Three Persons must be really distinct or they can't be Three that is the Father's Person is no more the Person of the Son nor the Person of the Son the Person of the Father than Peter is John or John is Peter but then they do not subsist dividely or separately as Peter and John do He adds Each Person has his own peculiar individual Substance his own personal and proper Vnderstanding Will and Power of Action an Omnipotence Omniscience and all other Divine Attributes divers in number from the Personal Omnipotence Omniscience c. of the other Two Persons Now I except against nothing in this but the Phrases of peculiar and individual substance and divers in number for peculiar and individual I would say a singular substance for tho' a singular substance in created Natures is a peculiar and individual substance also it is not so in the Divinity The Catholick Fathers always distinguish'd between One Substance and One singular Substance of the Godhead To deny One Substance or the Homoousion was Arianism To assert One singular Substance was Sabellianism for One singular Substance is but One Person which denies a Trinity of Persons But the Divine Nature and Substance is both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and Common and therefore not One singular Substance which can never be common and by the same Reason a Personal Substance though it be singular and appropriate to such a particular Person and therefore as incommunicable as the Person is yet it is not peculiar and individual in the common acceptation of those words but the same One common undivided inseparable Essence of the Divinity subsisting distinctly and singularly in each Person Thus for the same Reason I will not say that the Personal Omnipotence c. of the Father is divers in number from the Personal Omnipotence of the Son because it is the same One Omnipotence as it is the same One Divinity which subsists distinctly in each Person but we may and must say That the Personal Omnipotence of the Father is not the Personal Omnipotence of the Son no more than the Person of the Father is the Person of the Son But this disguised Socinian has taken great care in representing the Doctrine of the Realists to conceal their Faith of the perfect undivided Unity and Identity of the Divine Nature in Three distinct subsisting Persons which yet he knows they as Sacredly profess as they do the real distinction of Persons and is owned in as high terms by Dr. Sherlock himself as by any of his Adversaries and is almost the only Pretence of those many Contradictions he is charged with by such as will not understand a perfect distinction in perfect Unity which yet is essential to the Catholick Faith of a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity But as for this Author whether he had thought such a Distinction and Unity reconcileable or not yet when he undertook to represent the Doctrine of the Realists he ought to have represented it whole and entire and to have left it to the judgment of the Reader whereas he is very careful to observe that they say the Three Persons in the Trinity are Three Substances Three Minds and Spirits which yet only some of them say but takes no notice that these Three distinct Persons have One undivided Nature and Essence which they all agree in For this would have spoiled his Objections of Tritheism and what he immediately adds about Three Creators and Governors of the World which they never owned any more than Three Gods for tho' there are Three who are Omnipotent and Three who create yet they are so inseparably united in Nature that they are but One Agent One Omnipotent and produce but One Effect As the Catholick Fathers concluded for this Reason that as the Scripture teaches us That there is but One God and yet that the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God so it attributes the making and government of the world both to Father Son and Holy Ghost and yet there is but one and the same world which is made and governed which proves that though they act as distinctly as their Persons are distinct yet there is such an essential