as defective as the Thing he Argues for is Absurd Nevertheless let us see what the main Conclusion is which he would draw from the Premises Why it is this That the Father is Eternal Wisdom or Mind and the Son Eternal Wisdom and Mind I give you his very Terms And who denies this Or what does it conclude for him For still I ask Does he who says That the Father is Eternal Wisdom or Mind and the Son Eternal Wisdom and Mind by saying so affirm That the Father and the Son are Two distinct Eternal Wisdoms or Minds Any more than he who says That the Father is God and the Son God affirms them to be Two distinct Gods Let him say it if he can and he shall not fail of a through Consutation as soon as it can be Printed off But to give the Reader an Account of the whole matter in short This Author has espoused a very Heterodox and dangerous Notion viz. That the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits and in order to the proof of this would perswade us That there are Two distinct Wisdoms one in the Father and the other in the Son and that for this Reason Because the Father who is Essentially Wise cannot be said to be Wise by that begotten Wisdom which is in the Son albeit the Son be yet said to be the Wisdom of the Father but that the Father must have one distinct Wisdom of his own and the Son another distinct Wisdom of his own This I am sure is the full Account of his Argument from top to bottom In Answer to which I have plainly and undeniably shewn That the Father is Wise by one and the same Essential Wisdom common to Father Son and Holy Ghost though not under that particular Modification as it Subsists in the other Two Persons but by that peculiar Modification by which it is appropriated to and Subsists in his own And that those different Modifications do not for all that make it any more than one single Numerical Wisdom but only one and the same under so many distinct Modes of Subsistence determining it to so many distinct Personalities This is the Sum both of his Opinion and of mine and I referr it to the Judicious Reader to arbitrate the Case between us with this profession and promise that if in all or any one of the Quotations alledged by him he can shew That it is either expresly affirmed or necessarily implyed That the Father and the Son are two distinct Infinite Minds I will without further proof of any sort forthwith yield him the Cause and withal renounce all my poor share in Common Sense and Reason nay and all belief of my own Eyes for the future But there is one Clause more which he brings in as one part of his main Conclusion Page 103. Line 33. viz. That if we confess this of the Father and the Son to wit That they are each of them Eternal Mind or Wisdom there can be no dispute about the Holy Ghost who is Eternal Mind and Wisdom distinct both from Father and Son Now this is perfectly gratis dictum without either proof or pretence of proof and that whether we respect the Orthodox or the Heterodox and Heretical And First For the Orthodox they utterly deny the Holy Ghost to be an Eternal Mind or Wisdom distinct both from the Father and the Son and I challenge this Author to produce me but one reputed Orthodox Writer who affirms it In the mean time it argues no small Confidence to give it the mildest Term in this Man to Assert that as certain and without Dispute which is neither granted on one side nor so much as pretended to be proved on the other But Secondly If we respect the Heterodox and Heretical who no doubt can dispute as much as others will this Man say That these also grant this his Assertion about the Holy Ghost without any dispute No it is certain that they neither do nor will For this Author may be pleased to observe That as some in the Primitive Times allowed the Son to be only like the Father so they made the Holy Ghost a downright Creature and an inferiour Agent to both Such were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under their Head and Leader Macedonius as we see in St. Austin de Haeresibus Cap. 52. hereby placing him as much below the Son as they had placed the Son below the Father or rather more Whereupon I appeal even to this Author himself whether those who did so would without all dispute have allowed the Holy Ghost to be an Eternal Infinite Mind or Wisdom distinct both from the Father and the Son and upon that Account Essentially and Necessarily equal to them both Let this Author rub his Fore-head and affirm this if he can and for the future take notice That it becomes a True and Solid Reasoner where a Thing is disputed fairly to prove it and not boldly and barely to presume it In the last place he alledges the Judgment of all the Fathers indefinitely in the Case And truly where he cannot cite so much as one of them to the purpose I think he does extremely well to make short work of it and with one bold Impertinent stroke to alledge them all together His Allegation is this That it is usual with the Fathers to represent the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity as distinct as Peter James and John Well and what then Why That then the said Three Persons are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits I deny the Consequence and to give a particular Answer to this general Allegation I tell him That it is a Fallacy of the Homonymy of the Word and that the Term as distinct is Ambiguous For it may either signifie 1. As Real Or 2. As Great a Distinction As for the first I grant That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity differ as really as Peter Iames and Iohn Forasmuch as they differ by something in the Thing it self or ex parte rei antecedent to and independent upon any Apprehension or Operation of the Mind about it which is a Real difference and whatsoever is so is altogether as Real as the Difference between one Man and another can be But Secondly If by Real distinction be meant as great a distinction so we utterly deny that the Three Divine Persons differ as much as Peter and Iames and Iohn do or that the Fathers ever thought they did so For this would inferr a greater difference or distinction between them than even our Author himself will allow of even such a difference as reaches to a Division or Separation of the Persons so differing And since it is impossible for the Persons of the Trinity to differ so it is hard to imagine upon what bottom of Reason our Author should measure the Distinction or Difference of the Three Divine Persons by the Distinction or Difference that is between Peter Iames and Iohn
That to assert that the Father and the Son differ in Substance is Arianism And yet if they were Two distinct Substances for them not to differ in Substance would be impossible And as for the Greek Writers they never admit of Three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Deity but where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as sometimes it was used And by reason of this Ambiguity it was that the Latin Church was so long fearful of using the word Hypostasis and used only that of Persona answering to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest they should hereby be thought to admit of Three Substances as well as Three Persons in the God-head Nor in the next place is the same less evident from Reason than we have shewn it to be from Authority For if the Three Persons be Three distinct Substances then Two distinct Substances will concur in and belong to each Person to wit That Substance which is the Divine Essence and so is Communicable or Common to all the Persons and that Substance which Constitutes each Person and thereby is so peculiar to him as to distinguish him from the other and consequently to be incommunicable to any besides him to whom it belongs Since for one and the same Substance to be Common to all Three Persons and withal to belong incommunicably to each of the Three and thereby to distinguish them from one another is Contradictious and Impossible And yet on the other side to assert Two distinct Substances in each Person is altogether as Absurd and that as upon many other Accounts so particularly upon this That it must infer such a Composition in the Divine Persons as is utterly Incompatible with the Absolute Simplicity and Infinite Perfection of the Divine Nature And therefore the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity can by no means be said to be Three distinct Substances but only one Infinite Substance equally Common to and Subsisting in them all and diversified by their respective Relations And moreover since Three distinct Minds or Spirits are Essentially Three distinct Substances neither can the Three Persons of the Trinity be said to be Three distinct Minds or Spirits which was the Point to be made out Argument III. My Third Argument against the same shall proceed thus If it be truly said That one and the same Infinite Mind or Spirit is Father Son and Holy Ghost I mean all Three taken together and it cannot be truly said That one and the same Infinite Mind or Spirit is Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits then it follows That Father Son and Holy Ghost are not Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits But it may be truly said That one and the same Infinite Mind or Spirit is Father Son and Holy Ghost and it cannot be truly said That one and the same Infinite Mind or Spirit is Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits Therefore the Three Persons in the Trinity viz. Father Son and Holy Ghost are not Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits This is the Argument Now the Consequence of the Major appears from this That the same Thing or Things at the same time and in the same respect cannot be truly affirmed and denied of the same Subject And therefore since Father Son and Holy Ghost taken joyntly together are truly predicated of one and the same Infinite Mind and Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits cannot be truly affirmed or predicated and consequently may be truly denied of the same it follows That Father Son and Holy Ghost and Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits neither are nor can be accounted the same nor be truly affirmable of one another As for the Minor it consists of two parts and accordingly must be proved severally in each of them And First That it is and may be truly said That one and the same Infinite Mind is Father Son and Holy Ghost viz. joyntly taken as I noted before This I say may be proved from hence That God is truly said to be Father Son and Holy Ghost still so taken And it having been already evinced That one Infinite Mind or Spirit and one God are terms convertible and equipollent it follows That whatsoever is truly affirmed or denied of the one may be as truly affirmed or denied of the other And this is too evident to need any further proof And therefore in