now speaking to i. e. the Delicious Society the Divine Hypostases are supposed to have with each other give me leave freely to discourse this matter I would fain know what it is wherein he supposes the Enquirer to have overshot his Mark Or of what makes he here so mighty a Wonderment It can be but one of these two things Either that there are three Divine Persons in the Godhead really distinct Or That they have if there be a Delicious Society or Conversation with each other Will he say the former is a singular Opinion Or that 't is Novel Was there never a real Trinitarian in the World before Doth he not in his own express words sort the Enquirer with one whom he will not deny to be a learned Divine p. 43. of these his present Considerations col 1. The Author of the 28 Propositions and Mr. H w as he calls the Enquirer are honest Men and real Trinitarians By which former Character he hath I dare say ten thousand times more gratify'd his Ambition than by calling him learned too And I believe he will as little think this a novel Opinion as a singular one Nor shall I thank him for acknowledging it to have been the Opinion of the Fathers generally not only Ante-Nicene and Nicene but Post-Nicene too for some following Ages unto that of P. Lombard so obvious it is to every one that will but more slightly search For my part I will not except Justin Martyr himself whom I the rather mention both as he was one of the more antient of the Fathers and as I may also call him the Father of the Modalists nor his Notion even about the Homoousian-Trinity as he expresly stiles it For tho it will require more time than I now intend to bestow to give a distinct account of every Passage throughout that Discourse of his yet his Expression of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be so taken as if it were to be torn away from its coherence and from it self When therefore he says the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the being unbegotten begotten and having proceeded are not Names of the Essence but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Modes of Subsistence he must mean they are not immediately Names of the Essence but mediately they cannot but be so For what do they modify Not nothing When they are said to be Modes of Subsistence what is it that subsists We cannot pluck away these Modes of Subsistence from that which subsists and whereof they are the Modes And what is that You 'll say the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one Essence which he had mentioned before and that one Essence is 't is true as perfectly one as 't is possible for what is of it self and what are from that to be with each other i. e. that they are congenerous as the Sun and its Rays according to that Heb. 1. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the effulgency of Glory or as Mind and where there is nothing else but Substance consubstantial Thought or Word Therefore this Oneness of Essence must be taken in so large and extensive a sense as that it may admit of these Differences For so he afterwards plainly speaks if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the one the Father hath his Existence without being begotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another the Son by being begotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the Holy Ghost by having proceeded here it befals us to behold differences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the things that import difference There must be a sense therefore wherein he understood this Essence to be most truly One and a sense wherein he also understood it to have its differences and those too not unimportant ones as being unbegotten and being begotten signify no light differences And in what latitude of sense he understood the Oneness of Essence whereof he had before spoken may be seen in his following Explication when what he said he would have be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more manifest he makes Adam's peculiar Mode of Subsistence to be that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not begotten but made by God's own Hand but for them that were from him he intimates theirs to be that they were begotten not made If then you enquire concerning the same Essence that was common to him and them you still find that Man is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Subject whether of formation as to him or of generation as to them And who apprehends not in what latitude of sense the humane Nature is One which is common to Adam and his Posterity Tho the Divine Nature is incomparably more One which is common to the Father Son and Spirit as we have formerly insisted and shall further shew it cannot but be in all necessary and continually-depending Emanations Yet I might if there were need again as to this part quote the Considerator to himself For I suppose he will not disown the Considerations in 1693. in which pag. 15. col 1. are these words Dr. Cudworth by a great number of very pertinent and Home-quotations hath proved that his Explication I mean that part of it which makes the three Persons to be so many distinct Essences or Substances is the Doctrine of the Principal if not of all the Fathers as well as of the Platonists And 't is added and I for my own part do grant it Upon the whole then I reckon that as to this first part we stand clear not only to the rest of the World but with this Author himself that to be a real Trinitarian is not so unheard-of a thing or what no learned Divine of any Perswasion ever dreamt of before the Enquirer But now for the Second Part. The Delicious Society supposed to be between or rather among the three Persons Is this a Dream And so strange a One Why good Sir Can you suppose three Persons i. e. three intellectual Subsistences perfectly Wise Holy and Good co-existing with inexisting in one another to have no Society Or that Society not to be delicious He says How can it be I say how can it but be Herein I am sure the Enquirer hath far more Company than in the former For whether the three Persons have all the same numerical Essence or three distinct all agree they most delightfully converse Will he pretend never to have read any that make Love as it were intercurrent between the two first the Character of the third In short Is it the Thing he quarrels with as singular or the Word At the Thing supposing three Persons he can have no Quarrel without quarreling with the common Sense of Mankind For the Word he hath more wit and knowledg of Language than to pretend to find fault with that For let him but consult Expositors even the known Criticks upon the mentioned place Prov. 8. whom in so plain a case I will not be at the pains to quote and transcribe and take notice whether none read those words fui in
