from the Property or Character that maketh the Father To beget to be begotten and to proceed are Properties which constitute the Relations of Father Son and Spirit but they are other Properties which make the Persons of the Father Son and Spirit Concerning the Properties or Characters which make the Reâ—â—tions all Learned Trinitarians are agreed they acknowledg them to be these three Active Generation not as Mr. Hooker mistakes this meer Negation to be of none Eternal Passive Generation or to be begotten and Eternal Procession but concerning the Properties that make the Persons they are not so well accorded The Antient Divines said the Property that maketh the Person of the Father or the peculiar Property and Character of the first Person is Monarchy the Property of the second Person is Wisdom and of the third is Love Others said that the Property of the first Person is Beatitude and Rest the Property of the second is Operation others had still other Conceits all of them false But allowing now the way of speaking used by Mr. Hooker what a Riddle has he propounded Here is the self-same Substance in Number unbegotten and yet begotten the Divine Substance with the Property to be of none or to be unbegotten is saith he the Person of the Father the self same Substance in Number with the Property to be of the Father or to be begotten is or makes the Person of the Son Can the self-same Substance in Number be of none and yet be of the Father be unbegotten and begotten too Are they not contradictory Terms and therefore not to be applied to the self-same Substance in Number They will say Mr. Hooker doth not affirm that the self-same Substance is begotten and unbegotten this indeed were a â—â—t Contradiction but he saith that as 't is in the Father 't is unbegotten as in the Son 't is begotten But do they reckon they have to deal only with Fools What if I should say my Hand as in my Pocket is unskalded but at in my Glove 't is skalded would it not be a Contradiction for all the Blinds of in the Pocket and in the Glove The self-same Hand in Number cannot be burnt and unburnt the Place in which it is will not palliate such a Contradiction in like manner the self-same Substance cannot be begotten and unbegotten because you are pleased to pretend you consider it sometimes in one Subject or Person sometimes in another In whatever Person a Substance is it must either be a begotten Substance or an unbegotten it cannot possibly be both if it really remains unbegotten then it never was begotten but if in process of time it has been begotten then it cannot still be unbegotten Why do our Opposers choose to maintain such extravagant Paradoxes rather than acknowledg so easy and natural a Truth as the Unity of God Rather than receive the first Commandment in its natural and obvious sense rather than we will sincerely and without Disguise or Juggle own that there is but one only God we will choose to make our selves scorned by all sensible Men by saying the self-same Substance in Number is begotten and unbegotten 't is of the Father nay 't is of Father and of Son and yet 't is of none Let us consider Mr. Hooker's Catch in three Human Persons He will say the Substance of John is begotten as John is the Son of Peter but John's Substance is unbegotten as John is the Father of James and yet it is the self-same Substance in Number that is thus both begotten and unbegotten Is it so but if John's Substance be really begotten I will ever stand in it that his Substance is not unbegotten it was begotten by his Father Peter therefore 't is a begotten Substance not an unbegotten Some one may say but is not John's Substance unbegotten in respect of John ' s Son James tho it was begotten by Peter By no means for if Peter begot John's Substance then John's Substance is begotten tho his Son James begot it not and consequently it cannot be said to be an unbegotten Substance in any respect whatsoever In short they would have us to say John's Substance is unbegotten because it was begotten by Peter and not by John's Son James I deny that 't is a proper or a true way of speaking for if the Substance has been begotten by any whomsoever it must never after be called unbegotten on this absurd account that it was not begotten by James but by Peter Farther whereas Mr. Hooker saith the Substance of God with this Property to be begotten or to be of the Father maketh the Person of the Son I ask is then the Substance of God begotten I pray who begat it They must answer the Father But did the Father beget the Substance of God Do they not say that the self-same Substance that is in the Father is also in the Son But if so then if the Father begat the Substance of the Son or of God he begat his own Substance Can any one beget his own Substance Is it not a Contradiction a manifold Contradiction Is it not as much as to say he was before he was He that begets his own Substance begets himself but he that begets himself is thereby supposed to have been