this Compound which the Soul is essentially related to not the Body I hope for the Body is no more the Compound than the Soul Is it then the Man and where is this Man that the Soul is essentially related to Does he then mean that it is essential to the Soul to live in an earthly Body Then it cannot live in a State of Separation If it be of the Essence of the Soul to live in the Body it is evident That it can never live out of it and if it be not essential then the Soul may be a whole entire Person when it subsists separate from the Body But the Soul by its original Designation is related to the Body What so that it cannot live without it and never should live without it if not this original Designation does not prove an essential Relation But it has a natural Aptitude to be an Ingredient in the Constitution of a Compound What does he mean by the Soul 's being an Ingredient in a Compound Is the Soul and Body mixed and blended together to make a Man Is it the same thing to be a part of the whole and to be an Ingredient in a Compound Well but the Soul has a natural Aptitude to live in a Body and so it has to live out of the Body and what then then the Soul which is the same Person still is naturally fitted to live in different States and then its Relation to an earthly Body is not essential to it whatever strong Appetite and Inclination as he says it retains to return and be re-united to the Body which whoever says it no Man can know and if it be true of sensual Souls who were wholly immersed in Sense is demonstratively false of all holy and pure Spirits who are in a great measure weaned from this Body while they live in it and rejoyce at their Deliverance when they escape safe out of it who with St. Paul desire to be absent from the Body and to be present with the Lord. Holy Souls indeed in a State of Separation do earnestly desire the Completion of their Happiness in the Resurrection of their Bodies but not to be re-united to these vile earthly corruptible Bodies but to glorified immortal incorruptible Bodies when Christ shall at his Appearance change our vile Bodies and make them like to his own most glorious Body which though they had every individual Atome which belonged to them before are yet in their Nature and Constitution no more the same Bodies than Earth and Heaven are the same But the Spirits of just Men made perfect are in a more perfect State of Life and Happiness out of these Bodies than they enjoyed in them and therefore are more perfect Persons too are more perfectly themselves and enjoy themselves more perfectly and therefore are in a State more agreeable to the Perfection of their Natures and that I take to be a natural State than living in these Bodies The Animadverter will not allow this to be a natural but Supernatural Perfection which relates only to the Consummation of their Graces and not to the manner of their Subsistence But is not the Perfection of our Graces the Perfection of Humane Nature And is not the Perfection of Nature a natural Perfection And if the Soul be more perfect in a State of Separation is not this a more perfect manner of Subsistence This might have shamed the Animadverter had he had a little more Consideration and less Confidence to deny the Personality of the Soul which can subsist and act and be more perfect and happy out of the Body which shews that to be in the Body or out of it does not concern the Personality but the different States wherein the same Person lives To proceed The Dean had upon another occasion said That all the Sufferings and Actions of the Body are attributed to the Man though the Soul is the Person because it is the Superiour and Governing Power and constitutes the Person This I should have thought very true and safe but the Animadverter has made very tragical Work with it He says That this proves the quite contrary That the Man himself to whom these personal Acts are ascribed must indeed be the Person and that for the same Reason also the Soul cannot be so But does the Dean any where deny That the Man as consisting of Soul and Body is a Humane Person or when united to a Body affirm that the Soul is the whole Person He says indeed That the Soul is the seat of Personality the only Principle of Reason Sensation and a Conscious life which consequently in a State of Separation is the Person and when united to the Body constitutes the Person and therefore may both be the Person and constitute the Person When a Body is vitally united to a Soul Soul and Body are but One Person because they are but One voluntary Agent and have but One Conscious Life but it is the Soul constitutes the Person as being the Principle of all personal Acts Sensations and Passions which the Body is only the Instrument of but being a vital Instrument is united to the Person and becomes One Person with the Soul for the Person reaches as far as the same Conscious Life does but it is only this vital Union to the Soul which receives the Body into the Unity of the same Person not as part of the Person but as an animated Instrument of Life and Action which as it were cements Soul and Body into One Person A Soul vitally united to a Body is an embodied Person in a State of Separation it is the same Person still but without a Body which makes a great change in its Sensations and manner of acting but no more changes the Person than the Man would be changed cloathed or uncloathed were his Cloths as vitally united to his Body as his Body is to his Soul This is plain Sence and if the Animadverter knows not how to reduce