now speaking to i. e. the Delicious Society the Divine Hypostases are supposed to have with each other give me leave freely to discourse this matter I would fain know what it is wherein he supposes the Enquirer to have overshot his Mark Or of what makes he here so mighty a Wonderment It can be but one of these two things Either that there are three Divine Persons in the Godhead really distinct Or That they have if there be a Delicious Society or Conversation with each other Will he say the former is a singular Opinion Or that 't is Novel Was there never a real Trinitarian in the World before Doth he not in his own express words sort the Enquirer with one whom he will not deny to be a learned Divine p. 43. of these his present Considerations col 1. The Author of the 28 Propositions and Mr. H w as he calls the Enquirer are honest Men and real Trinitarians By which former Character he hath I dare say ten thousand times more gratify'd his Ambition than by calling him learned too And I believe he will as little think this a novel Opinion as a singular one Nor shall I thank him for acknowledging it to have been the Opinion of the Fathers generally not only Ante-Nicene and Nicene but Post-Nicene too for some following Ages unto that of P. Lombard so obvious it is to every one that will but more slightly search For my part I will not except Justin Martyr himself whom I the rather mention both as he was one of the more antient of the Fathers and as I may also call him the Father of the Modalists nor his Notion even about the Homoousian-Trinity as he expresly stiles it For tho it will require more time than I now intend to bestow to give a distinct account of every Passage throughout that Discourse of his yet his Expression of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be so taken as if it were to be torn away from its coherence and from it self When therefore he says the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the being unbegotten begotten and having proceeded are not Names of the Essence but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Modes of Subsistence he must mean they are not immediately Names of the Essence but mediately they cannot but be so For what do they modify Not nothing When they are said to be Modes of Subsistence what is it that subsists We cannot pluck away these Modes of Subsistence from that which subsists and whereof they are the Modes And what is that You 'll say the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one Essence which he had mentioned before and that one Essence is 't is true as perfectly one as 't is possible for what is of it self and what are from that to be with each other i. e. that they are congenerous as the Sun and its Rays according to that Heb. 1. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the effulgency of Glory or as Mind and where there is nothing else but Substance consubstantial Thought or Word Therefore this Oneness of Essence must be taken in so large and extensive a sense as that it may admit of these Differences For so he afterwards plainly speaks if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the one the Father hath his Existence without being begotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another the Son by being begotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the Holy Ghost by having proceeded here it befals us to behold differences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the things that import difference There must be a sense therefore wherein he understood this Essence to be most truly One and a sense wherein he also understood it to have its differences and those too not unimportant ones as being unbegotten and being begotten signify no light differences And in what latitude of sense he understood the Oneness of Essence whereof he had before spoken may be seen in his following Explication when what he said he would have be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more manifest he makes Adam's peculiar Mode of Subsistence to be that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not begotten but made by God's own Hand but for them that were from him he intimates theirs to be that they were begotten not made If then you enquire concerning the same Essence that was common to him and them you still find that Man is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Subject whether of formation as to him or of generation as to them And who apprehends not in what latitude of sense the humane Nature is One which is common to Adam and his Posterity Tho the Divine Nature is incomparably more One which is common to the Father Son and Spirit as we have formerly insisted and shall further shew it cannot but be in all necessary and continually-depending Emanations Yet I might if there were need again as to this part quote the Considerator to himself For I suppose he will not disown the Considerations in 1693. in which pag. 15. col 1. are these words Dr. Cudworth by a great number of very pertinent and Home-quotations hath proved that his Explication I mean that part of it which makes the three Persons to be so many distinct Essences or Substances is the Doctrine of the Principal if not of all the Fathers as well as of the Platonists And 't is added and I for my own part do grant it Upon the whole then I reckon that as to this first part we stand clear not only to the rest of the World but with this Author himself that to be a real Trinitarian is not so unheard-of a thing or what no learned Divine of any Perswasion ever dreamt