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or singly considered but if by negative abstraction you sever any one from the other so as to say the one is God and not the other or any one is all that is signify'd by the Name of God I deny it as before I did for so you would exclude the other two the Godhead which is but what was expresly enough said Sob Enquiry pag. 47. The Father is God but not excluding the Son and the Holy Ghost the Son is God but not excluding c. And if as this Author quotes we are compelled by the Christian Verity so to speak I wonder it should not compel him as it is Christian Verity or at least as it is Verity as well as the rest of Christians or Mankind Why hath he only the privilege of exemption from being compell'd by truth Athanasius his word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are necessitated and if the Considerator's own Translation grieve him he might relieve himself by considering that all Necessity is not compulsive And because he hath brought me to Athanasius I shall take the occasion to say I cannot apprehend him to have any sentiment contrary to this Hypothesis His business was against the Arians or the Ariomanites as he often called them as symbolizing also with Manes And because with them the Controversy was whether the Son and Spirit were Creatures in opposition hereto he constantly asserts their consubstantiality with the Father never intending for ought that appears that their Being was numerically the same with his but of the same kind uncreated coessential coeternal with his own For so he expresly speaks in his other or additional Questions i. e. asking Quest. 6. How many Essences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. How many sorts of Essence as the Answer will direct us to understand it do you acknowledg in God The Answer is I say one Essence one Nature one Form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and adds one Kind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sufficiently expounds all the rest He acknowledged no different kinds of Essence or Nature in the Godhead but that One only which was eternal and uncreated agreeably to what he elsewhere says against the Followers of Sabellius 'T is impossible things not eternal Beings not partaking Godhead should be ranked or put in the same order with the Godhead Afterwards speaking of the Father and the Son he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One is such not the same as the other the other such as he And that the Son was not to be conceived under another Species 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor under a strange and foreign Character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but was God as the Father And I appeal to any Man's Understanding and Conscience If that great Author believ'd a numerical sameness of Essence common to the three Persons what should make him blame the Sabellians for making the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when by the latter in that case he must mean the same thing as by the former In the forecited Questions he expresly says we were to acknowledg in the Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three Individuals Answer to Quest. 7. ubi priùs And elsewhere he as distinctly asserts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three things And what could he mean by three things not three Deities as he often inculcates but he must certainly mean three Entities three Essences for by three things he could not possibly mean three Non-Entities or three Nothings His great care plainly was to assert the true Deity of the Son and Spirit or their Preeternity or that it could never be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there was a time when they were not which he inculcates in an hundred places still insisting that one Deity one Essence was common to them but still with distinction and as warmly inveighs against Sabellius and P. Samosatensis as against Arius every whit And that which puts his meaning quite out of doubt speaking how the Father Son and Spirit tho of one and the same sort of Essence are three Hypostases he plainly says the Nature wherein they partake is so One as the humane Nature is One in all Men. We Men saith he consisting of a Body and a Soul are all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one Nature and Substance or Essence but we are many Hypostases And to the same purpose Dial. 2. de Trinitate his Anomoeos comparing the Father Son and Spirit to a Bishop Presbyter and Deacon he brings in the Orthodox saying they have all the same Nature being each of them Man as an Angel a Man and an Horse have different Natures In the mean time because Men are not inseparably and vitally united with one another as the Divine Persons are and cannot but be by reason of the necessary eternal perpetual emanation of the two latter from the first they cannot admit to be called one Man as the three Persons in the Godhead are and cannot but be one God Inasmuch as these three Divine Persons partake real Godhead as existing necessarily each of them they are each truly God but because they partake it in necessary eternal vital Union and so that the first is the radix the second perpetually springing from the first and the third from both the other they are therefore together one God As Branches tho really distinct from each other and the Root are altogether notwithstanding but one Tree and all omoousial or consubstantial to one another which is an illustration familiar with the the Antients And if there be any now a days that will call this Heresy tho as I said I will be no Heretick however yet if I must make a choice I had rather be an Heretick with the Ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers and Post-Nicene for ought appears to the contrary through some following Centuries than be reputed Orthodox with P. Lumbard c. whom a German Divine not of meanest account calls one of the four Evangelists of Antichrist But having now done with what he said he would omit but did not tho he might to every whit as good purpose we come to what he overlooks not because he intimates he cannot And let us see whether he looks into it to any better purpose than if he had quite overlook'd it He is indeed the more excusable that he overlooks it not because he says he could not In that case there is no remedy Nor do I see how he well could when the Sober Enquirer had once and again so directly put it in his view and as was said objected it to himself But he thinks however to make an irrefragable Battering Ram of it wherewith to shiver this Doctrine of the Trinity all to pieces and he brings it into play with the two Horns before mentioned The Father he says for instance is either infinite in his Substance his Wisdom his Power his Goodness or he is not With the like pompous apparatus and even in
