again what he endeavours to expose §. 14. my Desires to all to let this Controversy rest as it was above thirteen hundred Years ago determined by two general Councils And my Reason stands unshaken as far as I can see by the Dean or any else The Improvements which have since been attempted upon it have more embroil'd it than explain'd it and bring us down many times into grosser and more phantastical Conceptions of the Deity than become us As to what the Schools and Dr. Sherlock have done I have already spoke my Sense I could have shewn that Dr. Walls was only the English Author for three Somewhats and have cited a certain Father for tria quaedam but I had rather Mr. Dean should tell the World how ignorant I am of the Fathers than that their Esteem should be lessened by any thing produced by me that may seem to reflect on them Only because the World as if weary of metaphysical Improvements in this and like Subjects begins now to be fond of or expect even in Christian Mysteries some Wonders from Physicks or Mathematicks I shall give an Account of something more copious in this kind than what as far as I know our learned Professor here at home has as yet published There is a Book intituled Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres imprinted at Amsterdam 1685. wherein I find an Account of an Essay called a Memorial Memoire communicated by M. and writ to shew the Habitude or Resemblance Rapport of the three Dimensions of a Body to the three Persons of the Deity in which after a short Preface of the different Natures of a thinking and extense Substance there is drawn a Parallel between La Trinite in one Column and Laquantite in another amounting to no fewer than twenty three Particulars And after somewhat said of the Use of these Parallels wherein he utterly denies the false Idea's as he terms them of the School-men he adds seven more parallel Instances between the Objections Hereticks make against the Trinity and such as may be made against the triple Dimensions of Bodies Then follow ten Axioms out of the Religio rationalis Andreae Vissovatii an Author of whom I can find no Account amongst those Books which I have to consult placed also Column-wise the Trinity on one Side and extense Substance on the other He ends with a Promise if this Essay take of a Parallel between the Incarnation and the sensible World on all which I will only say Real and Physical Quantity exists only in Bodies Mathematical Quantity merely in the Mind or Thoughts of the Artist Now how highly Christianity is likely to be advanced by such Speculations as these what real and what rare spiritual Conceptions and Demonstrations at this rate we shall in some time come to have touching God I leave all considering Men to judg and in the mean while again desire all to stop at the afore-mentioned safe Boundaries of Faith and Peace I must now proceed with Mr. Dean rebuking me as surely intending §. 15. this for no more than a Jest that I would have the Doctrine of the Trinity left upon its old bottom of Authority And here he demands would I myself Pag. 12. believe such absurd Doctrines as some represent the Trinity in Vnity to be meerly upon Church-Authority for his Part he declares he would not And for my part I who adhere to Scripture and plead for such strict Adhesion am press'd with none of these Absurdities or absurd Doctrines but if he will not accept such Terms or Forms of speaking as Homoousion or Consubstantial Conglorified and the like from Councils and Fathers he must which would be a great Fault in me even let them alone I do not know whence else he can or must receive them nor who else coined them and desire him to inform me Perhaps he will say what the great Father in this Controversy did before him these syllabical Words are not indeed in Scripture but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Sense is I answer So I believe the Father-thought and so I believe thought the Generality of the Nicene Fathers for by Mr. Dean's Favour they pretended rather to determine this Point out of Scripture than to deliver any traditionary Sense thereof and agreeable to this Pretence was the placing the Holy Records in the midst of the Council yea admitting what we judg good Consequents out of Scripture to be of the same Truth with Scripture so think I but so do not others think nor will I pretend my self able nor do I see any notwithstanding their mighty Boasts able to convince them Demonstrate to the World this to be the Sense of Scripture and the Controversy is at an end Till that be done if we will be fair we must own this to be the State of our Evidence We have for the Orthodox Side Scripture interpreted by the Tradition of the Church this at length resolves it self mainly into Church-Authority For the traditionary Sense which determines Scripture to signify this not that is of such Authority and therefore is the Dogme thence concluded such also Wherefore I see no Reason to recal that honest Acknowledgment of mine conceived indeed in Terms a little larger After all Authority must define this Controversy Yet haply it might not be amiss to desire my Words may be strictly attended I said indefinitely Authority for I know not whether it can be said single Ecclesiastical Authority did ever effectually define it that is appease the Controversy nor will it I fear ever be able There was some other concurrent Power of which I forbear to speak interposed to temperate the Factious