it to Terms of Art I cannot help it The Soul I grant as he wisely observes Cannot constitute the Person efficiently by Creation or Generation nor formally as a constituent part for the Soul is not properly part of the Person but the Soul constitutes an embodied Person by living and acting in the Body which unites Soul and Body into one Life and that makes one embodied Person or Soul and Body one Man And now as for those Questions which with so much Triumph and Scorn he asks the Dean I leave to himself to Answer them and to you to laugh at them The rest of this Chapter is nothing but Ignorance and Raving and has been answered already If you will Pardon this long excursion about the Personality of the Soul which is nothing at all to the present Controversie having given you this one sufficient taste of the Wit and Philosophy of the Animadverter and his great exactness in speaking and reasoning I promise you to let pass an hundred other
not a Person and consequently Self-consciousness is not the formal Reason of Personality for as much as it may be in that which is no Person Now indeed had the Dean expresly taught That Self-consciousness is the formal Reason of Personality here had been One supernatural Exception against it which does not alter the Reason of natural Unions and yet is no greater Objection against Self-consoiousness than against the most approved Definition of a Person For if with Boethius you define a Person to be substantia individua naturae rationabilis an individual Substance of a rational Nature the Humane Nature of Christ which is an individual Substance of a rational Nature and yet no Person is an equal Objection against it and let the Animadverter try how according to this Definition he can keep off the Assertion of Nestorius that there are Two distinct Persons in Christ And if Self-consciousness escape as well as any other formal Reason of Personality I believe the Dean desires no more and yet he needs not this for he no where makes Self-consciousness the formal Reason of Personality but only of the Unity and Distinction of a Mind or Spirit and I hope he will grant the Humane Nature of Christ to be One and to be distinct and separated by Self-consciousness from all other particular Humane Natures or Persons The short Answer is this That Self-consciousness makes a Mind or Spirit one with it self and distinguishes or separates it from all other Minds or Spirits and such a distinct and separate Self-conscious Mind is a natural Person unless its own natural Personality be swallowed up in a Personal Union to a Superiour Mind For this is the Account the Dean gives of a personal Union when Two Natures are united into One Person they must be so united that the Superiour Nature have the Government of the whole Person which is necessary to make them One Agent without which there cannot be One Person and that there be One Consciousness in the whole Of which more presently 3. His third Argument is draw out to a great length but may be answered in a few Words becuse it proceeds upon the same Mistake and is nothing to the purpose It is taken from the Soul of Man in a State of Separation from the Body that the Soul in a separate State is conscious to it self of all its own internal Acts or Motions and yet the Soul in such a State is not a Person And therefore Self-consciousness is not the formal Reason of Personality But whether the Soul be a Person or no Person in the Body or out of the Body is nothing at all to the present Controversie If the Soul and all other Spirits are naturally One with themselves and separated from all other Souls and Spirits by Self-consciousness this is all the Dean desires and all that his Hypothesis needs And the Animadverter may philosophize as he pleases about Personalities The Truth is to do him right he is a very notable Man if he can draw you into a School-question for he can make a shift to read and transcribe but he hates a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men at his Heart which is none of his Talent for it requires thinking put him out of his way and he is undone which makes him so angry at the Dean for not speaking the School-Language nor confining himself to known Terms of Art which he has a great deal to say of whether he understands them or not and because the Dean would not do this himself he has done it for him and put his Notions into School-Terms and made Self-consciousness the formal Reason of Personality and on my Word has disputed very notably against it and it is pity Three such dead-doing Arguments should be lost for want of the formal Reason of Personality and yet there is no help for it he must begin all again and try how he can prove that the Unity of a Mind and its distinction from all other Minds does not consist in Self-consciousness and if he can prove this then the Dean is a lost Man for ever and must be contented to follow his Triumphant Chariot But yet whether this Question of the Soul 's being a Person or no Person serve the purpose of the present Dispute or not it abundantly serves the Animadverter's charitable purpose which is the only purpose of his writing this Book to expose the Dean and therefore though the Matter is not worth disputing I shall make some short Reflections on it The Dean has upon another occasion asserted That a Soul without a vital Union to a Humane Body is a Person In opposition to this the Animadverter asserts That the Soul of Man is not a Person neither in its Conjunction with the Body nor its Separation from it The Foundation of