before he was I know it hath been said by some Divines God is self-originated or self-begotten But 't is utterly false they ought to have said he is unoriginated or unbegotten As God is not originated or begotten by another so much less by himself not by another for then that other must be before him at least in order of Nature not by himself because then he must be before he was But to finish with Mr. Hooker I will show his Followers that in pursuance of his Explication they will be forced to say that as the Father begat the Son so the Son destroys the Father And I make challenge to them all to rescue their Master's Explication from that fatal Consequence Begotten doth always destroy unbegotten when once a Person or Thing is begotten that self-same Thing or Person can be no longer unbegotten If therefore the Substance of God unbegotten maketh as Mr. Hooker contends the Person of the Father and the self-same Substance begotten maketh the Person of the Son it unavoidably follows that the Generation of the Son is the Destruction of the Father because the Property or Characteristick of the Father even unbegotten is destroyed out of the Divine Substance by the Characteristick of the Son which is begotten Unbegotten that is to say the Father remains no longer in the Divine Substance if begotten that is according to Hooker the Son hath taken place in it O that our learned Opposers would vouchsafe to consider these things impartially that they would not reckon 't is their Glory to defend received Doctrines only because they have been long received and by many as if Prescription or Numbers could alter the Nature of Truths and Untruths Which I pray
to deny that the Fathers ever held more than one Divine Essence or Substance but I have shown before the Ground of that gross and I doubt not wilful Mistake of the Doctrine of the Fathers But Dr. Cudworth thought that he had found an Expedient how he might keep sincerely to the Fathers and yet not be guilty of Tritheism for saith he tho there are three distinct Divine Essences or Substances vulgarly called Persons yet the second and third Persons or Essences are derived from the first and they all concur to the same Actions under the same Head or Principal even the Father Therefore 2. To that the second and third Persons are derived from the Father as their Fountain and Cause therefore they may be reckned as one God with him Here begins the Controversy between the Socinians and the Doctor They grant that every distinct Person is a distinct and particular Essence or Substance but they deny that three distinct Divine Essences can be understood to be one God Unity of Original or that the second and third Persons are derived from the first will not help the Doctor no not in the least The three Divine Essences which are called Persons are one God saith this Doctor because the second and third are derived from the first Why doth he not say too that three Human Essences or Persons whereof the second and third derive themselves from the first are one Man He may as well say this and as soon perswade it as the former the Son and Grandson derive themselves from a first Human Essence or Person called the Grandfather two Brothers derive themselves from their common Father Doth this Unity of Original make them all to be but one Man If not neither can Unity of Original make the Son and Spirit one God with their Fountain and Cause even the Father It is a reasoning altogether unworthy of Dr. Cudworth the Son and Spirit are particular Substances or Essences derived from the Essence of the Father as their Principle or Cause therefore they are one God with the Father for then all Angels all Men nay and all Beasts shall be one God with the Father who is their Cause and Principle Unity of Original is so far from proving that they are one God with him that it even demonstrates the very contrary for if they are derived from the one true God they themselves cannot be that one true God no more than the Effect can be the Cause that very Cause whose Effect it is These Arguments are so clear and withal so very obvious that I wonder much that Dr. Cudworth foresaw them not but it may be he foresaw them but thought withal that even all these Consequences are better than to admit such a Monstrosity in Philosophy as three Persons having only one self-same Substance in Number All things how hard soever would go down with him but only that but that can never be agreed to by a Philosopher 3. His last Subterfuge was this the three Divine Essences called Persons are but one God because they concur to all the same Actions of Creation and Providence under one Head the Father who only is Almighty ad intra or really Almighty How many Rarities hath he boxed up in a very little compass 1. Here is one Almighty who together with two other Persons is one God I would know how two other Persons can contribute to make him a perfect God who without them is Almighty The Scale is already full if Almightiness be