in a certain Council as well as to recommend its Decrees and so must there be amongst us for the ending this Controversy Let but the Forms of Worship which some Mens Consciences cannot bear be made easy that we may unite in the Service of God and 't is no matter how severe the Laws be against any who shall write or speak more in the Controversy I cannot tell but Mr. Dean may have private Reasons which induce him rather to abide by the Arguments or Sentiments of some Fathers than the Authority of the Councils by me insisted on I have not pretended to much Skill in Fathers and Councils and no where imperiously to justify my Pretences within the Space of two or three Pages rattle out over and over the same six or seven Fathers in a Breath without producing a Word out of any of them which some Men may interpret a Pretence to Skill in them but no good Mark whence to discover it However because the Judgment and Authority of Councils is so little in his Esteem and the learned and subtile Disputations of a certain Person in the Nicene Pag. 13. Council of so great Force with him I will take leave notwithstanding my being so little vers'd in these Authors to tell him that though I have â—â—â—ue and profound a Veneration for the
a good Answer in the Fathers and shall the same be ill meerly because at another time in another Case it came from an Heretick The Hereticks proposing it you say renders it suspect St. Athanasius and St. Ambrose using it say I and relying upon it too gives it Authority The Hereticks used it not first but only retorted it on the Fathers Wherefore at least admit the Authority of the one to take off the Disadvantage it may sustain from the other and let the Project as you call it stand or fall according to its own naked Merit Only by the way give me leave to add that if what is just and reasonable must be rejected because it has been sometimes used by Hereticks we must oftentimes give over pleading from Scripture and quit a World of Texts therein I must acknowledg I am not able to see why Men should be so averse from the Language of the Holy Ghost either in their Prayers or Creeds The Sum of the Reason alledged is that it is the Sense of Scripture which Pag. 7. is the true Faith and not merely the Words And must we saith Mr. Dean very admirably believe the Words or Sense of the Scripture I may desire him if he can to believe this or that Sense as revealed by God for he cannot know this or that Sense or Proposition as revealed by God without the Words in which it was revealed I demand Do those Words express contain and convey to us this Sense of such or such Point of Faith or do they not If they do not then the Sense insisted on is not the Sense of the Scripture and consequently not Faith If they do why should we not keep those Words by which God hath thought fit to express this Sense Why should we separate what he has joined Are we wiser than he or can we express the Mind of God better than himself But when Hereticks have used their utmost Art to make the Words of Scripture signify what they please is it not necessary to fix their true Sense and to express that in such other Words as Hereticks cannot pervert Yes in the Name of God let us use our utmost Art to vindicate if possible all and every Scripture from Heretical Glosses or Distortions and with all the Light and Evidence we can discover and assert its genuine Sense The natural Explication of Scripture is our immediate Scope in most or in all the Arts and Sciences which as Divines we take in But what do all our Explications effect save a Proof or Discovery that this or that is the Sense contained under such Words of Scripture When therefore we have plainly proved that these Words of Scripture contain this Sense why should we change the Words If they were not plain the Explication supposing it to have done any thing to the purpose has made them plain When they are plain then why may they not be kept They may be undetermined said Mr. Dean and 't is necessary to fix their §. 10. true Sense But this is the Difficulty They may rationally at least probably admit more Senses than one and when you say you have fixed your own true Sense another shall deny the Sense you have fixed to be the true Sense at least assign another equally probable Sense And a third Person it may be a third For Instance the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 2. 10 12. God hath revealed the Joys and Glories which he has prepared for those that love him unto us by his Spirit for the Spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God For what Man knoweth the things of Man save the Spirit of Man which is in him even so the things of God knoweth no Man but the Spirit of God Now we have received not the Spirit of the World but the Spirit which is of God that we might know the things which are freely given us of God This Text the learned Dr. Sherlock as well as others even Athanasius himself interpret not without Probability of the essential Spirit of God and the Doctor both in his Vindication and Apology endeavours thence to prove the Personality of the Holy Ghost and his mutual Consciousness with the Father and the Son Now I sacredly protest I remember not my self ever to have read any Socinian Author on this Text But I find some others by the word Spirit here understand the spiritual Illumination and inward Perswasion of Mind wrought in the Apostles and other faithful People And this we seem enforced from ver 12. to admit where we read the Apostles to have received the Spirit which cannot be well understood of the Person but of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost This agrees too with the Close of ver 10. The Spirit searcheth all things that is scrutari nos facit This Illumination in their Search leads all such who are endowed therewith into the knowledg and belief of all things necessary to their Salvation even the deepest Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven Further this spiritual Gift may be said to know i. e. we by this Illumination know and relish the things of God as feelingly as the Spirit of Man knows the things of a Man because this Gift is so true a Communication from God and as it were somewhat of the Divine Nature 2 Pet. 1. 