the next place for the proof of the other part of the Minor viz. That one and the same Infinite Mind or Spirit cannot be truly said to be Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits This is no less evident than the former because in such a Proposition both Subject and Predicate imply a Mutual Negation of and Contradiction to one and another and where it is so it is impossible for one to be truly affirmed or predicated of the other And now after this plain proof given both of the Major and the Minor Proposition and this also drawn into so little a compass I hope this Author will not bear himself so much above all the Rules which other Mortals proceed by as after the Premises proved to deny the Conclusion viz. That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost are not Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits The Affirmation of which is that which I undertook to confute But before I dismiss this Argument I cannot but take notice That the same Terms with a bare Transposition of them viz. by shifting place between the Predicate and the Subject which in Adequate and Commensurate Predications may very well be done will as effectually conclude to the same Purpose as they did in the way in which we have already proposed them And so the Argument will proceed thus If it be truly and properly said That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are one Numerical Infinite Mind or Spirit then they cannot be truly said to be Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits But they are truly and properly said to be one Numerical Infinite Mind or Spirit And therefore they neither are nor can be truly said to be Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits The Consequence of the first Proposition is manifest because as we have shewn before one and the same Infinite Mind cannot be Three distinct Infinite Minds without a Contradiction in the Terms And for the Minor viz. That the Three Persons are truly said to be one Infinite Mind or Spirit That also is proved by this That all and every one of them are truly and properly said to be God and God is truly and properly one Numerical Infinite Mind or Spirit And therefore if the Three Persons are said to be the First they must be said to be this Latter also and that as I shew before because of the Reciprocal Predication of those Terms But as to the Matter before us That God is truly and properly one Numerical Infinite Mind or Spirit even this Author himself allows who in Page
69. positively says That we know nothing of the Divine Essence but that God is an Infinite Mind Very well and if he grant him to be an Infinite Mind let him prove this Infinite Mind to be three distinct Infinite Minds if he can The Truth is Infinite Mind or Spirit is an Essential Attribute of the Divine Nature and Convertible with it and whatsoever is so belongs equally to all the Three Persons and consequently cannot be ascribed to them plurally any more than the Deity it self it being as uncapable as that of being multiplied Upon which Account if the Three Persons are with equal Truth said to be one Infinite Mind or Spirit and to be one God they can no more be said to be Three distinct Infinite Minds than they can be said to be Three distinct Gods So that which way soever the Argument be proposed either That one Infinite Mind is Father Son and Holy Ghost or That Father Son and Holy Ghost are one Infinite Mind it still overthrows this Author's Hypothesis That the said Three Persons are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits Argument IV. My Fourth and Last Argument against the same shall be this Whatsoever Attribute may be truly predicated of all and each of the Divine Persons in the Athanasian Form so belongs to them all in Common that it can belong to none of them under any Term of distinction from the rest But the Attribute Infinite Mind or Spirit may be truly predicated of all and each of the Divine Persons in and according to the Athanasian Form And therefore it can belong to none of them under any Term of distinction from the rest The Major is as evident as that no Attribute can be Common to several Subjects and yet peculiar and appropriate to each of them And the Minor is proved by Instance thus The Father is an Infinite Mind the Son is an Infinite Mind and the Holy Ghost is an Infinite Mind and yet they are not Three Infinite Minds but one Infinite Mind And this I affirm to be as good Divinity as any part in the Athanasian Creed and such as I shall abide by both against this Author and any other whatsoever But now let us see how his Assertion cast into the Athanasian Model shews it self as thus The Father is a distinct Infinite Mind the Son is a distinct Infinite Mind and the Holy Ghost is a distinct Infinite Mind and yet they are not Three distinct Infinite Minds but one distinct Infinite Mind And this is so far from being true that it is indeed neither Truth nor Sence For what Truth can there be in denying That Three Persons of which every one is said to be a distinct Infinite Mind are Three distinct Infinite Minds And what sence can there be in affirming or saying That they are but one distinct Infinite Mind Whereas the Term distinct is never properly used or applyed but with respect had to several Particulars each discriminated from the other but by no means where there is mention made only of one Thing and no more as it is here in this Proposition But to make what allowances the Case will bear and for that purpose to remit something of the strictness of the Athanasian Form by leaving out the word distinct in the last and illative Clause we shall then see that our Author's Hypothesis will proceed thus The Father is a distinct Infinite Mind the Son is a distinct Infinite Mind and the Holy Ghost is a distinct Infinite Mind and yet they are not Three Infinite Minds but one Infinite Mind Thus I say it must proceed in the Athanasian way with the word distinct left out of the Conclusion Nevertheless even so the Inference is still manifestly and grosly false in both the branches of it For it is absolutely false That Three distinct Infinite Minds are not Three Infinite Minds and altogether as false That Three Infinite Minds are but One Infinite Mind The Author's Hypothesis put into the Athanasian Model must needs fall in with that Fallacy sometimes urged against us by the Socinians viz. The Father is a Person the Son a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person and yet they are not Three Persons but one Person which is manifestly Sophistical by arguing ab imparibus tanquam paribus viz. Concluding that of an Attribute Relative and Multiplicable which can be concluded only of such as are not So. For the Athanasian Inference holds only in Attributes Essential and Common to all the Three Persons joyntly or severally taken and not in such as are Proper Personal and Peculiar to each As also in such as are Absolute as the Attribute of Mind or Spirit without the word distinct is and not in such as are Relative For those Attributes which agree to the Divine Persons Personally Peculiarly and Relatively can never Unite or Coincide into one in the Inference or Conclusion In a word Infinite Mind or Spirit is a Predicate perfectly Essential and so in its Numerical Unity Common to all the Three Divine Persons and for that cause not to be affirmed of or ascribed to either all or any of them with the Term distinct added to it or joyned with it For that would multiply an Attribute that cannot be multiplyed And now what I have here discoursed upon and drawn from the Athanasian Creed with respect to this particular Subject I leave to our Author's strictest Examination For my own part I rely upon this Creed as a sure Test or Rule to discover the falshood of his Hypothesis by So that as long as it is true that God is one numerical Infinite Mind or Spirit and as long as the Athanasian Form duely applied is a firm and good way of Reasoning this Author's Assertion That the Three Divine Persons are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits is thereby irrefragably overthrown And therefore I shall not concern my self to produce any more Arguments against it Only by way of Overplus to and Illustration of those which have already been alledged I cannot but observe the Concurrent Opinion of the Philosophers and most Learned Men amongst the Heathens about God's being one Infinite Mind or Spirit as a necessary deduction no doubt made by Natural Reason from the Principles thereof concerning the Divine Nature For most of the Philosophers looked upon God as the Soul of the World as One Infinite Mind or Spirit that animated and presided over the Universe For so held Pythagoras as Cicero in his first Book de Naturâ Deorum and Lactantius in his Book de irâ Dei tells us Pythagoras quoque unum Deum confitetur dicens Incorpoream esse mentem quae per omnem Naturam diffusa intenta vitalem sensum tribuit In like manner the Great Hermes being asked What God was answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Maker of all Things a most Wise and Eternal Mind Thales called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God the Mind of the World Diogenes Cleanthes and Oenipides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