his Arguments such as they are is a very unphilosophical and senceless Mistake that because Man consists of Soul and Body which he very undeniably proves from the Athanasian Creed therefore the Personality too must be divided between the Soul and Body that the Soul is but part of the Person as it is part of the Man and then the Soul neither in nor out of the Body can be the Person because a part can't be the whole Quod erat demonstrandum Now I readily grant That the Person of a Man as it is used in common Speech to signifie a Man must include both Soul and Body as the constituent Parts of a Humane Person but when we enquire into the strict Notion of Personality that must be a simple uncompounded thing as indivisible as self is which cannot consist of Parts which may be separated from each other that one part of the Person may live and the other die for though there are Two Natures there is but One Person and the same One Person cannot both live and die at the same time This is a very pleasant Notion if well considered of the two parts of Personality as there are two Parts of a Man Soul and Body for unless there be two Personalities as well as two Natures the two Natures cannot be two Parts of the one Humane Personality as they are the Parts of a Man It is impossible to prove from Two Natures that there are Two Parts of Personality unless each Nature has a Personality of its own the Personality of the Body and the Personality of the Soul united into the One Personality of the Man for nothing can be a part of Personality which has nothing of Personality it self Will the Animadverter then venture to attribute any Personality to the Body as he must do if he makes it part of the Personality This will be a little worse than what he so rares the Dean for calling a Beast a Person tho the Dean gave notice of the impropriety of the Expression and used it only by way of allusion and accommodation the better to represent the Union of Two Natures into
and silenced all his Adversaries then that he heard no more of that till the Animadverter revived the Quarrel who could have given you the Dean's Answers to his own Objections if he had so pleased for they are not new but borrowed from such Wits as Mr. Alsop without any new strength given to them Where the Animadverter charges the Dean with Absurdities and Contradictions turn to the place and read it with it s context and tell me what you can't Answer and I will But if you or any body else can be perswaded by the Animadverter That the Dean understands neither English Latin nor Greek neither Logicks Metaphysicks or Common Sence I need wish you no other Punishment than when ever you Write to fall into the hands of such an Adversary for I believe there are very few Writers but might be exposed in the same manner by a spiteful Critick not the Animadverter himself excepted who begins his Animadversions with a notorious Blunder in deriving a Mystery from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas a Mystery does not signifie in English the word Mystery but the thing signified by that word and therefore though the word Mystery may be derived a Mystery is derived from no Word and to Talk of deriving a Mystery is neither English nor Sence But though it were Justice to return some of his Complements to the Dean upon himself yet his Example is too scandalous to be imitated and there is no need to expose him more than his own Pen has done I am SIR Your very Faithful Friend A POST-SCRIPT Concerning the Calm-Discourse of the Trinity in the Godhead SIR SInce my writing this Letter I have met with a Book Entituled A Calm and Sober Enquiry concerning the possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead Written as is said by a Man of great Reputation among the Dissenters I do not intend to examine the Book nor to approve or disapprove it though there seem to be very obnoxious Passages in it should he fall into such hands as our Animadverter He has taken great care That no Man should suspect that he favours the Dean in his Notions and I believe the Dean will thank him for that for if I understand him he would never have said and would be as unwilling that any Man should think he has said what the Enquirer has But all I design by this Post-script is only this to let you see that though the Enquirer does not in every particular say what the Dean says yet he says what will justifie the Dean against the heaviest Charge the Animadverter himself could frame against his Hypothesis and that is Tritheism The pretence of this is what the Dean says concerning Three distinct eternal infinite Minds and the Objections and Answers you have already heard and if I can understand the Enquirer he says this as plainly and in more obnoxious Terms than the Dean has done To prove the possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead he argues from the possibility of God's uniting two Spirits by as close an Union as he has united Spirit and Body which make One Man and if it were possible to him God to unite Two would it not be as possible to unite Three So that he represents the Trinity in Unity by the Union of Three Spirits which are distinguished by their own individual Essences and remain distinct by their singular Essences so as to be everlastingly united but not Identified and by Vertue of that Union be some one thing as much and as truly as our Soul and Body united do constitute One Man Now from the possibility of such an Union with such a distinction in created Spirits he concludes the possibility of such an