there we need no more Weight and least of all the Weight of two Impotents If the Son and Spirit are not Almighty ad intra or not really Almighty but only as the Father Omnipotently concurs with them they are Impotent for every Person and Thing that is not Almighty or cannot do all things is impotent to some things Dr. Cudworth being so accurate a Philosopher saw evidently that three Almighty Persons are of necessity three Gods therefore he will admit of but one Almighty Person even the Father But then he should have look'd a little further or closer and he would also have seen that when he had found one Almighty there was no need to add to him two Impotents to make him a compleat God or as he speaks to make up the Intireness of the Divinity 2. 'T is altogether as rare strange and surprizing that the Son and Spirit are one God with the Father because they are gathered under him as their Head and Principal Doth not the Doctor prevaricate doth he not say these things only to establish Unitarianism so much the more strongly For if you say first that the Father is the Head and Principal and the Son and Spirit are subjected to him and then therefore they are one God with the Father their Principal and Head this in a Man of so great Sense looks like meer Prevarication for 't is plain to all that he should have inferred the contrary namely therefore only the Father is God We shall see the Weakness of Dr. Cudworth's Reasoning so soon as ever we apply it to any other Instances The Son and Spirit are one God with the Father saith he because he is their Head and Principal therefore say I the Servants and their Master the Subjects and their Prince the Children and their Parent are all one Governour because the Subjects Servants and Children are gathered under their Prince their Master and Parent as their Principal and Head Will the Doctor allow of this last Consequence if not he vainly urges or insists on the other 3. But the Son and Spirit concur with the Father to all the same Actions both of Creation and Providence and therefore may be said to be one God with him If the Doctor could prove that the Son and Spirit concur to the same Acts of Providence and Creation with the Father he would thereby prove that there are three Gods not that the concurring Persons are one God Many Carpenters for instance concur to make a Ship under one Head or Principal the Master-Builder Many Colonels and Captains concur to the marshaling of an Army under one Principal and Head their General Are therefore all these Carpenters Colonels and Captains one Master-Builder and one General That there is but one Master-Builder and but one General we grant but the Captains and Carpenters concurring with their Master-Builder and General are not one with the General and Master-Builder I do not think it necessary to make any further Reflections on such impotent Reasonings I will leave it with you Sir to judg Whether Dr. Cudworth hath given any new Strength to the Trinitarian Cause by reviving an old forsaken Explication If we will give a Name to Dr. Cudworth's Explication of the Trinity we must call it Mollis Arianismus a moderate Arianism The Arians were divided into two Parties the high or rigid Arians and the Ariani Molles or the moderate Arians The former of these being the Eunomians and AEtians strictly followed Arius they
believed that the Son was created by the Father or God but a little before the Creation of the World and that the Spirit was the Work or Creature of the Son and further that their Substances or Essences were altogether unlike from whence they were also called Heterousians But the moderate Arians were content to say that there was no conceivable Duration or Time between the Being of God or the Father and the Generation or Creation for those are with them equivalent Terms of the Son the Father made or generated the Son so early that there was no conceivable Portion of Time before the Son was no more than was absolutely necessary for giving to the Father the Priority of Existence and his Title of Father and as to their Substances they are Consubstantial by which this sort of Arians meant and the Church then meant no more that their Substances or Essences are alike or the same for Kind and Properties tho not in Number that is the Essences of these three Persons are all of them Spiritual Eternal and Infinite tho only the Father is Infinite in Power These moderate Arians were received to Communion by the moderate Trinitarians and particularly by Pope Liberius Dr. Cudworth holdeth their very Doctrine he alloweth only the Father to be Omnipotent and tho he saith that the Son and Spirit are also Eternal yet he cannot deny that there must be some Priority of the Father as the Fountain Principle and Cause before the Son and Spirit as Effects In a word the moderate Arians ascribed as much to the Son as Dr. Cudworth doth Were Dr. Cudworth alive it would not be expedient to make this Judgment of his Explication but being dead it