Unity or Communication and distinction c. St. Basil also Writing against such as would derogate from the Equality of the Divine Persons speaks of the Trinity thus Either let these Inexpressible things be silently Reverenced or Religiously and Becomingly Represented And again in a Discourse against such as used Contumelious Words of the Trinity speaking there of the Holy Ghost as Essentially one with the Father and the Son he says the Intimate Conjunction between him and them is hereby declared viz. by the Scripture there quoted by him and applyed to them but the Ineffable Manner of his Subsistence hereby Inviolably preserved So that still we see with this Father the Oeconomy of the Three Divine Persons in the Blessed Trinity is a thing Ineffable and above all Description or Expression Nazianzen also speaks of the Trinity under these Epithetes styling it the Adorable Trinity Above and before the World before all Time of the same Majesty of the same Glory Increate and Invisible above our Reach and Incomprehensible And the same Epithetes are given it by Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus declaring the Trinity to be of One and the same Essence Transcendent in its Substance Invisible and Inconceivable And Lastly Eulogius Arch-bishop of Alexandria sets it forth thus We divide not says he what is but One we part not the Singularity nor distract the Unity but so Assert this Unity in an Eternal Singularity as to ascribe the same to Three distinct Hypostases by no means subjecting things above our Understanding to Human Reasonings nor by an Over-curious Search undervaluing things so much above all Search or Discovery Having given this Specimen of what the Greek Fathers and Writers thought and spoke of the Trinity let us now pass to the Latines And amongst these we have in the first place St. Hilary expressing himself thus The Mystery of the Trinity is Immense and Incomprehensible not to be express'd by Words nor reach'd by Sence Imperceivable it blinds our Sight it exceeds the Capacity of our Understanding I understand it not Nevertheless I will comfort my self in this That neither do the Angels know it nor Ages apprehend it nor have the Apostles enquired of it nor the Son himself declared it Let us therefore leave off complaining c. After him let us hear St. Ambrose The Divinity of the Holy Trinity says he is to be believed by us to be without beginning or end albeit hardly possible to be comprehended by the Mind of Man Upon which Account it may be not improperly said concerning it That we comprehend this only of it that in truth it cannot be comprehended To St. Ambrose succeeds St. Austin In this Trinity says this learned Father is but one God which is indeed wonderfully unspeakable and unspeakably wonderful To the same purpose Fulgentius So far as I can judge only the Eternal and Unchangeable Trinity ought to be looked upon by us as worthy to be esteemed Incomprehensibly Miraculous and as much exceeding all that we can think or imagine of it as it surmounts all that we are After him we shall produce Hormisda Bishop of Rome in a Letter to Iustinian the Emperour about the beginning of the Sixth Century speaking thus The Holy Trinity says he is but One it is not multiplyed by Number nor grows by any Addition or Encrease Nor can it either be comprehended by our Understanding nor in respect of its Divinity be at all Divided And a little after Let us Worship Father Son and Holy Ghost distinct in themselves but with one indistinct Worship that is to say The Incomprehensible and Unutterable Substance of the Trinity And presently again Great and Incomprensible is the Mystery of the Holy Trinity In the last place St. Bernard delivers himself upon the same Subject thus I confidently affirm says he that the Eternal and Blessed Trinity which I do not understand I do yet believe and embrace with my Faith what I cannot comprehend with my Mind I have here as I said given a Specimen of what the Ancient Writers of the Church both Greek and Latin thought and said of the Blessed Trinity and it is I confess but a Specimen since I think that enough for an Universally acknowledged and never before contradicted Proposition Whereas had it but in the least seemed a Novelty as this Author's Hypothesis not only seems but unquestionably is I should have thought my self obliged to have brought as many Quotations for it from Antiquity as would have filled a much larger Book than I intend this shall be But as for those which I have here produced I do solemnly appeal to any Man living Christian or not Christian who does but understand these Languages whether the Fathers now Quoted by me and all the rest upon the same Subject speak agreeably to them looked upon Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity as a Plain Easie and Intelligible Notion So that if the Judgment of the Fathers and of this Author be in this point one and the same it must unavoidably follow That either the Fathers have not yet declared their Judgment and Doctrine or that this Author has not yet declared his Since so much as has been declared on the one side is a direct and gross Contradiction to what has been Asserted on the other And moreover the fore alledged Testimonies of the Fathers are such that we are not put to draw what we contend for by remote far fetched Consequences from them but it lies plain open and manifest in them in words too clear and full to be denyed and too convincing to be evaded So that we are sure both of their Words and Expressions and of the common sence of all Mankind to expound and understand them by And will this bold over