expressing himself in this sacred and arduous Subject to give it no worse word whatsoever it may deserve affords the Arians and Socinians no small Advantages against this Doctrine should it stand upon the strength of His Defence as thanks be to God it does not But I must not here omit that Passage which in the former part of this Chapter I promised more particularly to consider a Passage which indeed looks something strangely It is that in P. 258. line 27. where he tells us that he allows That in the Blessed Trinity there are Three Holy Spirits but denys That there are Three Holy Ghosts so natural is it for false Opinions to force Men to absurd Expressions But my Answer to him is short and positive That neither are there Three Holy Spirits nor Three Holy Ghosts in the Blessed Trinity in any sense properly belonging to these words However the Thing meant by him so far as it is reducible to Truth and Reason is and must be this viz. That when the Third Person of the Trinity is called the Holy Ghost there the word Holy Ghost which otherwise signifies the same with Holy Spirit must be taken Personally and consequently Incommunicably but when the Father or Son is said to be a Spirit or Holy Spirit there Spirit must be understood Essentially for that Immaterial Spiritual and Divine Nature which is common to and Predicable of all the Divine Persons All which is most true But then for this very Reason I must tell our Author withal That as Holy Ghost taken Personally is but Numerically one so Spirit or Holy Spirit as it is understood Essentially is but Numerically one too And therefore though the Father may be called a Spirit or Holy Spirit and the two other Persons may each of them be called so likewise yet they are not therefore Three distinct Spirits or Holy Spirits nor can be truly so called as this Author pretends they ought to be and we have sufficiently disproved but they are all one and the same Holy Spirit Essentially taken and which so taken is as much as one and the same God And moreover though Spirit understood Personally distinguishes the Third Person from the other two yet taken Essentially it speaks him one and the same Spirit as well as one and the same God with them and can by no means distinguish him from them any more than the Divine Essence or Nature which Spirit in this sence is only another word for can discriminate the Three Persons from one another So that upon the whole Matter it is equally false and impossible That in the Blessed Trinity there should be Three Holy Spirits or Holy Ghosts Terms perfectly Synonymous either upon a Personal or an Essential account and consequently that there should be so at all For as the word Spirit imports a peculiar Mode of Subsistence by way of Spiration from the Father and the Son so it is Personal and Incommunicable but as it imports the Immaterial Substance of the Deity so indeed as being the same with the Deity it self it is equally Common to all the Three Persons but still for all that remains Numerically one and no more as all must acknowledge the Deity to be And this is the true state of the Case But to state the difference between the Holy Ghost and the other Two Persons upon something signified by Holy Ghost which is not signified by Holy Spirit as the words of this Author manifestly do while he affirms Three Holy Spirits but denies Three Holy Ghosts this is not only a playing with words which he pretends to scorn but a taking of words for things which I am sure is very ridiculous And now before I conclude this Chapter having a Debt upon me declared at the beginning of it I leave it to the Impartial and Discreet Reader to judge what is to be thought or said of that Man who in such an Insolent Decretorious manner shall in such a point as this before us charge Nonsense and Heresie two very vile words upon all that Subscribe not to this his New and before unheard of Opinion I must profess I never met with the like in any Sober Author and hardly in the most Licentious Libeller The Nature of the Subject I have according to my poor Abilities discussed and finding my self thereupon extremely to dissent from this Author am yet by no means willing to pass for a Nonsensical Heretick for my pains For must it be Nonsence not to own Contradictions viz. That One infinite Spirit is Three distinct Infinite Spirits Or must it be Heresie not to Subscribe to Tritheisme as the best and most Orthodox Explication of the Article of the Trinity As for Non-sence it must certainly imply the asserting of something for true concerning the Subject discoursed of which yet in truth is contradictory to it since there can be no Non-sence but what contradicts some Truth And whereas this Author has elsewhere viz. P. 4. declared it unreasonable to charge a contradiction in any Thing where the Nature of the Thing discoursed of is not throughly comprehended and understood I desire to know of him whether he throughly understands and comprehends the Article and Mystery of the Trinity If he says he does I need no other Demonstration of his unfitness to write about it But if he owns that he does not let him only stick to his own Rule and then he may keep the Charge of Non-sense to himself But what shall we say to the Charge of Heresie in which St. Austin would have no Person who is so charged to be silent Why in the first place we must search and enquire whether it be so or no And here if my Life lay upon it I cannot find either in Irenaeus adversùs Haereses or in Tertullian's Prescriptions contra Haereticos Cap. 49. Nor in Philastrius's Catalogue nor in Epiphanius nor in St. Austin nor in Theodoret nor in Iohannes Damascenus's Book de Haeresibus nor in the latter Haeresiologists such as Alphonsus à Castro Prateolus with several others I cannot I say find in all or in any one of these the Heresie of not asserting the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity to be Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits no nor yet the Heresie of denying them to be so But where then may we find it Why in this Author's Book And therefore look no further it is enough that so great a Master has said it whose Authority in saying a Thing is as good as another Man 's in proving it at any time And he says it as we see positively and perhaps if need be will be ready to take his Corporal Oath upon it That such as deny his Hypothesis are Hereticks Now in this case our Condition is in good earnest very sad and I know nothing to comfort us but that the Statute de Haeretico comburendo is Repealed And well is it for the Poor Clergy and Church of England that it is so for otherwise this Man
for representing the vanity of his Hypothesis by the forementioned Example and Comparison But I hope the World will give me leave to distinguish between Things Sacred and his Absurd Phantastick way of treating of them which I can by no means look upon as Sacred nor indeed any Thing else in his whole Book but the bare Subject it treats of and the Scriptures there quoted by him For to speak my thoughts plainly I believe this Sacred Mystery of the Trinity was never so ridiculed and exposed to the Contempt of the Profane Scoffers at it as it has been by this New-fashioned Defence of it And so I dismiss his two so much Admired Terms by himself I mean as in no degree answering the Expectation he raised of them For I cannot find That they have either heightned or strength'ned Men's Intellectual Faculties or cast a greater light and clearness upon that Object which has so long exercised them but that a Trinity in Unity is as Mysterious as ever and the Mind of Man as unable to grasp and comprehend it as it has been from the beginning of Christianity to this day In a word Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness have rendred nothing about the Divine Nature and Persons plainer easier and more Intelligible nor indeed after such a mighty stress so irrationally laid upon two slight empty words have they made any thing but the Author himself better understood than it was before CHAP. V. In which is proved against this Author That the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not Three Distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits IT being certain both from Philosophy and Religion that there is but one only God or God-head in which Christian Religion has taught us That there are Three Persons Many Eminent Professors of it have attempted to shew how one and the same Nature might Subsist in Three Persons and how the said Three Persons might meet in one and make no more than one simple undivided Nature It had been to be wished I confess that Divines had rested in the bare Expressions delivered in Scripture concerning this Mystery and ventured no further by any particular and bold Explications of it But since the Nature or rather Humour of Man has been still too strong for his Duty and his Curiosity especially in things Sacred been apt to carry him too far those however have been all along the most pardonable who have ventured least and proceeded upon the surest grounds both of Scripture it self and of Reason discoursing upon it And such I affirm the Ancient Writers and Fathers of the Church and after them the School-men to have been who with all their Faults or rather Infelicities caused by the Times and Circumstances they lived in are better Divines and Soberer Reasoners than any of those Pert Confident Raw Men who are much better at Despising and Carping at them than at Reading and Understanding them Though Wise Men Despise nothing but they will know it first and for that Cause very rationally despise them But among those who leaving the Common Road of the Church have took a By-way to themselves none of late Years especially have ventured so boldly and so far as this Author who pretending to be more happy forsooth in his Explication of this Mystery than all before him as who would not believe a Man in his own Commendation and to give a more satisfactory Account of this long received and Revered Article by Terms perfectly New and peculiarly his own has advanced quite different Notions about this Mystery from any that our Church was ever yet acquainted with Affirming as he does That the Three Persons in the God-head are Three Distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits as will appear from the several places of his Book where he declares his Thoughts upon this great Subject As First in Page 50. he says The Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Infinite Minds really distinct from each other Again in Page 66. The Persons says he are perfectly distinct for they are Three distinct and Infinite Minds and therefore Three distinct Persons For a Person is an Intelligent Being and to say they are Three Divine Persons and not Three distinct Infinite Minds is both Heresie and Nonsense For which extraordinary Complement passed upon the whole Body of the Church of England and perhaps all the Churches of Christendom besides as I have paid him part of my thanks already so I will not fail yet further to account with him before I put an end to this Chapter In the mean time he goes on in Page 102. I plainly assert says he That as the Father is an Eternal and Infinite Mind so the Son is an Eternal and Infinite Mind distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost is an Eternal and Infinite Mind distinct both from Father and Son Adding withall these words Which says he every Body can understand without any skill in Logick or Metaphysicks And this I confess is most truly and seasonably remarked by him For the want of this Qualification is so far from being any hindrance in the Case mentioned that I dare undertake that nothing but want of skill in Logick and Metaphysicks can bring any Man living who acknowledges the Trinity to own this Assertion I need repeat no more of his Expressions to this purpose these being sufficient to declare his Opinion save only that in Page 119. where he says That Three Minds or Spirits which have no other difference are yet distinguish'd by Self-Consciousness and are Three distinct Spirits And that other in Page 258. where speaking of the Three Persons I grant says he that they are Three Holy Spirits By the same Token that he there very Learnedly distinguishes between Ghost and Spirit allowing the said Three Persons as we have shewn to be Three Holy Spirits but at the same time denying them to be Three Holy Ghosts and this with great scorn of those who should hold or speak otherwise To which at present I shall say no more but this That he would do well to turn these two Propositions into Greek or Latin and that will presently shew him what difference and distinction there is between a Ghost and a Spirit and why the very same things which are affirmed of the one notwithstanding the difference of those words in English may not with the same Truth be affirmed of the other also But the Examination of this odd Assertion will fall in more naturally towards the latter end of this Chapter where it shall be particularly considered I have now shewn this Author's Judgment in the Point and in opposition to what he has so boldly Asserted and laid down I do here deny That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Three distinct Infinite Spirits And to overthrow his Assertion and evince the Truth of mine I shall trouble neither my Reader nor my self with many Arguments But of those which I shall make use of the first is this