4. imparted to us But that the Spirit of God here spoken of as knowing the things of God should be a Person distinct from God any more than the Spirit of a Man knowing the things of a Man is a Person distinct from the Man seems unreasonable And it is considerable that amongst others even Calvin and Beza allow by the Spirit here may be understood such Gift of Illumination as spoken of But Grotius referring us to what he had said on Mark 2. 8 c. with great Learning and Probability interprets the Spirit here of the Divine Nature of Christ and tells us it was by Christ as coming from the Bosom of his Father and knowing all his Secrets that these things were revealed to the Apostles and that the Sense here is the same as in John 1. 18. and ch 6. 46 c. and he produces many Authorities both from Scripture and Fathers touching the Divine Nature of our Lord being stiled the Spirit Now who shall determine which is the true and genuine Sense and if any of the two latter should be genuine then has not the Dean evinced hence what he conceived and particularly not the mutual Consciousness of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son for that the Person of the Holy Ghost is not here spoken of It were easy but that it would be tedious to give like Instances in many other Texts of Holy Scripture What shall we do then It were an admirable Expedient indeed could we determine infallibly this or that to be the true Sense of each controverted Text and then express that Sense in such Words as Hereticks cannot pervert But where shall we find
that Infallibility or those Words Some have maintained whatever their Judgment is now I know not nor must concern my self if they use to contradict themselves Some I say have maintained that there is no infallible Judg on Earth nor any need of one being we have as far as is necessary to Salvation an infallible Rule the Scriptures of Truth Suppose then as to the forementioned Place we should take some such ample wide or large Sense as this The Joys and Glories of Heaven the good things which God has prepared for them that love him we could never have known without Divine Revelation nor should ever have had a Sense Relish and Perswasion of without a Work of Illumination and Conviction upon our Minds or more generally without other Aids and Assistances of Grace This well enough sutes with the Text and thus much is sufficient to conclude hence for Salvation or to any Intent of holy Life and this all Protestants will acquiesce in at least none will contradict Why may not we stop then here in this general This restraining of the Word of God from that LATITVDE and Generality and the Vnderstandings of Men from that Liberty wherein Christ and the Apostles left them is and has been the only Foundation of all the Schisms in the Church and that which makes them immortal Mr. Chilling worth Ch. IV. n. 16. Sense without affixing any of those particular Senses to the Text that is Is it not best to leave it in its full Latitude without restraining the word Spirit Further I would be clearly for expressing some fixed true Sense of all controverted Texts in such Words as Hereticks cannot pervert but for two or three Reasons one already mentioned namely that I cannot always be sure which Sense is most truly affix'd and being I am not or cannot be so a second Reason will be that by expressing such Sense in such Words and fixing it to Scripture so that now such Sense should become the Sense of Scripture it being as we know the Sense of Scripture which is the true Faith not meerly the Pag. 7. Words I should fear by this means Mens changing Faith or which is much the same changing Scripture And a third Reason which is as urgent as all the rest is I do not know nor does it appear that any Man knows no nor that any Church or Council ever have known where to find such Words which Hereticks cannot pervert I could assign many Words from time to time pitch'd upon to prick the Fingers of Hereticks and guard the Faith but I will content my self Pag. 5. with two neither of which Mr. Dean can pretend to be unacquainted with they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Personae These we know have been long thought fit Terms to fix the Sense of Scriptures But are they Words which Hereticks cannot pervert or are they not more equivocal and so more pervertable than most of the usual Terms in Scripture The first indeed is several times used singularly in the Greek of the New Testament and rendred constantly by the old Interpreter Substantia but by many Moderns and particularly by our Translators two or three ways Three times that now occur to me by Confidence 2 Cor. 9. 