bearing Man after all this Claim their meaning to be the same with his What his meaning is he has told us forty times over viz. The Unity in Trinity c. is so far from being an Unintelligible Notion that it is not so much as difficult how much soever the dull mistaken World has for near 1700 Years thought otherwise And now if this be the true Account and state of this Matter that when the Fathers say of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Trinity that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is to say Ineffable Inconceivable Unintelligible Incomprehensible and if possible transcending the very Notion of the Deity it self above all Humane Understanding and Reason Discourse and Scrutiny I say if by all this he can prove that the Fathers meant That it was a very Plain Easie and Intelligible Notion as by affirming that those who used all these Expressions meant the same with himself he does and must affirm or say That they knew not their own meaning or at least were not able to express it but in words quite contrary to it I must needs own the
Term One True God or One only True God and the Term One True God or One only True God including in it no more than the Term One God and consequently if he asserts That these Terms cannot with equal Propriety be attributed to and predicated of the Son and the Holy Ghost we have him both Arian and Macedonian together in this Assertion And I believe his Adversary the Author of the Notes could hardly have desired a greater Advantage against him than his calling it as he does a Corruption of the Athanasian Creed to joyn the Term One True God to every Person of the Trinity adding withal That upon the doing so it would sound pretty like a Contradiction to say in the close That there was but One True God These are our Author's words but much fitter to have proceeded from a Socinian than from one professing a belief and which is more a defence of the Trinity But in answer to them I tell him That the repeated Attribution of The One True God or Only True God to each of the Three Persons is no Corruption of that Creed at all Forasmuch as these Terms The One True God and the only True God import an Attribute purely Essential and so equally and in Common belonging to all the Three Persons and not an Attribute properly Personal and so appropriate to some one or other of the said Persons And if this Author would have duly distinguished between Essential and Personal Attributes he could not have discoursed of these Matters at so odd a rate as here he does And therefore I deny it to be any Contradiction let it sound in his Ears how it will to conclude That the said Three Persons notwithstanding this Repetition are not Three True Gods but only One True God But he says That such a Repeated Application implies as if each Person considered as distinguished and separated from the other were the One True God To which I Answer 1. That to imply as if a thing were so and to imply that really it is so makes a very great difference in the case indeed so great that this Author must not think from words implying only the former to conclude the latter which yet must be done or what he here alledges is nothing to his purpose But 2. I Answer yet farther That the forementioned words do indeed imply and which is more plainly declare That the Three Persons who are said to be the One or only True God are while they sustain that Attribute really distinct from one another but it does not imply That this is said of them under that peculiar Formality as they are distinct and much less as separated which latter they neither are nor can be The truth is what he has said against the repeated Application of this Term to every one of the Three Persons may be equally objected against all the repeated Predications in the Athanasian Creed but to as little purpose one as the other since albeit all these Predications do agree to Persons really distinct yet they agree not to them under that formal and precise consideration as distinct For nothing but their respective Personal Relations agree to them under that Capacity and this effectually clears off this objection But here I cannot but wonder that this Man should jumble together these two Terms distinguished and separated as he does twice here in the compass of eight Lines when the signification of them as applyed to the Three Divine Persons is so vastly different that one of these Terms viz. distinguished necessarily belongs to them and the other which is separated neither does nor can take place amongst them Nay and when this Author himself has so earnestly and frequently contended for the difference of them as all along asserting the distinction of Persons and as often denying their separation But he proceeds and says That this Expression of The One or only True God is never that he knows of attributed to Son or Holy Ghost either in Scripture or any Catholick Writer Which words methinks as I cannot but observe again do not look as if a Man were Writing against the Socinians Nevertheless admitting the Truth of his Allegation That this Term the One True God is not to be found expresly attributed to the Son or the Holy Ghost will he infer from hence that therefore it neither can nor ought to be so For if that be attributed to them Both in Scripture and Catholick Writers which necessarily and essentially implys The One True God and does and must signifie the very same Thing is it not all one as if in Terminis it had been ascribed to them Doubtless there are several other Expressions in the Athanasian Creed as hardly as this to be found elsewhere However