〈◊〉 The Soul of the World Plato in Phoedone says of God That he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mind that is the Cause and orderer of all Things And Plato the Son of Ariston says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is the Mind of the World And Lactantius gives this Testimony of Aristotle That Quamvis secum ipse dissideat ac repugnantia sibi dicat sentiat by which one would think our Author better acquainted with him than he is in summum tamen unam mentem mundo praeesse testatur Lact. de falsa Relig. Lib. 1. Cap. 5. Agreeably to all which Seneca in the Preface to his Natural Questions putting the Question Quid est Deus What is God Answers Mens Universi The Mind of the Universe As the Learned Emperour Antoninus after him expresses God the same way and by the same word in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 5. p. 148. Oxon. Edit And that Passage in Virgil's 6. Aeneid is famous where speaking of God as the Great Soul of the World running through all the Parts of that vast Body he expresses it in those known Verses Coelum ac Terras Camposque liquentes Lucentemque Globum Lunae Titaniaque Astra Spiritus intus alit totamque infusa per artus Mens agitat molem magno se corpore miscet And the same was the Opinion of Cato before him a great Man though but a small Author who tells us from the Ancient Poets who were accounted the Philosophers of the first Ages That Deus est Animus God is a Mind or Spirit And the Truth is I reckon that these Learned Men all along by an Infinite Mind or Spirit understood as truly and certainly One Infinite Mind or Spirit as if the Term of Unity had been added by them For besides that the Particles a or the which we use in translating any single word into our own Language import so much the very condition also of the Subject spoken of as being Infinite must needs infer the same So that we see here how the Judgment of Natural Reason in these Eminent Philosophers amongst the Heathens falls in with what God himself revealed by the Mouth of our Saviour concerning his own Nature in John 4. 24. viz. That God is a Spirit For we have them expressing him by these words Aninius Mens Spiritus So that had they all lived after St. Iohn as one of them did their Sentences might have passed for so many Paraphrases upon the Text all declaring God to be One Infinite Soul Mind or Spirit But perhaps our Author will here say What is all this to the purpose since we found our knowledge of the Three Divine Persons wholly upon Revelation And I grant we do so Yet nevertheless I shall by his good favour shew That what I have alledged is very much to the purpose And to this end premising here what we have already proved viz. That to be One Infinite Mind and to be Three distinct Infinite Minds involve in them a Mutual Negation of and Contradiction to one another Forasmuch as to be Unum is to be Indivisum in se that is to say Indivisible into more things such as it self This I say premised First I desire this Author to produce that Revelation which declares the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity to be Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits For I deny that there is any such Secondly I affirm That whatsoever is a Truth in Natural Reason cannot be contradicted by any other Truth declared by Revelation since it is impossible for any one Truth to contradict another Upon which grounds I here ask our Author Is it a Contradiction for One God to be One Infinite Mind or Spirit and to be also Three Infinite Minds or Spirits If he grant this as I have proved it whether he does or no then I ask him in the next place Whether it be a Proposition true in Natural Reason That God is one Infinite Mind or Spirit If he grants this also then I infer That it cannot be proved true from Revelation That God is Three Infinite Minds or Spirits since the certain Truth of the first Proposition supposed and admitted must needs disprove the Truth of that Revelation which pretends to establish the second But some again may perhaps ask Suppose it were revealed in express Terms That God is Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits would you in this case throw aside this Revelation in submission to the former Proposition declared by Natural Reason I Answer No But if the Revelation were express and undeniable I would adhere to it but at the same time while I did so I would quit the former Proposition and conclude That Natural Reason had not discoursed right when it concluded That God was one Infinite Mind or Spirit But to hold both Propositions to be True and to assent to them both as such This the Mind of Man can never do So that in a word I conclude That if it be certainly true from Reason That God is one Infinite Mind or Spirit No Revelation can or ought to be pleaded That he is Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits And if Revelation cannot or ought not to be pleaded for it I am sure we have no ground to believe it And yet at the same time I own and assert a Revelation of the truth of this Proposition That God is Three Persons or which is all one That God is Father Son and Holy Ghost since it does not at all contradict the forementioned Propositions founded upon Natural Reason viz. That God is One Infinite Mind or Spirit nor could it yet ever be proved to do so either by Arians or Socinians But on the contrary these two Propositions viz. God is One Infinite Mind or Spirit and that other God is Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits which he must be if the Three Divine Persons are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits are Gross Palpable and Irreconcileable Contradictions And because they are so it is demonstratively certain That the said Three Persons are not Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits As this Author against all Principles of Philosophy and Divinity has most erroneously affirmed them to be I have said enough I hope upon this Subject But before I quit it it will not be amiss to observe what work this Man makes with the Persons of the Blessed Trinity as indeed he seldom almost turns his Pen but he gives some scurvy stroke at it or other particularly in Page 89. he affirms That the Expression of the One true God and the only true God cannot properly be attributed to the Son nor to the Holy Ghost From whence I infer That then neither can the Expression of God or the True God be properly attributed to the Son or to the Holy Ghost Forasmuch as the Terms one God and One True God or one only True God are equivalent The Term One God including in it every whit as much as the
would have kindled such a Fire for them as would have torrified them with a vengeance But as he has stocked the Church with such plenty of New Hereticks and all of his own making so could he by a sway of Power as Arbitrary as his Divinity provide for them also such a Furnace as that of Nebuchadnezzar whom in his Imperious Meen and Humour he so much resembles yet he must not think That the Sound and Iingle of Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness how melodiously soever they may tinkle in his own Ears will ever be able to Charm Me◠over to the Worship of his Idol or make them Sacrifice their Reason and Religion either to Him or to the New Notions which he has set up And indeed I cannot but here further declare that to me it seems one of the most preposterous and unreasonable things in Nature for any one first to assert Three Gods and when he has so wel furnished the World with Deities to expect that all Mankind should fall down and Worship Him CHAP. VI. In which is Considered What this Author pretends to from the Authority of the Fathers and School men in behalf of his Hypothesis and shewn in the first place That neither do the Fathers own the Three Divine Persons to be Three Distinct Infinite Minds nor Self-Consciousness to be the Formal Reason of their Distinction I Have in the foregoing Chapters debated the Point with this Author upon the Reason and Nature of the Thing it self But that is not all which he pretends to defend his Cause by endeavouring to countenance it also with great Authorities and that in these positive and remarkable words This is no New Notion says he but the constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools Page 101. These are his very words and I desire the Reader carefully to consider and carry them along with him in his Memory For as they are as positive as Confidence can make them so if they are not made good to the utmost they ought severely to recoil upon any one who shall presume to express himself at such a Rate And now that we may do him all the right that may be The way to know whether this Author's Hypothesis be the Constant Doctrine of the Fathers and Schools is in the first place truly and fairly to set down what this Author's Doctrine is and wherein it does consist as we shall declare what the received Doctrine of the Fathers and Schools is in our Eighth Chapter Now we shall find That the whole Doctrine delivered by him concerning the Blessed Trinity is comprehended under and reducible to these four Heads First That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits Secondly That Self-Consciousness is the Formal Reason of Personality and consequently that each of the Divine Persons is such by a distinct Self-Consciousness properly and peculiarly belonging to him Thirdly That the Three Divine Persons being thus distinguished from one another by a distinct Self-Consciousness proper to each of them are all United in one and the same Nature by one Mutual Consciousness Common to them all And Fourthly and Lastly That a Trinity in Unity and an Unity in Trinity by this Explication and Account given of it is a very Plain Easie and Intelligible Notion These four Heads or