cannot hurt him He is retired to the true Mount Moriah or Land of Vision where he no longer guesses by prudent and wary Conjectures but he knows and even sees how these things are God and Nature after which he enquired with so much Application and Freedom are now known to him and he now rests from his excellent Labours out of all danger from the Malevolence of the present evil Generation with whom 't is a Crime not to take every thing upon Trust on the meer Credit of those who have been before us As if it were the way to Truth not to enquire but to believe not to examine try and judg but to pre-suppose and take for granted every thing that has been told us by Men in Power and Place This is the Spirit that now prevails in the Church and on the contrary an ingenuous Freedom in enquiring and examining tho it be nothing else indeed but an honest and necessary Sincerity is now called Heresy and Schism and is if you 'll believe them to be punish'd with certain Damnation We have however in the mean time this Satisfaction that it is God who shall at last judg us He that hath said to us Try all things hold fast that which is good But I pass to the Trinity according to Aristotle defended by Dr. S th Of the Explication by Dr. S th I Have already done Right to Dr. S th and his Book if he takes it amiss that I observe also some Defects in it he ought to show his Patent by which he is constituted the only Animadverter on the Books of others If he hath received any Personal Wrong or Affront from Dr. Sherlock he is the more excusable that his Book hath so much more Scurrility than Argument but the Injury must have been very great to excuse him wholly He has noted some Errors either of Inadvertency and Haste or of the Pen in some Expressions and Words used by Dr. Sherlock he imputes all these as faults of meer Ignorance or Dulness to the Doctor This was somewhat barbarous nay it was more Barbarity in Point of Morality or Manners than ever Dr. Sherlock was guilty of in Grammar or Speech Dr. S th will not at least has not yet been able to perswade many that Dr. Sherlock wants the Qualifications or the degree of the Qualifications for which Dr. S th hath deserved Esteem the World thinks there is a great deal more in Dr. Sherlock to be commended besides his Preferments it is only wished that both these Doctors had something more of the Tenderness and Catholick Charity of Genuine Christianity tho it were accompanied with lesser Abilities or Learning Dr. Sherlock hath publish'd an Essay towards vindicating and explaining the Difficulties of the Trinity and Incarnation the Method he hath taken is wholly new and is a Mistake but it was meant well and I do not think that setting aside some Authorities or Quotations Dr. S th hath said any thing against it which Dr. Sherlock will much value The Arguments used by Dr. S th are only Metaphysical Reasonings easily advanced and as easily destroyed Dr. S th's is the true Explication that is to say as Orthodoxy is reckoned since Peter Lombard and the Lateran Council but Dr. Sherlock knew it to be Nonsense and therefore adventur'd to propose another he put forth his Hand to save the tottering and falling Ark and 't is made an inexcusable Fault But I will pass from the too Cynical Doctor to his Book and Explication 'T is not till Chap. 8. that he begins to bless us with the Catholick and Orthodox Account of his Trinity in Unity but at length at Pag. 240. out comes the Secret with this Preface to it The Doctrine of the Church and of the Schools concerning the Blessed Trinity so far as I can judg but still with the humblest Submission to the Judgment of the Church of England in the Case is this Truly I am heartily sorry to hear it that Dr. S th at these Years has no fixed Religion of his own no not concerning the Trinity it self but is ready to turn with the Wind is prepared to renounce a Doctrine and Explication which he believes to be not only true but Fundamental if the Church commands him Mr. Milbourn makes the same Complement to his good Mother the Church in his late Book against the Socinians as I have noted in my Answer to him but Mr. Milbourn is somewhat excusable because he hath not yet received any of the Rewards due as he thinks to his Industry and Learning but Dr. S th is full and even overflows with the Blessings of the holy Mother It should seem Dr. S th thinketh he hath not yet enough else he would never be so over-mannerly as to put his Faith it self afloat and that too with the humblest Submission at the Command of his Reverend Mother We may infer however from these publick Professions of the Writers that could the Socinians get Mother Church of their side all her Champions would also come over to us for 't is not it seems the Cause that they defend 't is not the Trinity or Incarnation that they value but our Mother our Mother the Church If Dr. S th makes so light of his own Explication that he