the Thing being certain from other words equivalent this exception is of no force at all nor by any one who understands these Matters is or ought to be accounted so and much less can I see to what end it should be insisted upon by any one while he is encountring the Socinians And therefore whereas he says This Attribute or Title viz. The One True God cannot so properly be ascribed to any one Person but only to the Father whom he tells us the Fathers call the Fountain of the Deity what he here designs by the words so properly which seem to import degrees of Propriety I cannot well tell But this I ask in short May it be properly attributed to the Son and to the Holy Ghost or may it not If not then they are not properly The One True God nor consequently are they properly The True God For whatsoever any one properly is that he may be properly said to be And as for the Father 's being the Fountain of the Deity I hope he looks upon this Expression only as Metaphorical and such as ought not to be stretched to the utmost of its Native Sence for fear the Consequences of it may engage him too far to be able to make an handsome Retreat which I assure him if he does not take heed they certainly will But in a word I demand of him Whether the Father 's being the Fountain of Deity does appropriate and restrain the Thing expressed by the One True God to the Father in contra-distinction to the other Two Persons or not If it does then the same Absurdity recurs viz. That neither is the Son nor the Holy Ghost the One True God and consequently neither simply really and essentially God But on the other side if the Father 's being the Fountain of the Deity does not appropriate the Thing signified by the One True God to the Father then it leaves it common to the other Two Persons with Himself and to each of them And whatsoever is so may with the same Propriety and Truth of Speech be ascribed to and affirmed of them as it is often ascribed to and affirmed of the Father Himself The Truth is this Man 's adventurous and unwary way of
to the Phrase and Expressions of Scripture I hope amongst these some consideration ought to be had of such Texts of Scripture As that forementioned one in the 1 Corinth 13. 12. Where no doubt with reference to the Mysteries of the Gospel of which this is one of the chief we are said to see but as through a glass darkly and to know but in part c. neither of which can I perswade my self to think is only another Expression for knowing a thing plainly easily and intelligibly and without any difficulty The like may be said of that place in 1 Pet. 1. 12. where the Apostle speaking to the Saints he wrote to of the things reported to them by such as had preached the Gospel amongst which this Doctrine doubtless had it's place or an equal difficulty at least he adds That they were such things as the Angels desire to look into The Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which all Interpreters lay a peculiar weight and Emphasis upon as importing both the earnest intention of the Inspector and the difficulty of the object inspected from the Posture of such as use to stoop down for the better discerning of such things as cannot otherwise be well perceived or look'd into And now is not this think we a most proper and fit posture for such as view and look into things very plain obvious and intelligible And yet I doubt not but the Angels who are said to use it could very easily give us the Philosophy of Rain Snow and Ice of the Fires burning and the descent of Stones and other heavy Bodies which yet this Author will allow no Man of sense and reason without forfeiting the reputation of both to presume to give a Philosophical Account of Whereas in the mean time the Trinity is declared to be a very plain easie and intelligible Notion even to such Persons as can give no such Account of the other And thus much for the Agreement of his Hypothesis with the Phrase and Expressions of Scripture The next head of its commendation is That it preserves the Majesty of this great Article as he words it But in much the same sense I suppose as his Refusing the Oath preserved the Majesty of King William and his taking it the Majesty of K. Iames But that it preserves it so as to have a singular virtue to encrease Men's Veneration of it this I very much question and demur to Forasmuch as that old Observation that Familiarity breeds Contempt holds too frequently as well as undeservedly no less in Things than in Persons which we are more apt to venerate at a distance than upon a clear plain and full knowledge of them I do not say That Men ought to do thus but such is the present state of Nature that thus they use to do And it is worth our marking That where a Man is said to know a thing perfectly he is said To be Master of it and Mastership one would think is not naturally apt to create in the mind any great awe for the thing it is thus Master of But be it as it may this I am sure of That as the Scripture tells us That things revealed belong to us so the same Scripture tells us also That there are secret things which by a kind of sacred enclosure belong only to God Deut. 29. 