Particulars I say contain in them a full and fair representation of this Author 's whole Hypothesis concerning the Oeconomy of the Blessed Trinity And I am well assured That the knowing and Impartial Reader neither will nor can deny that they do so In the next place therefore that we may see how far our Author makes good all the said Particulars by the Authority of the Fathers as he has peremptorily promised and undertook to do I think it requisite to consider how the Fathers expressed themselves upon this Subject and how this Author brings the said Expressions to his purpose For surely the natural way of knowing any Writer's Mind is by the Words and Expressions which he pretends to deliver his Mind by But concerning these we have our Author declaring First That he has not troubled his Reader with the signification of Essence Hypostasis Substance Subsistence Person Existence Nature c. Pag. 101. and some of his Readers could give him a very good Reason why though I fear too true for him to be pleased with But the Reasons which he himself alledges for his not troubling his Readers either with these Terms or the Explication of them are First That they were very differently used by the Fathers themselves Page 101. And be it so yet still for all that used by them they were and that not so very differently neither the chief difference having been about the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which yet was fairly accorded and well high setled between the Greeks and the Latines before the end of the 6th Century as shall be further made to appear in our Eighth Chapter And his next Reason for his not troubling his Reader forsooth with these Terms is Because they have as he tells us very much obscured the Doctrine of the Trinity instead of explaining it Page 101. which being one of the chief Things which he might conclude would assuredly be disputed with Him for Him thus to presume it before he had proved it is manifestly to beg the Question In the mean time certain it is That these and these only were the Terms which the Father 's used in their Disputes about the Trinity and by which they managed them and consequently were they never so Ambiguous Faulty or Improper as they are much the contrary yet whosoever will pretend to give the Sence of the Fathers must have recourse to them and do it by them and to do otherwise would be to dispute at Rovers or as the word is to speak without Book which may much better become our Author in the Pulpit than in the management of such a Controversie And now let the Reader whom he is so fearful of troubling with any Thing that is to the Purpose judge Whether this Man has not took a most extraordinary way of proving his Doctrine the very same with the Fathers For neither in the first place does he set down what the Doctrine of the Fathers concerning the Trinity was which yet one would have thought was absolutely necessary for the shewing how his own Doctrine agreed with it which he professed to be his design Nor in the next place does he either use or regard or offer to explain those Terms which the Fathers all along delivered that their Doctrine in but is so far from it That he reproaches explodes and utterly rejects them as serving only to obscure this Doctrine instead of explaining it Which in my poor Judgment is such a way of proving the Fathers on his side as perhaps the World never heard of before and will be amazed at now But it is his way and it will
nothing is so but a Mind or Spirit it may as I have said imply a Mind but it does not directly signifie it But admitting that it does both does this expression prove That the Son is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinct from the Father By no means For not only the Son but the Father may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet they are not Three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Reason of this is because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Essential Attribute following the Divine Nature and therefore common to all the Three Persons and not a Personal Attribute peculiar to any one of them So that granting the Son to be as truly and properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this Author would have him yet we absolutely deny That he is a distinct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Father And this Expression I am sure is far enough from proving him to be so From Nyssen he passes to St. Athanasius who he tells us observes out of these words of our Saviour John 10. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that our Saviour does not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that by so speaking he gave us a perfect Duality of Persons in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and an Unity of Nature in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All which is very true and that this distinction of Persons overthrows the Heresie of Sabellius and the Unity of their Nature the Heresie of Arius But then this is also as true that all this is nothing at all to our Author's Purpose For how does this prove either that the Three Divine Persons are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits Or that Self-Consciousness is the proper ground or Reason of their distinction Why yes says He If the Father be an Eternal Mind and Wisdom then the Son is also an Eternal but begotten Mind and Wisdom Very true but still I deny that it follows hence That the Eternal Mind or Wisdom Begetting and the Eternal Mind or Wisdom Begotten are Two distinct Minds or Wisdoms but only one and the same Mind or Wisdom under these Two distinct Modifications of Begetting and being Begot But he pretends to explain and confirm his Notion of a distinct Mind or Wisdom out of those words of the Nicene Creed in which the Son is said to be God of God Light of Light very God of very God By which words I cannot imagine how this Author thinks to serve his turn unless that by Light must be meant Infinite Wisdom or Infinitely Wise Mind and that this must also infer the Father and Son to be Two distinct Infinitely Wise Minds or Wisdoms one issuing from the other But if so then the same words will and must infer them also to be two distinct Gods and very Gods For all these words stand upon the same level in the same Sentence and then if we do but joyn the Term Distinct equally with every one of them we shall see what Monstrous Blasphemous Stuff will be drawn out of this Creed In the mean time let this Author know once for all That Light of Light imports not here Two distinct Lights but one Infinite Light under Two different ways of Subsisting viz. either by and from it self as it does in the Father or of and from another as it does in the Son All which is plainly and fully imported in and by the Particle of signifying properly as here applyed Derivation or Communication in the thing which it is applyed to And this is the clear undoubted sense of the Word as it is used here In the mean time I hope the Arians and Socinians will joyn in a Letter of Thanks to this Author for making such an Inference from the Nicene Creed In the next place he comes to St. Austin where though I am equally at a loss to find how he proves his Point by him any more than by those whom he has already produced yet I will transcribe the whole Quotation into the Margin that so both the Reader may have it under his Eye and the Author have no cause to complain that he is not fairly dealt with Now that which he would infer from thence seems to be this That God the Father is Infinitely Wise by a Wisdom of his own distinct from that Wisdom by which the Son is called The Wisdom of the Father and consequently that they are Two distinct Infinite Wisdoms or Infinitely Wise Minds This I say is that which he would inferr and argue from St. Austin or I know not what else it can be But this is by no means deducible from his words for the Father is wise by one and the same Infinite Wisdom equally belonging both to the Father and the Son but not by it under that peculiar Formality as it belongs to the Son For it belongs to the Son as Communicated to Him whereas it belongs to the Father as Originally in and from Himself And whereas it is objected That if the Father should be Wise by the Wisdom which he Begot then he could not be said to be Wise by a Wisdom of his own but only by a Begotten Wisdom proper to the Son I Answer That neither does this follow since it is but one and the same Essential Wisdom in both viz. in him who Begets and in him who is Begotten Though as it is in him who is Begotten it is not after the same way in Him who Begets So that it is this determining Particle as or Quatenus which by importing a distinction of the manner causes a quite different application of the Term while the Thing is still the same For the Father himself is not denominated Wise even by that very Wisdom that is Essential to Him considered as Personally determined to the Son for so it must be considered as Derived and Communicated and no Divine Perfection can agree to the Father under the Formal Consideration of Derived and Communicated albeit the Thing it self which is Derived and Communicated absolutely considered may and does In a word the Father is Wise by one and the same Wisdom which is both in himself and in his Son but not by it as it is in the Son But by the way it is worth observing That this Man who here in the 102 and 103 Pages denies the Father to be Wise by this Begotten Wisdom which the Son is here called and which in the Sense we have now given of it is very true and alledges St. Austin and Lombard to abett him in it This very Man I say Page 131. Line 24. affirms That the Son is that Wisdom and Knowledge wherewith his Father knows himself Where If for the Father to be Wise and to know himself be formally the same Act and as much the same as his Wisdom and Knowledge can be as it is manifest they are then I leave it to this