Union unmade or that is original and eternal in an unmade or uncreated Being that is That Three eternal unmade uncreated Spirits may be thus united in One Godhead that is That there are or may be for whatever he thinks which may be easily guessed at he will not positively assert it Three eternal uncreated Minds in the Unity of the Godhead This he proves from the Incarnation That the Union of the Two Natures the Humane made up of an Humane Body and Humane Soul which are Two exceedingly different Natures with the Divine which is a Third and infinitely more different from both the other in One Person viz. of the Son of God cannot certainly appear to any considering Person more conceivable or possible than that which we now suppose but assert not of Three distinct Essences united in the One Godhead And that Father Son and Holy Ghost have their distinct Essences he proves also from the Doctrine of the Incarnation since the Man Christ is confessed to be in Hypostatical Union with the uncreated Spiritual Being of God not as that Being is in the Person of the Father nor as in the Person of the Holy Ghost for then they should have become Man too but as it was in the Person of the Son only why should it be thought less possible That Three uncreated Spiritual Beings which the Animadverter will no more allow of them of Three eternal Minds may be in so near an Union with each other as to be One God as that a created Spirit and Body too should be in so near an Union with One of the Persons in the Godhead only as therewith to be One Person Will it not hereby be much more apprehensible how One of the Persons as the common way of speaking is should be Incarnate and not the other Two Will not the Notion of Person it self be much more unexceptionable when it shall be supposed to have its own individual Nature Will it be Tritheism and inconsistent with the acknowledged invioluble Unity of the Godhead A great deal more to this purpose you may find in his first Letter to Dr. Wallis p. 100 c. and whether this be Tritheism or not he had best ask the Animadverter who charged the Dean's Hypothesis with Tritheism with much less Reason And I confess I am amazed that after all this he should so industriously Vindicate himself from Dr. Sherlock's Notion of Three infinite Minds or Spirits for Three distinct Substances the Dean does not assert and if the Enquirer has not all this while been proving Three Spirits Three distinct Essences Three individual Natures in the Godhead no Man living can guess what he means for my part I cannot tell where the difference is unless it be in the Term of infinite for his Three Spirits and Essences and individual Natures which make up his Unity of the Godhead as he has represented it do not seem to be infinite But he shelters himself from the Animadverter whom he seems to be terribly afraid of in Academick uncertainty and thinks he may safely dispute as he pleases and all on one side so long as he asserts nothing though I cannot see how the Dean was more dogmatical than the Enquirer who proposed his
LICENS'D ERRATA PAge 9. line 3. for usual r. unusual p. 21. l. 8. f. any r. an l. 24. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 22. Marg. l. 9. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 11. p. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A DEFENCE OF Dr. SHERLOCK's NOTION OF A Trinity in Unity In ANSWER to the ANIMADVERSIONS upon his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and ever Blessed TRINITY With a POST-SCRIPT Relating to the Calm Discourse of a Trinity in the GODHEAD In A Letter to a Friend LONDON Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun over-against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street MDCXCIV A DEFENCE OF Dr. SHERLOCK's NOTION OF A Trinity in Unity c. SIR I Had heard very often and very much of the Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity but I had also heard such a Character of it which both Friends and Foes agreed in that I could not perswade my self to read it For a Satyrical Wit is no diversion to a Wise Man except in a Play and where it hurts no Body and I could never think that true Divine Wisdom rests on an ill-natured and perverse Spirit But your late Letter awakened me for I could not but think that Book whatever other Faults it had must be worth reading which you could think worth answering and seem so impatiently to expect when the Dean or some body for him should Answer it As for the Dean he has given Testimony to the World that he has not been Idle all this while but much better employed And to speak my Mind freely I don't see how he is obliged to Answer unless you think a Man bound to Answer Ballads and Lampoons for he is as little concerned in it as you are that had it not been for the Title Page and some particular Expressions which the Dean uses and the Animadverter furiously opposes without understanding them I could never have guessed against whom he had Writ I had a little before read over the Vindication and the Notions lay fresh and easie in my Mind but as soon as I dipt into the Animadversions they were all on a sudden confounded and put into disorder The Animadverter Disputes earnestly subtilly and triumphantly opens his whole Armory of Metaphysicks and because they are thin airy Weapons which do no great Execution he points them with Wit and Satyr to make them pierce the deeper It was the Saying of a very Witty Man that He who Writes lies down but it is to be supposed he forgot it when he made the Experiment himself But