distinction so as to be really and truly One thing If they cannot I would know why i. e. Why they cannot as well or much rather than the Soul and Body so as to be one entire Man If they can such a created Union is acknowledged possible which is all that part of our Discourse contends for And 't is enough for our present purpose for this will be an Union of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of things of the same nature the Soul and Body are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. things of very different Natures And it sufficiently prepared our way as was intended to advance further and add That if such a created or made Union be possible it cannot be understood why a like uncreated or unmade Union should be thought impossible And if it be possible the noisy Clamour that a Trinity in the Godhead is impossible or that it will infer Tritheism must cease and be husht into everlasting silence Or if it shall still be resolved to be kept up to carry on the begun Humour can only serve to fright Children or unthinking People but can never be made articulate enough to have any signification with Men of sense For when the Father is acknowledg'd on all hands to be the Original or Fountain-Being existing necessarily and eternally of himself the Son existing by eternal Promanation necessarily of and from and in the Father the Holy Ghost of and in them both These because they all exist necessarily cannot but be each of them God and because they exist in necessary natural eternal Union cannot but be one God And he that shall attempt to make Tritheism of this will sooner prove himself not the third part of a wise Man than from hence prove three Gods We may truly and fitly say the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God But that form of Speech the Father is a God the Son is a God the Holy Ghost is a God I think unjustifiable The former way of speaking well agrees with the Homoousiotes of the Deity the Substance whereof is congenerous You may fitly say of three drops of the same Water they are each of them Water But if you should say they are each of them a Water one would understand you to mean they were all drops of so many different sorts of Water I do upon the whole judg the Substance or Essence of the three Hypostases to be as perfectly One as can possibly consist with the emanation of some from other of them But now next In his way to his second Topick of Argumentation he is guilty of a strange sort of omission i. e. he twice over says he will omit what he greatly insists upon as a mighty matter that this meaning the Enquirer's Hypothesis is Heresy among those of his own Party whether they be the nominal or the real Trinitarians who all agree That each of the Divine Persons is perfect God in the most adequate and perfect sense and this too as such Person is considered sejunctly or as the Athanasian Creed speaks by himself c. To this I only say in the first place that if this weigh any thing it ought in reason to be as heavy upon him as me for I believe the same People that will call this account of the Trinity Heresy will call his denial of it Heresy much more But if he be not concern'd at that I am the more obliged to him that he hath a kinder concern for me than himself And if he really have let it ease his mind to know that let the Opinion be Heresy never so much I for my part am however resolv'd to be no Heretick as he and they may well enough see by the whole tenour of that Discourse But yet I humbly crave leave to differ from him in this as well as in greater Matters I am apt enough indeed to think that the Nominal Trinitarians will judg the Opinion of the Real Trinitarians to want Truth and the Real will perhaps more truly judg theirs to want Sense But neither the one nor the other will say that each of the Divine Persons is perfect God in the most adequate and perfect sense For both cannot but agree that God in the most adequate and perfect sense includes Father Son and Holy Ghost but they will none of them say that each or any of the Persons is Father Son and Holy Ghost And I am very confident he that shall so represent them will betray them by it into such inconveniencies and so much against their mind and intent that if ever they did trust him as I believe they never did this Considerator to express their sense for them they never will do it more As for Athanasius himself whose Creed he mentions tho he often speaks of an equality of the Persons in point of Godhead yet he also often Tom. 2. p. 576. most expresly excepts the Differences which I take to be very important of being unbegotten begotten and proceeding And which is a Difference with a Witness in his Questions and Answers He asks how many Causes are there in God Q. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and answers One only and that is the Father And then asks Q. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How many effects or things caused And answers two the Son and the Spirit And adds The Father is call'd a Cause because he begets the Son and sends out the Spirit The Son and Spirit are said to be caused because the Son is begotten and doth not beget the Spirit is sent forth and doth not send Now can he be thought all this while to mean an absolute equality And whereas he uses the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Author renders sejunctly or by himself that he may make it seem opposite to what is said by the Enquirer pag. 50. I for my part say as Athanasius doth that each of these Persons is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singly God and Lord but I say not as he doth not and he denies what the Sober Enquiry denies in the mentioned place That any one of the Persons sejunctly is all that is signify'd by the Name of God which words this Author slily leaves out for what purpose he best knows But his purpose be it what it will can no longer be served by it than till the Reader shall take the pains to cast back his Eye upon pag. 50. of the Sober Enquiry And I must here put the Considerator in mind of what I will not suppose him ignorant but inadvertent only at this time That one may be sejoin'd or abstracted from another two ways or by a twofold abstraction precisive or negative That we may truly say of the Father Son or Holy Ghost that the One of them is or is not God abstracting from both the other according as you differently abstract If you abstract any one of the Persons from both the other by precisive abstraction and each of them is God or Lord