Author to tell us which of these two Assertions is false for both of them I am sure cannot be true But he who makes nothing to contradict himself within the compass of two or three Pages and sometimes as many Lines may do it cum Privilegio at the distance of near Thirty And whereas it is urged again from the same place in St. Austin That if we say the Father begets his own Wisdom we may as well say That he Begets his own Goodness Greatness Eternity c. I Answer No doubt but we may say one as well as the other but that in Truth and Propriety of Speech we can say neither For God cannot properly be said to beget Wisdom and much less his own Wisdom nor indeed any of his other Attributes or Perfections Essentially taken and considered he may indeed be said to Communicate them and by such Commmnication to Beget a Son But still though these are thus said to be Communicated it is the Person only who is or can be properly said to be Begotten But our Author tells us Page 103. out of the next Chapter of St. Austin the words of which he should have done well to have quoted that he there calls God the Father Sapientia Ingenita and the Son Sapientia Genita and are not these Two distinct Infinite Wisdoms I Answer No For that the Wisdom here spoken of is not taken Absolutely and Essentially but only Personally That is for Wisdom under two several Modifications which Modifications though they diversifie and distinguish the Thing they belong to yet do not multiply it For still it is one and the same Wisdom which is both Genita and Ingenita though as it is one it is not the other Sapientia or Wisdom considered Absolutely and Essentially in it self belongs in Common to all the Three Persons but with the Term Genita or Ingenita joyned with it it imports a peculiar Mode of Subsistence which determines it to a particular Personality So that Sapientia quatenus Genita properly and only denotes the Person of the Son In like manner when the Third Person of the Trinity is called the Spirit the Term Spirit is not there taken Essentially for that Infinite Immaterial Incorporeal Nature Absolutely considered for so it is common to all the Three Persons but for that Infinite Incorporeal Nature Quatenus procedens aut spirata and under that peculiar Mode of Subsistence it belongs not to the other Two Persons but stands appropriate only to the Third Nevertheless this makes them not Three distinct Infinite Spirits as we have already shewn but only one Infinite Spirit under Three distinct Modalities Accordingly when the Son is here called the Wisdom of the Father that very Term of the Father imports a Modification of it peculiar to the Son but yet this Modification does not make it another Wisdom from that which is in the Father since one and the same Wisdom may sustain several determining Modes Our Author's next Quotation is out of Peter Lombard Page 103. whom for the Credit of what he Quotes from him he styles the Oracle of the Schools though he who shall read Lambertus Denoeus upon the first Book of his Sentences will quickly find what a Doughty Oracle he is The Passage quoted proceeds upon the same Notion which we find in the foregoing Citation out of St. Austin whom he also alledges for it Nevertheless I shall Transcribe this also as I did the other both for the Choice Stuff contained in it as also that the Reader may have it before him and thereby see what use our Author is able to make of it for his purpose First of all then he tells us That in God to be and to be Wise is the same thing And I grant it with respect to the Absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature but for all that I must tell him That to Be and to be Wise fall under two formally distinct Conceptions of which the former does not include the latter and that for this Reason such as treat Scholastically of these Matters do always allow a formal difference between them and never treat of them but as so considered And let me tell him also that this consideration looks yet something further as inferring That Things formally distinct must have formally distinct Effects so that the formal Effect of one cannot be ascribed to the other And moreover that it is a very gross Absurdity to confound the Formal Cause with the Efficient and so to argue from one as you would do from the other Which Observations being thus laid down let us see how this Man and his Oracle argue in the Case And it is thus If the Wisdom which He viz. God the Father Begets be the cause of his being wise then it is the cause also of his very Being In Answer to which I deny the Consequence For that Wisdom is the cause of one's being Wise only by a formal Causality viz. by existing in Him and affecting him in such a particular way and this it does without being the Cause also of his Existence that being a Thing formally distinct from his Being Wise And therefore though Wisdom I grant must presuppose the Existence of the Subject where it has this Effect Yet it does not formally cause it or rather indeed for this very reason cannot possibly do so But he proceeds and argues further viz. That supposing the Wisdom Begotten by the Father were the Cause both of his Being and of his being Wise then it must be so either by Begetting or Creating him for so I Interpret Conditricem but for one to say That Wisdom is any way the Begetter or Maker of the Father would be the height of Madness It would be so indeed And so on the other side to attempt to prove the Father and the Son to be Two distinct Infinite Minds by such strange odd uncouth Notions as these which St. Austin himself particularly treating of them in his 7 and 15 Books de Trinitate confesses to be Quoestiones inextricabiles this I say whatsoever may be the height of Madness is certainly not the height of Discretion Nevertheless as to the Argument it self I deny the Consequence And that because the Begetting or any otherwise Producing a Thing imports a Cause operating by a proper Efficiency or Causality whereas Wisdom being only the formal Cause of one's being Wise as it would be no other could it be the Cause of one's very Being also operates only by an Internal Improper Causality viz. in a word Wisdom makes one Wise as Whiteness makes a Thing White not by producing any Thing in him but by Existing in him and affecting him by it self after such a certain manner and thereby giving him such a certain Denomination Now from hence let any one judge how foreibly and Philosophically this Man Disputes the Truth is were the whole Argument Conclusive it were nothing to his purpose But I was willing to shew That his way of arguing is
For though the Three Divine Persons differ as really yet it is certain that they do not differ as much But what the Fathers alledged only as an Illustration of the Case this Man is pleased to make a direct proof of his Point which by his Favour is to stretch it a little too far For if he would make the foregoing Example a Parallel Instance to the Thing which he applies it to it would prove a great deal too much as has been shewn and therefore as to the Thing which it is brought for does indeed prove nothing at all Now the Thing it is brought to prove is That the Three Divine Persons are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits but since we have shewn That a Real Difference or Distinction may be much short of such an one as is between two or more Minds or Spirits which we own to be as great as between two or more Men it follows That the Real Difference which is between the Three Divine Persons cannot prove them to be so many distinct Minds or Spirits In short our Author 's whole Argument amounts to no more but this which though it may sound something jocularly is really and strictly true viz. That because Peter Iames and Iohn are so many Men therefore Father Son and Holy Ghost are so many Minds A pleasant way of Arguing certainly I have now examined all that this Author has alledged about the distinction of the Three Divine Persons and I have done it particularly and exactly not omitting any one of his Quotations But how comes it to pass all this while that we have not so much as one Syllable out of the Fathers or School-men in behalf of Self-Consciousness Which being according to this Author the Constituent Reason of the Personality and Personal Distinction of the Three Divine Persons will he pretend to prove the Distinction it self from the Fathers and at the same time not speak one Tittle of the Principle or Reason of this Distinction Or will he profess to prove his whole Hypothesis by the Authority of the Fathers and yet be silent of Self-Consciousness which he himself makes one grand and principal part of the said Hypothesis Certainly one would think that the very shame of the World and that Common Awe and regard of Truth which Nature has imprinted upon the Minds of Men should keep any one from offering to impose upon Men in so gross and shameless a manner as to venture to call a Notion or Opinion the Constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools nay and to profess to make it out and shew it to be so and while he is so doing not to to produce one Father or Schoolman I say again not so much as one of either in behalf of that which he so confidently and expresly avows to be the joynt Sentiment of Both. This surely is a way of proving or rather of imposing peculiar to Himself But we have seen how extremely fond he is of this new Invented Term and Notion And therefore since he will needs have the Reputation of being the sole Father and Begetter of the Hopefull Issue there is no Reason in the World that Antiquity should find other Fathers to maintain it CHAP. VII In which is shewn That the Passages alledged by this Author out of the Fathers do not prove Mutual-Consciousness to be that wherein the Unity of the Divine Nature in the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity does Consist But that the Fathers place it in something else OUR Author having undertook to make good his Doctrine about the Blessed Trinity from the Fathers and that both as to the Distinction of the Divine Persons and also as to their Unity in the same Nature And having said what he could from those Ancient Writers for that new sort of Distinction which he ascribes to the said Persons in the former part of his 4th Section which I have confuted in the preceding Chapter he proceeds now in the following and much longer part of the same Section to prove the Unity of the Three Persons in one and the same Nature according to his own Hypothesis And the Proofs of this we shall reduce under these Two following Heads as containing all that is alledged by him upon this point of his Discourse viz. First That it is one and the same Numerical Divine Nature which belongs to all the Three Divine Persons And Secondly That the Thing wherein this Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature does consist is that Mutual-Consciousness by which all the Three Persons are intimately Conscious to one another of all that is known by or belongs to each of them in particular And here the Authority of the Fathers is pleaded by him for both of these and I readily grant it for the first but however shall examine what this Author produces for the one as well as for the other But before I do this I must observe to him That if that Distinction Asserted by him between the Divine Persons whereby they stand distinguished as Three Infinite Minds or Spirits holds good all his proofs of the Unity of their Nature will come much too late For he has thereby already destroyed the very Subject of his Discourse and it is in vain to seek wherein the Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature as it belongs to the Three Persons does Consist after he has affirmed that which makes such an Unity utterly impossible And it has been sufficiently proved against him in our 5th Chapter That Three Infinite Minds or Spirits can never be one Numerical Infinite Mind or Spirit nor consequently one God Three distinct Spirits can never be otherwise One than by being United into one Compound or Collective Being which could such a Thing be admitted here might be called indeed an Union but an Unity properly it could not And hereupon I cannot but observe also That this Author very often uses these Terms promiscuously as if Union and Unity being United into One and being One signified the very same Thing whereas in strictness and propriety of Speech whatsoever Things are United into One cannot be Originally One and è Converso whatsoever is Originally One cannot be so by being United into One for as Suidas explains the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say Union is so called from the pressing or thrusting together several Things into one But our Author who with great profoundness tells us of the same Nature in Three distinct Persons being United into One Numerical Essence or God-head Page 118. Lines 9 10. has certainly a different Notion of Union from all the World besides For how one and the same Nature though in never so many distinct Persons since it is still supposed the same in all can be said to be United into any one Thing I believe surpasses all Humane Apprehension to conceive Union in the very Nature of it being of several Things not of one and the same I desire the Reader to consult the place and