29. And till God shall think fit to reveal to us the Nature of the Trinity I for my part shall reckon it amongst those Secret things And accordingly with all the Pious submission of an humble Reason falling down before it adore and admire it at a distance not doubting but that for this very cause That Men should do so God in his Infinite Wisdom thought fit to spread such a Cloud and Veil over it And therefore I cannot but think that that Man expressed the due measures of our behaviour to this and the like Mysteries extreamly well who being pressed in the Schools with an Argument from the Trinity in opposition to the Question held by him gave it no other Answer but this Magister hoc Mysterium Trinitatis ex quo argumentaris est potiùs flexis genibus adorandum quà m curiosâ nimis indagine ventilandum The Respondent who made this Reply had the Repute of a Learned and Eloquent Man and I think this Reply represents him a very Pious and Discreet one too And therefore as for the third and last Topick upon which our Author would recommend his Hypothesis about the Trinity viz. That it solves all the difficulties of it I fear from what hath been last said that it will prove as far from being a Commendation as it is from being a Truth especially when the Author himself after his saying so in Page 85. immediately adds and that in the very next words Page 86. line 1. That there may be a great deal more in this Mystery than we can fathom c. But now if our Author will in this manner utter one Assertion and immediately after it subjoyn another which quite overthrows it who can help this For that a great deal more should remain in this Mystery than we can fathom or that there can be any thing unfathomable in that in which there is nothing difficult or that any thing can be difficult after such an Explication given of it as solves all the difficulties of it for that is his very word in Page 85. the last Line I must freely confess surpasses my Understanding to conceive and God bless his Understanding if it can It must be confessed indeed as I hinted before in my Preface that in a short Treatise lately Published by him and entituled An Apology for Writing against the Socinians he seems to deny the Notion of a Trinity to be comprehensible and easie Page 15. telling us That there must be infinite degrees of knowledge where the Object is Infinite and that every new degree is more perfect than that below it And yet no Creature can attain the highest degree of all which is a perfect Comprehension so that the knowledge of God may encrease every day and Men may write plainer and plainer about these matters every day without pretending to make all that is in God even a Trinity in Unity comprehensible and easie which he calls a Spightful and Scandalous Imputation By which angry words it is manifest that he would fain rid himself from those Inconveniences which his former unwary and absurd Assertions had involved him in But by his favour the Truth of the Charge shall take off the Scandal from such as make it wheresoever else it may fix it For I have fully shewn That in this his Vindication c. he has frequently and as clearly as words can express a thing affirmed a Trinity in Unity to be a plain easie intelligible Notion Where by Plain must be understood either 1st Such a Plainness as excludes all Doubts and Difficulties whatsoever In which sense alone a thing can be said to be
for representing the vanity of his Hypothesis by the forementioned Example and Comparison But I hope the World will give me leave to distinguish between Things Sacred and his Absurd Phantastick way of treating of them which I can by no means look upon as Sacred nor indeed any Thing else in his whole Book but the bare Subject it treats of and the Scriptures there quoted by him For to speak my thoughts plainly I believe this Sacred Mystery of the Trinity was never so ridiculed and exposed to the Contempt of the Profane Scoffers at it as it has been by this New-fashioned Defence of it And so I dismiss his two so much Admired Terms by himself I mean as in no degree answering the Expectation he raised of them For I cannot find That they have either heightned or strength'ned Men's Intellectual Faculties or cast a greater light and clearness upon that Object which has so long exercised them but that a Trinity in Unity is as Mysterious as ever and the Mind of Man as unable to grasp and comprehend it as it has been from the beginning of Christianity to this day In a word Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness have rendred nothing about the Divine Nature and Persons plainer easier and more Intelligible nor indeed after such a mighty stress so irrationally laid upon two slight empty words have they made any thing but the Author himself better understood than it was before CHAP. V. In which is proved against this Author That the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not Three Distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits IT being certain both from Philosophy and Religion that there is but one only God or God-head in which Christian Religion has taught us That there are Three Persons Many Eminent Professors of it have attempted to shew how one and the same Nature might Subsist in Three Persons and how the said Three Persons might meet in one and make no more than one simple undivided Nature It had been to be wished I confess that Divines had rested in the bare Expressions delivered in Scripture concerning this Mystery and ventured no further by any particular and bold Explications of it But since the Nature or rather Humour of Man has been still 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 of Reason discoursing upon it And such I affirm the Ancient Writers and Fathers of the Church 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 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 Though Wise Men Despise nothing but they will know it first and for that Cause very rationally despise them But among those who leaving the Common Road of the Church have took a By-way to themselves none