is ready to fling it into the Kennel at the first Nod that the Church shall make he cannot wonder that the Socinians will handle it will look on both sides of it will view it in a clear Light before they bargain for it Well see here it is The Personalities by which the Godhead stands diversified into three distinct Persons are called and accounted Modes Therefore for understanding the Mystery of the Trinity we must declare what is properly a Mode or Manner of Being It is not a Substance nor an Accident which two make indeed the Adequate Division of Real Beings but a Mode is properly a certain Habitude of some Being Essence or Thing whereby the said Essence or Being is determined to some particular State or Condition which barely of it self it would not have been determined to And according to this Account a Mode in things Spiritual and Immaterial hath the like Reference to such Beings as a Posture hath to a Body to which it gives some Difference or Distinction without superadding any new Entity or Being to it In a word a Mode is not properly a Being whether Substance or Accident but a certain Affection cleaving to Being and determining it from its common general Nature and Indifference to something more particular as we have just now explained it As for instance Dependence is a Mode determining the general Nature of Being to that particular State and Condition by virtue of which it proceeds from and is supported by another and the like may be said of Mutability Presence Absence Inherence Adherence and such like viz. that they are not Beings but Modes or Affections of Being and inseparable from it so far that they have no Existence of their own after a Separation or Division from the Things or Beings to which they belong Animadver p. 240 241 242. Behold the Birth of the Mountains We are kept in suspense seven long Chapters at length in the 8th at p. 240. of his Book he gives forth this Oracle That the three Divine Persons so much talk'd of are neither Substances nor Accidents and consequently saith he no Real Beings Nay they have no real Existence of their own but are Modes Habitudes or Affections of the Divine Substance or the Substance of God they are in the Godhead or in the Substance of God such as Mutability Presence Absence Inherence Adherence and such like are in the Natures or Substances to which they belong Or if you will have a great deal in one single word the very Iliads in a Nut-shell they are Postures or what amounts to the same thing they are such in Spiritual and Immaterial Beings that a Posture is to a Body I must needs here tell you Sir the Story of the Princess Dulcinea del Toboso Mistress to the Renowned Don Quixot of the Mancha in Spain This famous Princess had the Honour to be Mistress of the Affections of the so much celebrated Don Quixot for her he traversed Mountains Deserts and other dreadful Places for her he encountred Giants Knights-errant and other formidable Dangers and at length for her to satisfy his amorous Passions towards her he retired to a place called the poor Rock where he spent much time in lamenting the Disdains the Cruelty and Hard-heartedness of his Mistress towards himself as is largely related in the History Don Quixot was waited on in his long Travels and Adventures by his Esquire Sancho Pancha who greatly pitied his Master that he should serve so rigorous a Mistress but the Esquire had one Scruple in his Mind Who this Dulcinea del Toboso should be But while Don Quixot was tormenting himself at the poor Rock he unluckily happened to drop some words by which it evidently appeared that Dulcinea del Toboso was only an imaginary Lady or Princess and that indeed she was no other Person but a certain coarse Country Wench Daughter of the Farmer Alonso Zanchez and for her Plainness called Joan. Ta Ta cries Sancho Pancha and is the Princess Dulcinea our Neighbour Joan Zanchez By my troth a sturdy Quean well may my Master languish for her for I am well perswaded she hath no regard or sense of Love-matters but 't is a good-natur'd Wench c. Methinks Sir there can be nothing more pat or proper for this place than this Story For just such a Disappointment do we all meet with in the Explication for which Dr. S th hath made us wait so long as Sancho Pancha had when he found the Princess Dulcinea was Joan Zanchez Dr. S th had raised the Expectation of his Readers in no fewer than seven Preliminary Chapters in the eighth he promises in the Title of it the long-lock'd for the much-desired Catholick and Orthodox Explication of a Trinity of Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead but when all comes to all he tells us the three Divine Persons are nothing else but the Substance of God or the Godhead diversified into three Postures Never were Men so bilk'd before as his Readers are at this News 't is the Princess Dulcinea turned into Joan Zanchez Was it worth while to fall upon Dr. Sherlock in that outragious manner only because he would not call the three Divine Persons three Postures of the Godhead or the Substance of God in