make an Explication of it superfluous this Author having quoted Peter Lombard in such or such a sence ought in all Reason to have produced the Major and more eminent part of the School-men and Writers upon him and shewn their Unanimous Concurrence in the same Sence and Notion which he took him in and quoted him for And this indeed would have been to his Purpose and look'd like proving his Opinion to have been the Doctrine of the Schools Otherwise I cannot see how the Master of the Sentences can be called or pass for all the School men any more than the Master of the Temple can pass for all the Divines of the Church of England Unless we should imagine that this Peter Lombard had by a kind of Mutual Consciousness gathered all his Numerous Brood into Himself and so united them all into one Author So that the Sum of all is this That this Author having declared his Opinion the constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools to make his words good has produced for it Three or Four Greek Fathers and Two Latin though even these no more to his purpose than if he had quoted Dod and Cleaver or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Homer and lastly One Sentence out of one School-man Which if it be allowed to pass for a good just and sufficient Proof of any Controverted Conclusion let it for the future by all means for this our Author's sake be an Established Rule in Logick from a Particular to infer an Universal And now that I am bringing my Reader towards a close of this long Chapter I must desire him to look a little back towards the beginning of the foregoing Chapter wherein upon this Man 's Confident Affirmation That his Opinion was the constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools I thought it necessary to state what his Opinion was and accordingly I shew'd that it consisted of Four Heads 1st That the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity were three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits which how far he was from being able to prove from the Authority of any of the Fathers cited by him was sufficiently shewn by us in the preceding Chapter The 2d Was That Self Consciousness was the formal Reason of Personality in the said three Persons and consequently That whereby they were distinguished from each other which in the same Chapter I shew'd he was so far from proving from the Authority of those Ancient Writers that he did not alledge one Tittle out of any of them for it nor indeed so much as mention it in any of the Quotations there made by him And as for the 3d. Member of his said Hypothesis viz. That the Unity of the Divine Nature in the three Blessed Persons Consisted in the Mutual Consciousness belonging to them This we have Examined at large and confuted in this Chapter But still there remains the 4th And last to be spoken to as completeing his whole Hypothesis and resulting by direct Consequence from the other Three viz. That a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity explained by the three forementioned Terms or Principles is a very plain easie and intelligible Notion which having been in a most Confident Peremptory manner affirmed by him all along as I shew in Chap. 1. and upon that Score making so great a part of his Hypothesis ought in all reason to be proved to have been the Sence and Doctrine of the Fathers concerning this Article But not one word does he produce upon this Head neither Nor for my own part do I expect ever to find the least Sentence or Syllable in any Ancient Writer tending this way And I challenge this Author to produce so much as one to this purpose In the mean time how and with what kind of words I find these Ancient Writers expressing themselves about this venerable Mystery I shall here set down Only I shall premise a Sentence or two out of this Author himself and which I have had occasion to quote more than once before from Page 106. line 7. viz. That the Unity in Trinity being as he confesses so great a Mystery that we have no Example of it in Nature it is no wonder if it cannot be explained by any one kind of Natural Union and that therefore it was necessary to use several Examples and to allude to several kinds of Union to form an Adequate Notion of the God head and moreover Page 139. line 26. c. That there is nothing like this Mysterious Distinction and Unity and that we want proper words to express it by All which Passages lying clear open and express in the fore-cited places of this Author I must needs ask him Whether all these are used by him to prove the Unity in Trinity a plain easie and intelligible Notion as he has frequently elsewhere asserted it to be As to go over each of the Particulars First Whether we must account it plain because he says It is a great Mystery of which we have no Example in Nature And Secondly Whether we must reckon it easie because he says That it cannot be Explained by any one kind of Natural Union but that several Examples must be used and several sorts of Union alluded to for this purpose And Lastly Whether it must pass for Intelligible because he tells us That we want proper Words to express it by that is in other Terms to make it Intelligible since to express a Thing and to make it Intelligible I take to be Terms equivalent In fine I here appeal to the Reader Whether we ought from the forementioned Passages of this Author to take the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity for a plain easie Intelligible Notion according to the same Author's affirmation so frequently inculcated in so many Parts of his Book But I shall now proceed to shew as I promised how the Fathers speak and declare themselves upon this great Point And here we will begin first with Iustin Martyr A Singularity or Unity says he is understood by us and a Trinity in Unity is acknowledged But how it is thus I am neither willing to ask others nor can I perswade my self with my Muddy Tongue and Polluted Flesh to attempt a Declaration of such Ineffable Matters And again speaking of the Oeconomy of the blessed Trinity the nature and manner says he of this Oeconomy is unutterable And yet again speaking of this Mysterious Oeconomy of the Deity and the Trinity as one of the greatest Mysteries of the Christian Faith I cry out says he O wonderful For that the Principles and Articles of our Religion surpass and transcend the Understanding Reason and Comprehension of a Created Nature In the next place Dionysius the Areopagite or some very Ancient Writer under that Name calls it the Transcendent Superessential and Superlatively Divine Trinity In like manner Gregory Nyssen we apprehend says he in these viz. the three Divine Persons a certain Inexpressible Inconceivable
the Things themselves yet derive only an External Habitude and denomination consequent from it upon the Deity it self The 2d Sort of Relation is Intrinsecal and founded upon those Internal Acts by which one Person produces another or proceeds from another For to produce and to proceed whether by Generation or Spiration is that which makes or Constitutes a Plurality of Persons in the Godhead From all which it follows That the Relation by which God as a Creator or Preserver respects his Creatures is extremely different from that by which God as a Father respects his Son The former adding only to the Deity an Extrinsecal denomination but the latter leaving upon it an Internal Incommunicable Character Essentially Inseparable from the Deity So that although it may well enough be said That God might never have been a Creator yet it cannot be said of Him That he might never have been a Father the former being only an effect of his Will but this latter the Necessary Result of his Nature Now these Internal Acts upon which the Divine Relations are founded and from which they flow are First That Eternal Act by which the Father Communicates his Divine Nature to the Son which accordingly is called Generation And that by which the Son receives his Divine Nature from the Father which is called Filiation And. Thirdly The Act of Spiration by which the Father and the Son together eternally breath forth the Holy Spirit And Lastly The Act of Procession by which the Holy Ghost proceeds and receives his Divine Nature joyntly from them both These I say are those Internal Incommunicable and distinguishing Acts from which the Personal Relations belonging to the Three Divine Persons are derived But you will say Does not this infer Four Persons in the Godhead viz. That as Generation and Filiation make two so Spiration and Procession should make two more I Answer No Because the same Person may sustain several Personal Relations and Exert and receive several Personal Acts where those Acts or Relations are not opposite to or inconsistent with one another in the same Subject As for instance The Person of the Father may Exert both an Act of Generation and of Spiration and so sustain the Relations resulting from both without any Multiplication of his Person and the Son likewise may receive and sustain the Act of Filiation and withal Exert an Act of Spiration without any Multiplication of Personality And this because neither are the Acts of Generation and Spiration inconsistent in the Father nor the Acts of Filiation and Spiration incompatible in the