4. and ch 11. 17. Heb. 3. 14. yet in the first of these Places Beza tells us it might have been rendred in hoc fundamento gloriationis which is near the first and natural Import of the Word And Castellio renders it in hâc materiâ Erasmus in hoc argumento which we may fitly english in this Subject of Boasting Once viz. Heb. 11. 1. by Substance which is its Philosophical Acceptation And once by Person which I may call the Ecclesiastical or Scholastical Acceptation of the Word affixed to this Place by Theophilact as it is said by Authority of Gregory Nissen but I have neither by me to consult After all notwithstanding we no where read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture though frequently in the Fathers Suppose then we take this Term Three Hypostases to fix the Sense of that Text There are three that bear Witness in Heaven c. Are there now no more Homonymies of it that yet we have seen Yes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Budaeus is almost the same as Existence and Evil has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for both which he gives good Authority Again Nicephorus Callistus tells us The Word is scarce in use amongst the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist lib. 10. cap. 15. in Sentent lib. 1. Dist 23. Antients in any certain Signification but the Moderns have frequently used it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per totam secularium scholam are the same says Estius Now all the World knows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although used ordinarily by Aristotle for his Predicament of Substance yet more properly signifies Essence or Nature Three Hypostases then may be interpreted three Essences or Natures and under this Term may Tritheism it self in its worse Sense lurk Nor are there wanting those who tell us this very Term led Philoponus into his Heresy Further Bellarmine will have it that Hypostasis properly signifies Substantiam primam which In Controv. de Christo is not necessarily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Person but may be any meaner Animate or even an Inanimate individual I could add yet two or three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. ubi supr more Significations of this Word out of the above-mentioned Nicephorus Callistus who vouches good Authority for the meanest of them which I will not here set down lest the Dean should say I teach People to ridicule the Trinity in their Prayers when I only report the Words of approved Authors to caution others against unadvised and obnoxious Terms But it is plain from what I have said this Term is further from fixing the Sense of Scripture than the Terms of Scripture Next as to the word Persona though that Word be now upon the Authority above-mentioned by Beza brought in and justly too into our modern Translations yet it was true in Aquinas's time and since that too that it was neither in Old nor New Testament used touching God Nomen persona in Scripturis veteris vel novi Testamenti non invenitur dictum de Deo 1. q. 29. â— 3. And when used plurally as the former it must be acknowledged an Ecclesiastical or Scholastical Word sound out as the other for â—ixing if possible the Sense of Scripture to use the Dean's Phrase and does it do it The Dean no doubt knows what Laurentius Valla a Critick but no Socinian says of its Congruity in this Point And it is too trite a Subject to reckon up all its Homonymies I will only remind that it is taken in one Sense in humanis for a single Substance separate and by it self in another in divinis for such a
was Poison under the â—n Epistol ad Damas Tom. 2. Honey and boggled at it St. Austin acknowledges he understood not the Difference the Greeks designed between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in our present Language between Essence and Subsistence But because says he according to our Custom of Speech Essence and Substance are all one â—e Trinitat â—b 5. in fine â—apitis 8 cap. 9. therefore we dare not say one Essence three Substances but one Essence or Substance and three Persons So that when they laid aside Hypostasis they introduced a Term equivalent and perhaps more ambiguous namely Persona and then said there were three Persons in one Essence Yet at the same time St. Austin acknowledgeth the Use of this Term improper and that it was Necessity drove them to it they used this Word for â—agna prorsus â—opia humaâ—â— laborat â—â—quium Dictum est tamen tres personae non ut illud diceretur sed ne taceretur Non enim rei â—â—bilis eminentia hoc vocabulo explicare valet Cap. 9. want of a better The Father saith he and the Son and the Holy Ghost are truly three But when it is demanded three what humane Speech is defective notwithstanding we have said three Persons not that strictly we mean or intend to say this but lest we should be silent and say nothing for the Transcendency of the ineffable Matter cannot be express'd by this Word And again more fully in his seventh Book proving the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be one because the Father is Wisdom the Son Wisdom and the Holy Ghost Wisdom and in God to be wise is the same as to be and to be the same as to be God Therefore says he for expressing what is inexpressible that we may speak in some measure what we cannot speak out the Itaque loquendi causâ de ineffabilibus ut fari aliquo modo possemus quod effari nullo modo possumus dictum est