I must say this for the Animadverter That he is as fair an Adversary upon this account as one would desire as he spares not those who lie down before him so he very civilly takes his turn and lays himself as fairly open to Satyrical Wit if the Dean or any of his Friends would condescend to exercise it upon him When he ventures upon any thing like Wit he always makes himself a Jest and never so much insults and triumphs over an Enemy as where he is certainly himself in the Wrong I will not entertain you with particular Remarks of this Nature read over his Book again if you have the Patience and see if this be not true But Sir as well as I love you I 'm resolved to humble you for giving me the trouble of reading this Book not by giving a particular Answer to the whole which would be too unmerciful but by convincing you that it needed no Answer and to let you see what a trifling Author you have either admired or feared will prove some little Humiliation to you But I shall do it in short to save my self as much as I can the pains of Writing and you of Reading and therefore shall consider only the main Points of Dispute between the Animadverter and the Dean concerning Self-Consciousness Mutual-Consciousness and Three eternal and infinite Minds He rages furiously against the Dean according to his Custom in a whole long Chapter for discarding those good old Terms of Essence Substance Nature c. for his own new-invented Terms of Self-consciousness and Mutual-consciousness that any one who reads it would believe That the Dean would not allow GOD to be a real Substantial Being or to have any Nature or Essence whereas he no where denies That these are very good Words and not only useful but necessary in some cases but yet very apt to confound us with Material and Sensible Images when we go about to form a Notion and Idea of GOD. We know not the naked Substance or Essence of any Thing not of Matter much less of Spirit and much less of an infinite and eternal Spirit and therefore as we can form no other Idea of Matter but by its sensible Qualities so we can form no Idea of a Spirit but by such Attributes and Powers as are proper and essential to a Spirit which is so far from being a Novelty that it is to think and speak with all the considering part of Mankind but let this pass which the Dean is no more concerned in were his Words and Sence truly and candidly represented than the best Christian Writers both Ancient and Modern as were easily shewn did I not fear the Animadverter should he know it would rail at them all for his sake for there is not a more Capital Crime than to speak any thing well of the Dean or to say any thing that he says That which the Dean is more immediately concerned in is the Idea he has endeavour'd to give us of a Trinity in Unity and all that he positively asserts of it is That it is a possible and intelligible Notion and no other in Sence and Substance than what the ancient Fathers made use of to represent this great Mystery by though expressed in other Terms To prepare you to judge equally in this Cause you must remember That the Substance of the Article is not concerned in it here is no Dispute about a Trinity in Unity This the Dean asserts in as full and ample words as the Athanasian Creed it self which some Trinitarians themselves boggle at but without reason as he thinks for whoever will acknowledge Three Persons in the Godhead each of which distinctly considered is GOD and has all the Perfections of the Divine Nature and yet are all Three but one GOD must as he undertakes to prove own the Terms and Explications of that Creed He has been careful to preserve a Real not a meerly Nominal distinction of Persons and yet asserts the Unity of the Godhead in as high terms as ever the Schools did even a Natural Numerical Unity and there is no reason to suspect he dissembles his Sence for then he might have concealed it too having no other obligation to engage in this Cause but a Zeal for this truly Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith Since then here is no Innovation made in the Faith nor any alteration of the least term in it what is the
Master-piece of profound Reason and Judgment If Three distinct Self-consciousnesses formally constitute Three distinct Personalities then Three distinct Self-complacencies will constitute Three distinct Personalities too He might as well have added Self-Love and Self-Displeasure and Self-Condemnation and as many Selfs as he could think of only the Danger then was That the Personality should alter with the Judgment or Passion that the Person should not be the same when he is pleased and displeased when he applauds and acquits or condemns himself Had he added Self-conscious to all this as a Self-conscious complacency for then it is the same thing whether Self or any other Being be the object of the complacency a Self-conscious Love or Fear or Hatred or Desire every one of these Acts would prove a distinct Person because they are the Acts of Self-consciousness which distinguish one Person from another as every Act of Reason proves a reasonable Creature because it is the exercise of Rationality but yet no Man will say that it is every Act but the principle of Reason which makes a reasonable Creature and no more does any particular Act but the principle of Self-consciousness distinguish between Self-conscious Persons much less such Acts as may be separated from the Person as I doubt Self-complacency is from Damned Spirits or if he will not allow Souls to be Persons as it will be from