Son Though indeed the Acts of Generation and Filiation and the Relations springing therefrom would be utterly inconsistent because opposite in any one Person as likewise upon the same Account would the Acts of Spiration and Procession From whence by plain and undeniable Consequence it follows That Generation and Filiation Spiration and Procession Constitute only Three Persons in the Eternal Godhead and no more For Relations merely disparate do not Constitute several distinct Persons unless they be opposite too That Maxime of the Schools being most true That Sola Oppositio multiplicat in Divinis So that albeit Filiation and Spiration are Terms opposite to their respective Correlates yet being only disparate with reference to one another and as both of them meet and are lodged in one and the same Subject viz. the Person of the Son they neither cause nor infer in him any more than one Single Personality But now if any one should ask me What this Generation and Filiation this Spiration and Procession are I answer That herein consists the Mystery and since such Mysteries exceed the Comprehension of Humane Reason I am not in the least ashamed most readily to own my ignorance thereof in that known Anthem used in the Church Quid sit Gigni quid Processus Me nescire sum processus For tho the Author whom I have been Disputing with by the help and vertue of Two Wonder working words able to make one who is no Conjurer do strange things undertakes to make this greatest of Mysteries Plain Easie and Intelligible and when he has done this as he says he has owns it nevertheless for a Mystery still yet in the Judgment of other Mortals to acknowledge a Thing Inexplicable and in the same Breath to offer an Explication of it too will be thought a little too much for one of an ordinary pitch of Sence and Reason to pretend to and therefore for my own part I dare not look so high Upon the whole matter in discoursing of the Trinity Two Things are absolutely necessary to be held and insisted upon One That each and every Person of the Blessed Trinity entirely contains and includes in himself the whole Divine Nature The other That each Person is Incommunicably different and distinct from the other And here if it should be asked How they differ and whether it be by any real distinction between the Persons I Answer Yes But for the better explaining of my Answer we must distinguish of Two sorts of Real Distinctions 1. The first greater viz. When Two Things or real Beings differ from one another 2. The other lesser as when the difference is between a Thing or real Being on the one side and the Mode of it on the other Or between Two or more Modes of the same Being And this Distinction or Difference is called Real in opposition to that which is wholly founded upon the Apprehension or Operation of the Intellect and has of it self no Existence without it But a Being and the Mode adhering to it differ whether the Mind ever apprehends and thinks of them or no. And thus we affirm That the Divine Persons really differ and are distinguished from one another viz. by a Modal or lesser sort of Real difference according to which the Divine Nature Subsisting under and being determined by such a certain Mode personally differs from it self as subsisting under and determined by another Forasmuch as the Divine Nature or Godhead so subsisting and determined is properly a Person Nor ought this smallness of difference between the Divine Persons to be any presumption against the Truth of what we have delivered concerning the Oeconomy of the Blessed Trinity as shall be more particularly shewn in Answer to one of this Author's Objections against it before we come to a conclusion of this Chapter In the mean time to sum up the foregoing Particulars the Reader may please to take what I aver to be the Doctrine of the Catholick Church about this great Article in this following Account of it viz. That there is one and but one Self-Existing Infinite Eternal c. Being Nature or Substance which we call God And that this Infinite Eternal Self-Existing Being or Nature Exists in and is common to Three distinct Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost Of which the Son eternally issues from the Father by way of Generation and the Holy Ghost joyntly from both by way of
as Subsisting under Three This is manifestly false and contrary to common Experience and without any further arguing the case I appeal to the Reason of all Mankind whether it be not so PARADOX What is Intellectual Love says this Author but the true Knowledge or Estimation of Things What is Iustice and Goodness but an equal Distribution of or a true and wise Proportion of Rewards and Punishments What is perfect Power but perfect Truth and Wisdom which can do whatsoever it knows Page 71 72. Answer We have here a whole Knot or Cluster of Paradoxes but I shall take them a sunder and consider them severally And because they run all in the way of Interrogations I shall take them out of their Interrogative Form and cast them into so many Categorical Assertions The first of which is That Intellectual Love is nothing else but the true Knowledge and Estimation of Things This is False and Absurd For Love is one thing and Knowledge another each of them distinguished by essentially different Acts and Objects Knowledge importing no more than a bare Speculation or Apprehension of the Object whereas Love is properly an Adhesion to it Love essentially presupposes the Knowledge of the Thing Loved but Knowledge cannot presuppose it self Knowledge is the first Act of an Intelligent Mind Love the second And I would fain know Whether this Man of Paradox will affirm That God Loves every Thing which he has a true Knowledge and Estimation of But to give him one Argument for all Are not the Eternal distinguishing Characters of Two Persons of the Blessed Trinity founded in the distinction of Love and Knowledge in God the Son issuing from the Father by way of Knowledge and the Spirit issuing from both by way of Love In the next place he affirms Iustice and Goodness to be the same thing and to consist both of them in a true and wise Proportion of Rewards and Punishments But this also is false These Two being as properly and formally distinguished by their Acts and Objects as the Two former And I do here tell this Author That God's Goodness is the proper Qualification of his own Actions without referring necessarily to any other besides but that his Justice bears an Essential Relation to the Actions of others viz. as Rewardable or Punishable And consequently God might have exerted innumerable Acts of his Goodness though there had never been any Object for him to have exerted so much as one Act of his Iustice upon And to give him one Instance that may Convince any Man of Sense of the vast difference of these two Attributes was that Act of Creation by which God first Created the World an Act of his Justice Or did that Act consist in a Wise proportion of Rewards and Punishments before there was any Act of the Creature to be Rewarded or Punished But I am sure it was an Act of the Divine Goodness whereby God communicated much of the Perfection of Being to something without himself Again is Pardon of Sin an Essential Act of God's Iustice But I am sure it is an Act of his Goodness Certainly this Man neither knows nor cares what he says His Third Assertion is That perfect Power is nothing else but perfect Truth and Wisdom But this also is a gross Paradox and as false as that Omnipotence and Omniscience are not Two distinct Attributes of God God's Power acts by and under the direction of God's Wisdom and therefore neither is nor can be formally the same with it And besides this all Acts of Wisdom and Truth proceed from God by a Necessity of Nature but the Acts and Exercise of his Power by a free determination of his Will For in speaking of God no Man says That God is Wise Knowing or True or Acts according to these Perfections because he will do so for he can neither be nor Act otherwise but we truly and properly say That God does this or that because he will do it for if he had pleased he might have chose whether he would do it or no. From all which I conclude That nothing could be more improperly and absurdly affirmed than That the Divine Power is nothing else but the Divine Truth and Wisdom PARADOX In Men says he it is only Knowledge that is Power Humane Power and Humane Knowledge as that signifies a Knowledge how to do any Thing are Commensurate so that every Man can do what he knows how to do Nay Knowledge is not only the Director of Power but it is that very Power which we call force Page 72. Answ. This is so gross a Paradox that I think it can need no other Confutation than to oppose the sense of all Mankind to it nevertheless I shall offer this one Consideration towards the disproving the Identity of Knowledge and Power viz. That a Man's Knowledge and Skill about the doing any Work of Art may increase as his power of Execution for the Actual doing the said Works may decrease nay wholly cease and therefore they cannot be the same For suppose a Carpenter disabled by Age or Accident that he cannot strike a stroke towards the building an House does he therefore cease to know how to build it while another shall build it wholly by the direction of his Skill and Knowledge This Man may as well prove his Head and his Hands to be one and the same Thing as Knowledge and Power to be so But I shall go no farther than this very Author to confute this Author's Assertion who has told us in p. 9. l. 3 4. That we understand nothing of the Secrets and Mysteries of Nature nor are concerned to understand them any more than it is our Business to understand how to make either a Body or a Spirit which we have no power to do mark that if we did understand it and therefore it would be an useless piece of Knowledge Now I beseech the Reader to set these Two Assertions together viz. that in pag. 72. That to know how to do a Thing is to be able to do it and that other in the pag. 9. viz. That though we understood how to make a Body or a Spirit yet we have no power to do it I say let these Two Propositions be compar'd and then I hope that for the future Knowledge how to do a thing and Power to do it ought not even according to this very Author to pass for the same thing In the mean time we see how one of his Assertions contains a gross Absurdity and the other compleats it with as gross a Contradiction PARADOX This Word Infinite says he confounds our Notions of God p. 77. Answer This is false The Thing indeed signified by the Word Infinite exceeds and transcends our Notions but the word Infinite does not confound them And I would have this Man take notice that for an Object to surpass and be above our Thoughts and to disorder and confound them are very different Things And moreover that it is the