of late Years especially have ventured so boldly and so far as this Author who pretending to be more happy forsooth in his Explication of this Mystery than all before him as who would not believe a Man in his own Commendation and to give a more satisfactory Account of this long received and Revered Article by Terms perfectly New and peculiarly his own has advanced quite different Notions about this Mystery from any that our Church was ever yet acquainted with Affirming as he does That the Three Persons in the God-head are Three Distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits as will appear from the several places of his Book where he declares his Thoughts upon this great Subject As First in Page 50. he says The Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Infinite Minds really distinct from each other Again in Page 66. The Persons says he are perfectly distinct for they are Three distinct and Infinite Minds and therefore Three distinct Persons For a Person is an Intelligent Being and to say they are Three Divine Persons and not Three distinct Infinite Minds is both Heresie and Nonsense For which extraordinary Complement passed upon the whole Body of the Church of England and perhaps all the Churches of Christendom besides as I have paid him part of my thanks already so I will not fail yet further to account with him before I put an end to this Chapter In the mean time he goes on in Page 102. I plainly assert says he That as the Father is an Eternal and Infinite Mind so the Son is an Eternal and Infinite Mind distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost is an Eternal and Infinite Mind distinct both from Father and Son Adding withall these words Which says he every Body can understand without any skill in Logick or Metaphysicks And this I confess is most truly and seasonably remarked by him For the want of this Qualification is so far from being any hindrance in the Case mentioned that I dare undertake that nothing but want of skill in Logick and Metaphysicks can bring any Man living who acknowledges the Trinity to own this Assertion I need repeat no more of his Expressions to this purpose these being sufficient to declare his Opinion save only that in Page 119. where he says That Three Minds or Spirits which have no other difference are yet distinguish'd by Self-Consciousness and are Three distinct Spirits And that other in Page 258. where speaking of the Three Persons I grant says he that they are Three Holy Spirits By the same Token that he there very Learnedly distinguishes between Ghost and Spirit allowing the said Three Persons as we have shewn to be Three Holy Spirits but at the same time denying them to be Three Holy Ghosts and this with great scorn of those who should hold or speak otherwise To which at present I shall say no more but this That he would do well to turn these two Propositions into Greek or Latin and that will presently shew him what difference and distinction there is between a Ghost and a Spirit and why the very same things which are affirmed of the one notwithstanding the difference of those words in English may not with the same Truth be affirmed of the other also But the Examination of this odd Assertion will fall in more naturally towards the latter end of this Chapter where it shall be particularly considered I have now shewn this Author's Judgment in the Point and in opposition to what he has so boldly Asserted and laid down I do here deny That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Three distinct Infinite Spirits And to overthrow his Assertion and evince the Truth of mine I shall trouble neither my Reader nor my self with many Arguments But of those which I shall make use of the first is this
case abundantly sufficient St. Cyril of Alexandria says expresly Christ's saying that he is in the Father and the Father in him shews the Indentity of the Deity and the Unity of the Substance or Essence And so likewise Athanasius Accordingly therefore says he Christ having said before I and my Father are one He adds I am in the Father and the Father in me that he might shew both the Identity of the Divinity and the Unity of Essence And so again St. Hilary The Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father by the Unity of an inseparable Undivided Nature By which Passages I suppose any Man of sense will perceive That the thing which the Fathers meant and gathered from those words of our Saviour since expressed by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was no Unity of Mutual Consciousness which they never mention but an Unity of Essence or Nature which they expresly and constantly do Nor does this very Author deny it as appears from his own words though he quite perverts the sence of the Fathers by a very senceless Remark upon them Page 125. lines 20 21. This Sameness or Unity of Nature says he might be the Cause of this Union in the Divine Persons viz by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not explain what this Intimate Union is Now this Author has been already told That the Question here is not what explains this Union but what this Union is But besides this his mistake of the Question I desire him to declare what he means by the Cause of this Union as he here expresses himself For will he make an Union as he calls an Unity in the Divine Persons by Sameness of Nature a Cause of their Intimate Union by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Mutual In-being of them in each other and affirm also this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the same thing with Mutual Consciousness If he