of before the Enquirer But now for the Second Part. The Delicious Society supposed to be between or rather among the three Persons Is this a Dream And so strange a One Why good Sir Can you suppose three Persons i. e. three intellectual Subsistences perfectly Wise Holy and Good co-existing with inexisting in one another to have no Society Or that Society not to be delicious He says How can it be I say how can it but be Herein I am sure the Enquirer hath far more Company than in the former For whether the three Persons have all the same numerical Essence or three distinct all agree they most delightfully converse Will he pretend never to have read any that make Love as it were intercurrent between the two first the Character of the third In short Is it the Thing he quarrels with as singular or the Word At the Thing supposing three Persons he can have no Quarrel without quarreling with the common Sense of Mankind For the Word he hath more wit and knowledg of Language than to pretend to find fault with that For let him but consult Expositors even the known Criticks upon the mentioned place Prov. 8. whom in so plain a case I will not be at the pains to quote and transcribe and take notice whether none read those words fui in
distinction so as to be really and truly One thing If they cannot I would know why i. e. Why they cannot as well or much rather than the Soul and Body so as to be one entire Man If they can such a created Union is acknowledged possible which is all that part of our Discourse contends for And 't is enough for our present purpose for this will be an Union of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of things of the same nature the Soul and Body are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. things of very different Natures And it sufficiently prepared our way as was intended to advance further and add That if such a created or made Union be possible it cannot be understood why a like uncreated or unmade Union should be thought impossible And if it be possible the noisy Clamour that a Trinity in the Godhead is impossible or that it will infer Tritheism must cease and be husht into everlasting silence Or if it shall still be resolved to be kept up to carry on the begun Humour can only serve to fright Children or unthinking People but can never be made articulate enough to have any signification with Men of sense For when the Father is acknowledg'd on all hands to be the Original or Fountain-Being existing necessarily and eternally of himself the Son existing by eternal Promanation necessarily of and from and in the Father the Holy Ghost of and in them both These because they all exist necessarily cannot but be each of them God and because they exist in necessary natural eternal Union cannot but be one God And he that shall attempt to make Tritheism of this will sooner prove himself not the third part of a wise Man than from hence prove three Gods We may truly and fitly say the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God But that form of Speech the Father is a God the Son is a God the Holy Ghost is a God I think unjustifiable The former way of speaking well agrees with the Homoousiotes of the Deity the Substance whereof is congenerous You may fitly say of three drops of the same Water they are each of them Water But if you should say they are each of them a Water one would understand you to mean they were all drops of so many different sorts of Water I do upon the whole judg the Substance or Essence of the three Hypostases to be as perfectly One as can possibly consist with the emanation of some from other of them But now next In his way to his second Topick of Argumentation he is guilty of a strange sort of omission i. e. he twice over says he will omit what he greatly insists upon as a mighty matter that this meaning the Enquirer's Hypothesis is Heresy among those of his own Party whether they be the nominal or the real Trinitarians who all agree That each of the Divine Persons is perfect God in the most adequate and perfect sense and this too as such Person is considered sejunctly or as the Athanasian Creed speaks by himself c. To this I only say in the first place that if this weigh any thing it ought in reason to be as heavy upon him as me for I believe the same People that will call this account of the Trinity Heresy will call his denial of it Heresy much more But if he be not concern'd at that I am the more obliged to him that he hath a kinder concern for me than himself And if he really have let it ease his mind to know that let the Opinion be Heresy never so much I for my part am however resolv'd to be no Heretick as he and they may well enough see by the whole tenour of that Discourse But yet I humbly crave leave to differ from him in this as well as in greater Matters I am apt enough indeed to think that the Nominal Trinitarians will judg the Opinion of the Real Trinitarians to want Truth and the Real will perhaps more truly judg theirs to want Sense But neither the one nor the other will say that each of the Divine Persons is perfect God in the most adequate and perfect sense For both cannot but agree that God in the most adequate and perfect sense includes Father Son and Holy Ghost but they will none of them say that each or any of the Persons is Father Son and Holy Ghost And I am very confident he that shall so represent them will betray them by it into such inconveniencies and so much against their mind and intent that if ever they did trust him as I believe they never did this Considerator to express their sense for them they never will do it more As for Athanasius himself whose Creed he mentions tho he often speaks of an equality of the Persons in point of Godhead yet he also often Tom. 2. p. 576. most expresly excepts the Differences which I take to be very important of being unbegotten begotten and proceeding And which is a Difference with a Witness in his Questions and Answers He asks how many Causes are there in God Q. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and answers One only and that is the Father And then asks Q. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How many effects or things caused And answers two the Son and the Spirit And adds The Father is call'd a Cause because he begets the Son and sends out the Spirit The Son and Spirit are said to be caused because the Son is begotten and doth not beget the Spirit is sent forth and doth not send Now can he be thought all this while to mean an absolute equality And whereas he uses the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Author renders sejunctly or by himself that he may make it seem opposite to what is said by the Enquirer pag. 50. I for my part say as Athanasius doth that each of these Persons is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singly God and Lord but I say not as he doth not and he denies what the Sober Enquiry denies in the mentioned place That any one of the Persons sejunctly is all that is signify'd by the Name of God which words this Author slily leaves out for what purpose he best knows But his purpose be it what it will can no longer be served by it than till the Reader shall take the pains to cast back his Eye upon pag. 50. of the Sober Enquiry And I must here put the Considerator in mind of what I will not suppose him ignorant but inadvertent only at this time That one may be sejoin'd or abstracted from another two ways or by a twofold abstraction precisive or negative That we may truly say of the Father Son or Holy Ghost that the One of them is or is not God abstracting from both the other according as you differently abstract If you abstract any one of the Persons from both the other by precisive abstraction and each of them is God or Lord
can be added thereto or be without its compass much less can there be another Infinite added to the former I only now say you talk confidently in the dark you know not what And so as to involve your self in Contradictions do what you can 1. In saying nothing can be added to what is infinite 2. In pretending to know if any thing can be added how much or how little can 1. In saying nothing can be added to or be without the compass of what is infinite For then there could be no Creation which I cannot doubt him to grant Before there was any was there not an infinitude of Being in the eternal Godhead And hath the Creation nothing in it of real Being Or will you say the Being of the Creature is the Being of God I know what may be said and is elsewhere said to this and 't will better serve my purpose than his 2. In pretending to know what can or cannot be added Or that in the way of necessary eternal Emanation there cannot be an infinite addition tho not in the way of voluntary or arbitrary and temporary production The reason of the difference is too obvious to need elucidation to them that can consider But for your part I must tell my Antagonist you have concluded your self even as to that which carries the greatest appearance of impossibility come off as you can You say a Body of an Inch square is not only not infinite in extension but is a very small Body yet it hath this infinite power to be divisible to infinity So I suppose you must say of half that Inch or a quarter or the thousandth part of it much more of two or twenty or a thousand Inches You say indeed this Body it self is not infinite Nor will I insist upon the trite and common Objection against you How can any thing be divisible into parts which it hath not in it Which yet Men have not talkt away by talking it often over Still haeret lateri Nor of an infinite Power 's being lodged in a finite and so minute a Subject But in the mean time here are Infinites upon Infinites an infinite Power upon an infinite Power multiplyed infinitely and still these infinite Powers greater and less than other as either the Inch is augmented or diminished And he saith the Mind of Man hath the Property of infinite or eternal duration Therefore so many Minds so many Infinites And he must suppose the infinite duration of some Minds to be greater than of others unless he think his own Mind to be as old as Adam's or do not only hold their preexistence but that they were all created in the same moment Which if he do I am sure he can never prove And so for ought he knows there may not only be many Infinites but one greater than another What therefore exceeds all limits that are assignable or any way conceivable by us as we are sure the Divine Being doth it is impossible for us to know what differences that vast Infinitude contains And we shall therefore but talk at random and with much more presumption than knowledg when we take upon us to pronounce it impossible there should be three infinite Hypostases in the Godhead Especially considering that most intimate vital Union that they are supposed to have each with other in respect whereof the Son is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inexisting in the Father as Athanasius's Phrase is agreeably to the Language of Scripture Joh. 14. 