three Postures Dr. Sherlock poor sensless illiterate Cantabrigian Ignoramus thought that these words Father Son and Spirit implied something that was real He imagin'd that the Notion which all Men naturally have of a Father his Son and a Spirit distinct from both must be filled up with something that will honestly and satisfactorily answer to such Names and natural Notions of a Father a Son and a Spirit diverse from both therefore saith he seeing these Persons are Spiritual and Immaterial and Intelligent I call them three Minds three Spirits and three Beings But the Adepti of Oxford will make him know his Mistake First Dr. Wallis tells him Three Persons and one God is as much as to say three Respects of one God to his Creatures he is their Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier and in this sense is called three Persons tho he is indeed but one God and but one Being but Dr. S th answers 't is neither so nor so three Divine Persons are the Substance of God in three Gambals or Postures or in three such I know not what 's which have the same or like Reference to Things Spiritual and Immaterial that Postures have to Bodies The three Personalities are that in the one Substance of God which Mutability Presence Absence Inherence Adherence and such like changeable Affections and Habitudes are in the Substances to which they belong He thinks it should seem that the Faithful must put their Trust in three Postures and worship Mutability Presence Absence or something which in Spirituals is like to them something which is no more in the Deity than Postures are in Bodies I fancy Dr. Sherlock will object to him that it is of the Nature of a meer
Schools deform the sincere and easy Notion of the Unity of God as 't is held by the Socinians and Sabellians by transforming it into a Fantastick Trinity of Nominal Persons or of Persons who are Persons only in Name not in Truth and Reality therefore Dr. Cudworth saith farther that this Trinity is Jargonry in Philosophy a Trinity that falls not under Human Conception and which cannot be in Nature Intellect System p. 605. Elsewhere he scruples not to name it the Philosophy of Gotham These are the just Characters which that great Philosopher and Divine gives of the Scholastick Trinity of Dr. S th he giveth his Reasons up and down in the Intellectual System but 't is not necessary for me to report them when every one may see them in the Author himself and besides they are too Philosophical to be put into a Discourse which I design for the Use of the less learned as well as of the learned I have done with Dr. S th's Explication for this time If he is angry with me for the Reflections I have made thereupon I protest 't is without just Cause I have used no disrespectful Language I have acknowledged and do acknowledg the Worth of the Man and all other Perfections in his Book but only this one that it maintains an unjustifiable Explication The Method or Structure of his Book is Natural Elegant and Judicious the Words Expression or Phrase is proper forcible clean and well chose it hath very many agreeable Turns of Wit which render it pleasant to an ingenious Reader As this Author hath a great deal of Wit so he hath known how to govern it in this respect that he is witty without Buffoonry This is a Conduct not very usual in those that have much Wit commonly they know not how to manage it and among other unjudicious Neglects they forget the Where and When and other such like Circumstances they are so taken with their Talent as to be always using it because they know not that everlasting fooling is true and meer fooling But I wish that Dr. S th in exercising his Wit had remembred the who which he hath utterly forgotten and that was utterly an oversight and a very great one He cannot excuse himself by pleading the many Contradictions in Dr. Sherlock's Book a candid Man would not impute them to the Author but to the extream Obscurity of the Subject when the Subject it self is contradictory there will be many Contradictions committed in defending it I doubt not that Dr. Sherlock will find many Contradictions in Dr. S-th's second Chapter Having done to Dr. S th this Right he ought not to be out of Humour that I as a Socinian have attacked his Explication as I have some other Learned Men I mean no Disrespect thereby to him or them I acknowledg their Personal Merit but cannot give up to them so sacred a Truth as the Unity of God or consent that it be disguised and deformed Of the Explication by Mr. Hooker Author of the Ecclesiastical Polity MR. Hooker tho he was none of the Fathers of the Catholick Church is not of less Authority in the particular Church of England than any one of the Fathers is and it must be confest he was not only a very good but a very learned and discerning Man But it is observed of him that in speaking of the Trinity he speaks somewhat incorrectly this was a Doctrine which he took for granted there was no Dispute in his time about it so he hath