does so he makes the same thing the Cause of it self For the Sameness of Nature in the three Persons and their Mutual In-being or Indwelling are the very same thing and the same Unity though differently expressed But however if we take him at his own word it will effectually overthrow his Hypothesis For if the Sameness of the Divine Nature in the three Persons be as he says the cause of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the same with Mutual Consciousness it will and must follow That this Sameness or Unity of Nature can no more consist in Mutual Consciousness than the Cause can consist in its Effect or the Antecedent in its Consequent And this Inference stands firm and unanswerable against him But as to the Truth of the Thing it self though we allow and grant the Unity of the Divine Nature in the Three Persons and the Mutual In-being or In-dwelling of the said Persons in each other to be the same Thing yet we deny That this their Mutual In-being is the same with their Mutual Consciousness But that their Mutual Consciousness follows and results from it and for that cause cannot be formally the same with it And so I have done with his 3d. Argument which he has drawn from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is indeed nothing else but a bold down-right Perversion of Scripture and a gross Abuse of the Fathers 4. His fourth Argument is from an Allegation out of St. Austin who though he does not as our Author confesses Name this Mutual Consciousness yet he explains a Trinity in Unity as he would perswade us by Examples of Mutual Consciousness particularly by the Unity of three Faculties of Understanding Memory and Will in the same Soul all of them Mutually Conscious to one another of the several Acts belonging to each of them And his 9th Book is spent upon this Argument In which he makes the mind considered with its knowledge of it self and its love of it self all three of them as he says but one and the same Thing a faint Resemblance of the Trinity in Unity And this is what he Argues from St. Austin To which I Answer First That Faint Resemblances are far from being solid Proofs of any Thing and that although similitudes may serve to illustrate a thing otherwise proved yet they prove and conclude nothing The Fathers indeed are full of them both upon this and several other Subjects but still they use them for Illustration only and nothing else And it is a scurvy sign that Proofs and Arguments run very low with this Author when he passes over those Principal Places in which the Fathers have plainly openly and professedly declared their Judgment upon this great Article and endeavours to gather their sence of it only from Similitudes and Allusions which looks like a design of putting his Reader off with something like an Argument and not an Argument and of which the Tail stands where the Head should For according to the true Method of proving things the Reason should always go first and the Similitude come after but by no means ought the Similitude ever to be put instead of the Reason But Secondly To make it yet clearer how unconclusive this Author's Allegation from St. Austin is I shall demonstrate That this Father does not here make use of an Example of Mutual Consciousness by shewing the great disparity between the thing alledged and the thing which it is applyed to and that as to the very Case which it is alledged for For we must observe That the Mutual Consciousness of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity is such as is fully and entirely in each Person so that by virtue thereof every one of them is truly and properly Conscious of all that belongs to the other Two But it is by no means so in those three Faculties of the Soul Understanding Memory and Will For though the Understanding indeed be Conscious to all that passes in the Will yet I deny the Will to be Conscious to any Thing or Act that passes either in the Understanding or the Memory and it is impossible it should be so without exerting an Act of Knowledge or Intellection which to ascribe to the Faculty of the Will would be infinitely absurd It is true indeed That one and the same Soul is Conscious to it self of the Acts of all these three Faculties But still it is by virtue of its Intellectual Faculty alone that it is so And the like is to be said of its Knowledge and of its Love of it self For though it be the same Soul which both Knows and Loves it self yet it neither knows it self by an Act of Love nor loves it self by an Act of Knowledge any more than it can Will by an Act of the Memory or Remember by an Act of the Will which is impossible and amongst other proofs that it is so it seems to me a very considerable one That if a Man could remember by his Will this Author in all likelyhood would not forget