à nostris Graecis una Essentia tres Substantiae a Latinis autem una Essentia tres Personae Et ut intelligatur in aenigmate quod dicitur placuit ita dici ut aliquid diceretur Ut quaereretur quid tria sunt quid tres conferimus nos ad inveniendum aliquid speciale vel generale nomen quo complectamus haec tria neque occurrit animo quia excedit supereminentia divinitatis usitati eloquii facultatem Cap. 3 4. Grecian Christians have said one Essence three Substances that is Subsistences and the Latins one Essence three Persons And that what we say may be understood at least in a Riddle we thought it good thus it should be said that something might be said When it is required what these three are we apply our selves to find out some special or general Name whereby we may comprize all the three nor does there any occur to our Thoughts because the Transcendency of the Divinity exceeds the Faculty of usual Speech He goes on to the Effect following If we take these three Abraham and Isaac and Jacob we can find somewhat common which they all have and say they are three Men but touching Father Son and Holy Ghost we cannot say they are three Fathers or three Sons nor indeed three Gods what therefore are the three Three Persons By all which it is plain they used this word Persons not because it was proper but because the Speculation was run so fine that they knew not what else or what less improper to say And let this suffice in my present Penury of Books as to the Fathers who of old either first introduced or by their Use first authorized in divinis this Term three Persons or a Trinity of Persons As to the Sense of the School-Doctors touching the word Persona in this Controversy I must speak chiefly out of my Memory having besides the Master of the Sentences and some imperfect pieces of others only St. Thomas's Sum at hand in which Work he is somewhat brief on this Term Yet even therein when he concludes it convenient that the Name Person be used touching God he does it with this Limitation that it be Conveniens est ut hoc nomen persona de Deo dicitur non tamen eodem modo quo dicitur de Creaturis not used or which is the same understood after the same manner as it is of the Creatures But I do avow it and will be bound to produce Testimonies enough as soon as I can come at Books that it is both his Doctrine and the common Doctrine of his Followers that the word Person when used touching God and the Creatures is not taken in the same equal or univocal Sense but only by way of Proportion and as to the manner Persona de Deo Creaturis non dici univoce sed analogice of signifying and Imposition of the Name it first and more properly agrees to the Creatures As to Protestant Divines also for the Reasons above touched I must be sparing in their Numbers but I am sure the Systematists ordinarily assign either four or five Differences in the Use of the Word when attributed to God and to the Creature And I find by me in my Notes this Passage which I long since transcribed out of Zanchy a judicious and learned Calvinist In the Creatures one Person is not only Una Persona creata ex contextu precedente supplenda ab altera non tam distincta quam etiam disjuncta est at proinde diversae sunt inter se substantiae licet unius naturae In Deo una Persona ab altera distincta quidem est sed disjuncta esse non porest c. De tribus Elohim Parte 2da lib. 1. c. 3. distinct from the other but disjoined and separate so that the Substances are divers though the Nature one But in God one Person is indeed distinct from the other but cannot be disjoined and therefore the Divine Persons are not only of the same Nature for so are humane Persons but of the same Essence Nay they so subsist in the same Essence that they are indeed nothing else but that Essence Somewhat very near this the Doctor to do him Justice more than once or twice expresly says in his Book I mean in his Vindication of the Holy Trinity viz. p. 47 67 104 c. that they are distinct not separate but then he in effect unsays all again much oftner and that both by his Definition of a Person in divinis and in those other Passages of his produced by me in my Paper p. 14. and by many other Passages which I might transcribe from him For my own part I am not able to excuse him from contradicting himself over and over most plainly in the Space of a dozen Lines in one of the Pages now cited viz. 67. of his Vindication for first he acknowledges These three Divine Persons are not separate Minds as created Spirits
Sense your good Nature can yea should you take it even for Foolishness it self which none can think I intended the first Chapter of the first to the Corinthians would in a sort justify the Expression But by Simplicity I meant here as all who are not wilfully blind will understand me Plainness Vnmixedness Purity I would not have so much of Philosophy vamp'd into Faith And I am not of the Mind of that Cardinal that we should have been to seek for sundry Articles of our Faith had it not been for Aristotle and though I love him much better I will add for Plato either But here I must answer once for all as to my Displeasure with the §. 