delivered himself not with his usual Precaution and Judgment He saith That the Substance of God with this Property to be of none doth make the Person of the the Father The very self-same Substance in Number with this Property to be of the Father maketh the Person of the Son The same Substance having added to it the Property of proceeding from the other two maketh the Person of the Holy Ghost So that in every Person there is implied both the Substance of God which is one and also that Property which causeth the same Person really and truly to differ from the other two I must observe in the first place hereupon that Mr. Hooker in this matter hath not spoken over critically and correctly nay hardly Orthodoxly I mean as Orthodoxy goes among the Learned of his own Parry He saith that the Substance of God with these Properties to be of none to be of the Father and to proceed from the other two make the Persons of the Father Son and Spirit now to be of none to be of the Father and to proceed from both are but other Words for this Sense to beget to be begotten and to proceed But that Father of Modern Orthodoxy Peter Lombard whom we have already twice mentioned denies that these before-mentioned are Properties in the Substance of God or that they can belong to it he saith Essentia Divina non est generaâ—â— nec generaâ—â— nec procedens i. e. the Substance of God neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds 'T is impossible to make this consist with Mr. Hooker who expresly ascribeth those Properties to the Divine Substance or Essence and saith that being in the Divine Substance they make it to be three Persons What shall we do here Shall we say Reverend Hooker has mistaken and missed his Sons who are all the Church of England into an Error concerning the Trinity Hath he ascribed to the Divine Essence Properties which he calleth Persons that are not in it To give up Hooker is to dishonour the Church of England it self to part with Father Hooker is to endanger the very Surplice and even the Cross in Baptism nay that Book of Books the Common-Prayer If Mr. Hooker could err about the Trinity What will the Fanaticks and Trimmers say Will they not be apt to pretend too he may have erred in his profound Dissertations and Discourses for the Rites and Discipline of the Church I am afraid for all that we must keep close to Peter Lombard Master of the Sentences and of the Modern Divinity he hath been espoused by all the Popes since Innocent the Third by the Lateran Council which was General and by the tacit Approbation of the whole Church ever since I doubt it is not much more passible that Mr. Hooker saith that the Properties to be of none to be of the Father and to proceed do together with the Substance of God make the Persons of the Father Son and Spirit It is not true that those are the Properties which make the Persons he might say that they make the Persons to be Father Son and Spirit or to have that threefold Relation among themselves but they do not make the three Persons to be Persons or thus they do not make as he speaks the Persons To be of none maketh the Father but I deny that it maketh as Mr. Hooker affirms the Person of the Father the Character or Property which maketh the Person of the Father is quite another
is more honourable to own a clear and necessary Truth or to set one's self to darken and to obstruct it I confess the latter requires more Wit especially against an able and dexterous Defendant but 't is the other that deserves greater Praise especially before God because it argues Sincerity and Justice But I pass to the last sort of Trinity the Mystical Trinity Of the Mystical Trinity or the Trinity of the Mobile THE poor common People are first made to believe by the help of corrupted Copies and false Translations of the Bible that 't is a Scripture-Doctrine that there is a Trinity of Divine Persons an Almighty Father an Almighty Son and an Almighty Spirit distinct and different in Number from both Father and Son But because this at the very first sight appears contrary to Reason and common Sense therefore in the next place they are told that they must consider this Doctrine as a Mystery impossible indeed for us to understand yet necessary to be believed because God hath said it How many things say these Teachers are there in the Works of Nature which we understand not no more than we can understand the Trinity and yet we believe them to be as assuredly as if there were no Difficulty in conceiving how they should be As that there are Antipodes whose Feet are opposite to our Feet and who walk with their Heads downwards with respect to our Parts of the World Again that a Spirit can move a Body from place to place tho Reason first assures us that there can be no Motion without a Resistance and then that a pure Spirit can meet no Resistance from Matter or Bodies Also that the Parts of Matter or Bodies hold together tho no Cause can be assigned for it but what appears immediately to be