True Through Stroke either in Divinity or Philosophy or Logick or even in Grammar and I confidently appeal to the ingenuous and unbyass'd Reader whether I have not in the foregoing Animadversions given very pregnant and particular Instances of this Author 's gross Defects in every one of these And therefore my poor Opinion and Advice is That if these two Learned Men are resolved to persist in their Commendations of this Author as there is nothing by which they can oblige him more and withal to commend him upon sure undeniable Grounds they would hereafter wave all the forementioned Topicks of Commendation and pitch upon his true excellency by commending him for his Preferment for that certainly is very commendable And now that I am taking my Leave of my Reader for this time at least that I may not leave him with any just Distaste or Grudge in his Mind against me as if I had treated this Man too severely I do assure him that nothing has been here utter'd by Chance or in the heat of any present passion but upon a due calm and sedate Consideration of what he had said falsly of others as a Warrant for what was to be truly said of him And I do further assure the Reader That I would by no means have treated a Candid Civil and Well-bred Adversary at the Rate I have treated him who has shewn no sign of any one of these Qualifications either in his Writings or Behaviour And therefore tho' to accept Persons be a Fault in the Sight of God and Man yet certainly to distinguish them is none I have used him as I found him and for what I found him he may thank himself The Truth is he has carried on an Offensive War with most that have Wrote and there are very few whom he has not one way or other struck at and Defied So that the Matter being in effect brought to this point Whether He shall be too hard for the World or the World for Him I hope it will not be long in deciding He has for a great while and in a very Audacious manner been preying and privateering upon many a Worthy and Good Name and as far as he was able made prize of the Reputation of Men better than Himself And therefore it is now high time for such to think of repaying the good Turns done them and for the injured World to retaliate upon the Lawless Aggressor For this is and has been the Custom of Nations and all must grant it to be a most just equal and allowed Course and since it is so 't is to be hop'd that this is not the last Reprisal that will be made upon Him To the most Holy and Blessed Trinity Three Glorious Persons in one and the same Undivided God-head be rendred and ascribed all Honour and Praise Thanksgiving and Adoration now and for evermore Amen THE END Dr. Owen in his Vindication of himself against this Author gives him the Character of a Scoffer and a Censurer of other Mens Labours Iudgments and Expressions Which Witness of his is true and since it is so whether he of whom it is true deserves a Rebuke or no is left to the World to judge Owen's Vindic. p. 129. Ch. Justice Scroggs Having first rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in those Words To 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas de Synodis Arimini Seleuciae Tom. 1. P. 904. Edit Colon. 1686. In the next place p. 906. they proceed to cashier the Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the following Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this see also Socrat. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 29. and Theodoret Histor. lib. 2. cap. 18. 21. Sozomen's Histor. lib. 4. cap. 18. * See his Preface to his Case of Allegiance p. 5. line 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil 6. in Actione 17. seu ultimà circa sinem Owen's Vindication against Sh. p. 47 48 c. See a most Virulent and Blaspemous Book Wrote by these Men and entituled Praemonitiones Christi Apostolorum de abolendo vero Christo per Antichristum See the Preface to his Case of Allegiance P. 5. See Casaub. Exer. 16. ad Ann. Baron 43. p. 542 c. An Account of the word Mystery as it is taken in the Holy Scripture Bishop Stillingfleet's Sermon on the 1 Tim. 2. 15. Printed 1691. Some Remarks upon his Apology Answer to the Protestant Reconciler Chap. 3. See my Preface Some further Remarks upon his Apology See these empty Questions distinctly answered in my 7th Chapter See Chapter II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen de differentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 2. P. 465. Edit Paris 1615. Quae ratiocinatio ad id cogit ut dicamus Deum Patrem non esse sapientem nisi habendo sapientiam quam genuit non existendo per se pater sapientia Deinde si ità est Filius quoque ipse sicut dicitur Deus de Deo Lumen de Lumine videndum est utrûm possit Sapientia de Sapientiâ dici si non est Deus pater ipsa sapientia sed tantùm Genitor sapientiae Quod si tenemus cur non magnitudinis suae bonitatis aeternitatis omnipotentiae suae Generator sit ut non ipse sit sua magnitudo sua bonitas sua aeternitas sua Omnipotentia sed eâ magnitudine magnus sit quam genuit eâ bonitate bonus c. Aug. Tom. 3. Lib. 6. de Trinitate Sed absit ut ità sit viz. That the Father should be wise only by the Wisdom he begets quia si hoc est ibi esse quod sapere non per illam sapientiam quam genuit sapiens dicitur Pater alioquin non ipsa ab illo sed ille ab ipsâ est Si enim sapientia quam genuit causa est illi ut sapiens sit etiam ut sit ipsa illi causa est quod fieri non potest nisi gignendo eum aut faciendo Sed nec genetricem nec conditricem Patris ullo modo quisquam dixerit Sapientiam Quid enim insanius c. Lib. 1. Dist. 32. Cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen in Orat. Dom. Nat. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil lib. 4. contra Eunomium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Epist. ad Eustathium Non potest operatio esse diversa ubi non solùm aequalis verùm etiam indiscreta Natura August Serm. de Verbo Dom. 63. Cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Thesaur lib. 12. p. 109. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanasius Oratione quarta contra Arianos Pater in filio est filius in Patre per inseparabilis Naturae Unitatem Hilarius de Trinitate lib. 8. Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum unius ejusdémque Substantiae Lib. 1. de Trinitate Cap. 4. Credamus ergo in Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum Haec aeterna sunt incommutabilia id est Unus Deus Unius Substantiae