6. Pag. 4. School-Doctors Pray what Hurt have they done says Mr. Dean I could give a certain Reason for which I might say perhaps they have done him little But I will rather give him two other Answers one I hope he will not except against because it is his own They sometimes mistake the Fathers Sense whom they pretend to follow or clog it with some peculiar Niceties of their own by which Means this Mystery has been confounded Vind. p. 138. And again p. 139. Though I do not think it impossible to give a tolerable Account of the School-terms and Distinctions yet that is a Work of greater Difficulty â—â—an Vse This we must take for a fair Specimen of Mr. Dean's great Skill and Reading in the School-Doctors But my own Answer is the Writings of the School-men or rather that Vein of Study and Dispute which they have brought into the Church of God turning the whole Body of Christianity into nice and too curious many times idle Questions and resolving these in the difficultest Philosophical Terms and so running all to thin Metaphysical Distinctions has made Religion mostly a Business of Speculation and Wit The Endeavour of Subtilty has very much eaten out the Heart and Vitals of Christianity raised fruitless Contentions bitter Envyings endless Schisms and Parties in the Church destroyed in a great measure the Love of God and all good Affection and debauch'd Faith it self for the main into Opinion or Scepticism This is my Answer further I do aver the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is dishonoured and exposed by their Questions and Disputes of it And particularly as to the Master of the Sentences with whom the Dean will not allow me to be intimately acquainted I Pag. 17. say that had I used severer Language touching him than that what Stuff has he in his first Book made of this Doctrine by too much Subtilty and too nice Enquiries the Matter would justly have born it And for a Proof hereof If I should run through all I must transcribe in a manner his whole first Book Let it therefore suffice of such Stuff as I justly called it to give only a Taste Methinks these that follow are not seemly Questions to be put inquired into or disputed touching the infinite incomprehensible Majesty Creator and Lord of all I will not therefore turn them into English Vtrum Pater voluntate genuerit filium Distinct VI. an necessitate an volens vel nolens sit Deus And it is resolved that the Word of God is the Son of God by Nature and not by his Will Therefore it should seem without his Will and so the Father God and a Father unwillingly The Unsoundness of this Resolution see in Danaeâ—â—'s Censure on it The next Question is no more reverent An Pater potuerit Dist VII vel voluerit gignere filium Et an hoc sit aliqua potentia quae sit in filio And if the Father always had such Power and such Will he had a Power and a Will to do something which the Son had not and consequently the Son must not be of equal Power with the Father nor have like Will The Sum of the Resolution is Filius potuit gignere sed non oportuit Again An filius sit sapiens à seipso vel per seipsum And he resolves it Non est sapiens a se sed de Patre à Patre Dist 32. E. Again That may seem a little better touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost Vtrum Spiritus sanctus priùs vel pleniùs procedat à Patre quam à Filio Dist XII And An plenius vel magis processerit à Patre quam à Filio Now though he resolved it in the Negative yet ne te perturbaret lest this should offend any he tells us that the Holy Ghost proceeds principally from the Father but he is found also to proceed from the Son Sed hoc quâ—que illi Pater dedit non jam existenti nondam habenti Had I been Author of such a Saying as this last what should I have heard But who pleases may read more on the same Subject I will conclude all this as the Master does a certain Section in one of the cited Distinctions Sub silâ—ntio potiùs esset praetereundum nisi me super hoc aliquid loqui cogeret instantia quaerentium which I will be content to english I would not have discovered the Master's Shame could I have in the Judgment of some escaped otherwise without the Brand of an ignorant impudent and false Accuser But though I will add no more of these grating Places yet I will desire of Mr. Dean because he professes to be able to give a tolerable Account of these Mens Terms and Distinctions to shew if he pleases his Skill in any useful Explication of the following Passages Eadem est Potentia Dist VII G. Patris quâ potest esse Pater Filii quâ potest esse Filius Yet he doubts not to affirm Filii originem esse ab initio at non ipsum esse ab initio sed ab initiabili And touching the Trinity and the Holy Ghost In Trinitate Dist XXXII Ae. est Dilectio quae est Trinitas tamen Spiritus sanctus est Dilectio quae non est Trinitaâ— nec ideo duae sunt Dilectiones Take these Assertions either singly and apart by themselves as I designed them or imagine that being all from one Hand they ought to be consistent with one another and what pretty Employment will it be to make useful Divinity I had almost said even Sense of them I might add hundreds more either on this or other Subjects out of the same Author but I fear it should be said they are hard Shells without a Kernel and truly so I long thought them and a great deal more of other Mens Writings on this Controversy Nor can I forbear observing by the way that the learned pious holy and orthodox Dr. Hammond could not or did not find room so much as for one Section nay that I remember not one Question and Answer for this whole Controversy in his Practical Catechism which yet excellently instructs us in many other Controversies wherein Holiness and Christian Devotion is concerned But in all likelihood he judged what