unsufficient nay ridiculous All these are great Truths and we believe them even contrary to the Verdict of Reason how much more ought we to believe the Trinity which hath been propounded to us as an Article of Faith in the Word of God it self tho our fallible and frail Reason reclaims and kicks perhaps against it When the Socinians say these Gentlemen have accounted for all the Mysteries of Nature and Art let them begin to object to the Trinity that 't is a Mystery and that it hath sundry Contradictions to Reason but till they do the first 't is nothing else but a bold Impiety to insist on the other It must be confessed Sir that this is the most plausible Pretence the strongest Hold as well as the last Resort of our Opposers when we have drove them from all other Posts here they take Sanctuary I will therefore take care to remove this Occasion and Cover of Error I say 1. I might leave it wholly to Dr. S th to answer this Pretence of some of his Party At p. 2 and 3 c. of his Animadversions he shows at large what is a Mystery he saith that a Mistery is a Truth revealed by God above the reach of Human Reason to find out or to comprehend He vindicateth this Definition part by part he saith p. 3. first a Mystery is a Truth by which saith he I exclude every thing from being a Mystery which is absurd or contradictions Now we desire nothing else of our Oppoâ—â—â—â— but that they would abide by this Account of Mystery that 't is not something absurd or contradictory but only some Secret revealed by God because it was above Human Capacity to discover it and sometimes also even to comprehend how it can be For there is a vast Difference between my not being able to conceive how a thing should be and a clear Apprehension and Sight that it cannot be There are it may be Mysteries which we cannot comprehend how they should be but that three Divine Persons or three distinct Almighty and All-knowing Persons should be but one Almighty but one All-knowing or but one God a Man who considers but with never so little Intention and Sincerity clearly sees that it cannot be In short that 't is not a Mystery but as Dr. S th speaks an Absurdity and a Contradiction In a word we do not reject the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation because they are Mysteries but because they are plain Contradictions to Reason and common Sense and consequently Untruths for without doubt Reason and Truth are but two Names for the same thing and clear Reason is no other thing but clear Truth 2. I consider that what will equally serve to excuse all the Nonsense and impossible Doctrines that are to be found among Men we cannot admit of it as a Defence of the pretended Trinity and Incarnation especially in Opposition to such powerful Proofs both from Scripture and Reason as may be and actually are alledged against those Doctrines A Papist for Example does with equal colour alledg this Pretence for his Transubstantiation He says 'T is a Scripture-Doctrine delivered in these express words This is my Body and how many things are there in the Works of Nature which we comprehend not no more than we can comprehend the Miracle of the Transubstantiation and yet we believe them to be as assuredly as if there were no Difficulty in conceiving how they should be or that they can be Such as the Antipodes and that a pure Spirit can â—â—â—ve a Body in which it findeth no Resistance and that the Parts of Matter or Bodies are continuos or hold together and many the like Thus do the Papists argue and I deny that this Pretence can be wrested from them by any Trinitarian for 't is the same Defence that the Trinitarian makes for his Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation Our Opposers will not vouchsafe so much as to hear Catholicks and Lutherans when they plead Mystery for the Transubstantiation or the Consubstantiation I desire of them therefore to give me but one Reason why that Plea is not as good in those Controversies as in these of the Trinity and Incarnation The Author of two Dialogues concerning the Trinity and the Transubstantiation finding himself pressed with this Difficulty answers to this effect that there are a great many more Texts of Holy Scripture for the Trinity than are pretended for the Transubstantiation But this is no Solution of the proposed Difficulty for 't is not at all the Question which Doctrine hath most Texts alledged for it but only whether the Pretence of Mystery be not a Plea as rational and allowable against all the Exceptions made against the Transubstantiation as an impossible inconceivable and contradictory Doctrine as 't is to the same Exceptions when urged by the Socinians against the Incarnation or Trinity But whereas that Author insists upon an Answer wholly foreign to this Difficulty and is so careful to bring together from Cardinal Bellarmine all the Texts alledged for the Trinity he is desired to name to us so much as one Text for either of those Doctrines that is not given up to the