11. and elsewhere And which by parity of Reason is to be conceiv'd of the Holy Ghost too who is also said to search all things even the deep things of God 1 Cor. 2. 10. In respect of which Union and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may thence be collected whatever of real Perfection Wisdom Power Goodness c. is in any one is each ones as truly as any ones all being originally in the Father as the first and everliving fountain of all As was said Sober Enquiry p. 31 32. But whereas the Considerator urges If the Father be infinite in his Substance in his Wisdom his Power his Goodness he is God in the most adequate and perfect sense of the Word I say well and what then If therefore he mean the Son and the Holy Ghost must be excluded the Godhead let him prove his consequence if he can And he may find the answer to it Sob Enquiry pag. 53. I shall not transcribe nor love when I have writ a Book to write it over again His Notion may fit Pagans well enough or those who are not otherwise taught Christians are directed to understand that the Deity includes Father Son and Holy Ghost Their equality I acknowledg with the mentioned Athanasian Exception notwithstanding which that they equally communicate in the most Characteristick difference of the Deity from all Creatures viz. Necessity of Existence is conceivable enough To sum up all the Considerator I understand even by the whole management of his Discourse and specially by the conclusion of that part wherein the Enquirer is concern'd to have most entirely given up this Cause as ever did any Man The Enquirer's only Undertaking was to maintain the possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead in opposition to his former daring Assertion of its being impossible and nonsense He now in conclusion says the Enquirer saw there must be a Nexus intimating if there can that he hath gain'd his point but 't is added he durst not venture to say what it was To which I must say That this is most uncautiously said I will not say deceitfully tho I know 't is said untruly and he might have known or remembred too that he the Enquirer often spoke of it as a necessary natural eternal vital and most intimate Union He further says he only explains it by the Union of Soul and Body Which again 1. Is so great a Misrepresentation that I wonder he would say it here when he himself but two or three Pages off recites as the Enquirer's words If God could unite into one two such contrary Natures let any Man give me a reason why he might not much more first make and then unite two and if two why not three Spirits c. Is this only to explain it by the Union of Soul and Body But by the way that first make and then unite was none of the Enquirer's but appears thrust in to make what was manifestly possible seem impossible Sic notus Let two Substances be created entire with no natural Propension to each other they are capable of no natural Union without change of their Natures Who sees not it were a Contradiction to suppose them the same still and not the same But suppose them created with mutual aptitudes to Union and united what should hinder but they may continue united without being confounded 2. And 't is said impertinently as well as untruly for what if he had not explain'd it at all
one says The Son is not separated from the Father's Hypostasis The other We hold not the Son divided from the Father c. And upon the most impartial faithful and diligent search and consideration I do solemnly declare there needed nor more of rationality or intelligibleness in this Doctrine to keep it from being ridicul'd as contradictious and non-sense but only less prejudice and more modesty in the Opposers of it with more reverence of the Divine Majesty upon this obvious apprehension that if it be true it must be Sacred Divine Truth This Author would fain have me with him to the Play-House whither really I have no leasure to accompany him nor much temptation for I perceive it hath fill'd his Mind with Ideas not useful to my purpose nor I think to any good one of his own If there he learned to jest away that which should be the best part of himself and of which Socrates dying told his Friends it would be gone far enough out of their hands and for that which was left behind they might bury or do with it what they pleased If there he was taught to ridicule the Holy Apostle's distinction of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inner and an outer Man and when he hath thrown the former of these out of his Notion of himself for my part I must think of that which is left that the silly Indian is the less silly Creature of the two And besides as he is too much given to play to mind any thing of serious Discourse so I find he is not throughout honest in his Play neither but that even when he pretends to sit out and be but a Spectator only taking care that there be fair play he falls in himself and plays booty Nor do I find he hath any thing of Argument in his Discourse which hath not been considered already in the Discourse I have had with the Considerator I therefore take leave of them both together and of you too Sir being in great Sincerity Your Affectionate Humble Servant The Enquirer Errata Pag. 21. l. 20. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 51. l. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ADVERTISEMENT THE Letter to the Clergy of both Vniversities came not to my Sight or Notice till some hours after the last Sheet of this Discourse was brought me from the Press I have not time therefore to say much to it nor yet should say more than I do had I never so much The Author seems to think what he was now doing as to the Enquiry superfluous because he said it was so fully done by an abâ—er Hand c. In the mean time he was â—n ill case that he was neither able to write to any purpose nor be silent A most deplorable double Impotency But he hath notwithstanding his Modesty shown a double Ability to invent and make an Hypothesis of his own Fingers Ends and then most dexterously to combat that Shadow Three inadequate Gods is indeed to use his own Phrase his own Invention constantly disavow'd by the Enquirer who with the generality of Trinitarians calls the three Subsistents in the Godhead God being each of them necessarily existent but none of them alone exclusively a God What Art he hath is shewn in fighting this his own Figment As also that of Parts of the Deity other than conceptible which no Man can avoid So we have his Dream of a third part of a God about which he so learnedly raves in his Dream as to disprove as effectually any God at all For I appeal to what Sense he hath left himself whether Power alone be God exclusive of Wisdom and Goodness Then 't is an inadequate or a not compleat Notion of God then by his profound reasoning not eternal No more are Father Son and Holy Ghost Parts unless you be enamoured of the Bull impartible Parts that never were parted nor ever can be As what are necessarily united tho unconfounded cannot without Nonsense and Contradiction be said to be parted His Fiction that what is from the eternal Father by necessary Emanation cannot be eternal but must have a beginning is of the same stamp He did not need when he writ to have abandoned all Logick and common Sense that would have told him relata sunt simul naturâ His so confidently taking it for granted on all Hands that all Infinites are equal shews his little compass of Thought and how unacquainted he is with the Difficulties of a Controversy wherein yet he will be so over-meddlesome Qui pauca respicit c. But who so bold as I leave him to compound that Difference with his abler Considerator Whether one Inch and two Inches be equal and so bid him good night FINIS BOOKS written by the Reverend Mr. JOHN HOWE 1. THE Blessedness of the Righteous The Vanity of this Mortal Life on Psal. 17. ver 15. and Psal. 89. 47. 2. Delighting in God 3. Living Temple 4. Self-dedication discoursed in the Anniversary Thanksgiving of a Person of Honour for a great Deliverance 5. Of Thoughtfulness for the Morrow With an Appendix concerning the immoderate Desire of fore-knowing things to come 6. Of Charity in reference to other Mens Sins 7. The Redeemer's Tears wept over lost Souls in a Treatise on Luke 19. 41 42. With an Appendix wherein somewhat is occasionally discoursed concerning the Sin against the Holy Ghost and how God is said to will the Salvation of them that perish 8. A Funeral Sermon for that Faithful and Laborious Servant of Christ Mr. Richard Fairclough who deceased July 4. 1682. in the sixty first Year of his Age. 9. A Sermon directing what we are to do after a strict Enquiry whether or no we truly love God 10. A Funeral Sermon for Mrs. Esther Sampson the late Wife of Henry Sampson Dr. of Physick who died Nov. 24. 1689. 11. The Carnality of Religious Contention In two Sermons Preach'd at the Merchants Lecture in Broadstreet 12. A Calm and Sober Enquiry concerning the Possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead 13. A Letter to a Friend concerning a Postscript to the Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notion of the Trinity in Unity relating to the Calm and Sober Enquiry upon the same Subject BOOKS Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns the lower End of Cheapside A Body of Practical Divinity consisting of above one hundred seventy six Sermons on the lesser-Catechism composed by the Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster With a Supplement of some Sermons on several Texts of Scripture By Thomas Watson formerly Minister at St. Stephen's Walbrook London A Paraphrase on the New Testament with Notes Doctrinal and Practical By plainness and brevity fitted to the Use of Religious Families in their daily Reading of the Scriptures and of the younger and poorer sort of Scholars and Ministers who want fuller Helps With an Advertisement of Difficulties in the Revelations By the late Reverend Mr. Richard Baxter Six hundred of Select Hymns and Spiritual Songs collected out of the Holy Bible Together with a Catechism the Canticles and a Catalogue of Vertuous Women The Three last hundred of Select Hymns collected out of the Psalms of David By William Barton A. M. late Minister of St. Martins in Leicester Spiritual Songs Or Songs of Praise to Almighty God upon several Occasions Together with the Song of Songs which is Solomon's First turn'd then paraphased in English Verse By John Mason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 4. Jud. Antiq. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 16. Enn. 6. lib. 7. cap. 5 6 7 c. Quaestiones aliae Contra Sabellii Gregales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 1. p. 241. Edit Paris Tractat. de Definitionibus Tom. 2. 45. ubi vid. plura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sext. Empir adversus Mathematicos Lib. 8. Considerations on the Lord Bishop of Worcester's Sermon p. 7 8. These Considerations p. 31 32. Considerations pag. 8. Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liber Epist. ad Athan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rescript Ath. ad Liberium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