Damned Men. He has drawn this Argument out to such a length and has so many pretty Remarks that I have much ado to keep my word with you but let him go like a wrangling Wit as he is and I 'll go on As Self-consciousness makes a Person one with it self and distinguishes it from all other Persons so the Dean apprehends That a natural Mutual-consciousness makes Three Persons as naturally One as it is possible for Three to be One and that is the Unity of the Godhead not the Unity of One Person but the Unity of Three or a Trinity in Unity And this is his next Attempt to prove That the Unity of Three Divine Persons in the Godhead can't consist in Mutual-consciousness He proceeds upon the same mistake and therefore the same Answer will serve By Self-consciousness he understood as you have seen the acts of Self-consciousness and then the act Supposing a Person could not be the formal Reason of Personality and thus by Mutual-consciousness he understands the Acts of Mutual-consciousness which supposes the Unity of Nature and therefore cannot be the cause or reason of it now though I know not of what use that Dispute is about the Priority of Being and the first Modes and Affections of it to any Act of Knowledge or any other Acts especially when we speak of the Divine Nature which we know has no Modes and Affections no Priority so much as in Conception if we conceive aright of him between his Being and a pure and simple Act yet I will not put the Animadverter out of his way when there is no need of it an easie obvious distinction between the Principle and the Act answers all A Self-conscious Principle without which we can't conceive a Mind makes a Mind one with it self and distinguishes it from all other Minds and by the Acts of Self-consciousness which suppose the Principle every Mind feels it self to be One and distinguished from all others And thus the natural Principle of Mutual-consciousness between Three Persons unites them inseparably in One Nature and the Acts of Mutual-consciousness are the Acts of Unity whereby they know and feel themselves to be essentially in each other and therefore to be essentially One Just as we consider Reason either as the Principle or as the Act the first constitutes a reasonable Nature the second is the actual exercise of Reason and thus all his Arguments vanish like Smoak rise in a dark Cloud but immediately disperse and are seen no more till they return as such Vapours use to do in Thunder and Lightning or some threatning Storm 1. His first Argument is this No Act of Knowledge can be the formal Reason of an Unity of Nature in the Persons of the blessed Trinity But an Act of Mutual-consciousness is an Act of Knowledge Ergo. Nothing will satisfie the Animadverter but formal Reasons whereas the Dean no where asserts That Mutual-consciousness is the formal Reason of this Unity but that Three Persons who are thus Mutually-conscious to each other must be essentially One nor does the Dean place this Unity in an Act of Mutual-consciousness which signifies the Principle as well as the Act and then Mutual-consciousness if it were no more than Knowledge of which presently must not be considered as an Act of Knowledge Arg. 2. If Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons be the Cause Reason or Principle of Mutual-consciousness in the said Persons then their Mutual-consciousness is not the Cause or Reason of the Unity of their Nature but the former is true and therefore the latter is so too If by this he means That these Divine Persons could not be thus Mutually conscious except they were essentially One it is true but nothing to the purpose for they may be thus essentially One by Mutual-consciousness or Mutual-consciousness may be essential to this Unity though they could not be thus actually conscious to each other unless they were thus united as to have and to feel each other in themselves If by the Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons he means the Sameness and Homoousiotes of Nature this I grant is a necessary Foundation for Mutual-consciousness without which they could not be One nor mutually conscious to each other but I deny that it is the immediate Cause Reason or Principle of Mutual-consciousness The ancient Fathers were very sensible That when the same Nature subsisted distinctly in Three distinct Persons the meer Sameness and Homoousiotes of Nature could not make this essential Unity and therefore they added their Perichoresis or the mutual In-being of these Divine Persons in each other which the Dean calls Mutual-consciousness which is the only natural Union and In-being of Minds He proves That Unity of Nature is the Cause and Principle of Mutual-consciousness because Mutual-consciousness is an essential Property equally belonging to all the Three Persons and therefore as all Properties and internal Attributes do must issue and result from the Essence and Nature and therefore can have no antecedent causal influx upon the same Nature so as to constitute either the Being or the Unity of it Now I grant That Mutual-consciousness does equally belong to all Three Persons for they are all mutually-conscious to each other and I grant that it is essential to the Divine Nature as to subsist in Three distinct Persons so in Three mutually-conscious Persons but yet Mutual-consciousness belongs not immediately to Nature but to Persons and is that intimate Union of Persons which consists in feeling each other in themselves The Dean will leave the Animadverter to Philosophize by himself concerning