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
〈◊〉 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
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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
he would vouchsafe to teach us how to reconcile them also For I for my own part think it every whit as hard a task to reconcile Contradictions as to reconcile Protestants and I hope much harder And yet this latter he has endeavoured to prove in a certain Book wrote by him in the Year 1685 a thing not to be done But whether it can or no I am sure he has hardly published any Book since but what manifestly proves That there is great need of some Reconciler to do the other But why do I speak of reconciling Contradictions It would be a very troublesome work if it could be done and a very uncomfortable one when it could not And therefore our Author to give him his due has attempted a much surer and more compendious way of clearing himself of this imputation than such a long and tedious way of reconciling inconsistent Propositions could possibly have been For having Asserted That we cannot justly charge a Contradiction where we cannot comprehend the Nature of the thing said to be contradicted and that in the next place there is nothing in the World which he knoweth of the Nature of which we can throughly understand or comprehend I hope it follows That where nothing can or ought to be contradicted as nothing ought to be which cannot be comprehended none can be guilty of a Contradiction And this I suppose none will deny to be an Expedient every way answerable and equal to our Author's Occasions For otherwise I cannot see what can stand between him and the charge of many Scurvy Contradictory Assertions but that which shall effectually prove and make out to us That indeed there neither is nor can be any such thing as a Contradiction CHAP. II. Containing an Account of several Terms commonly made use of in Discoursing of the Divine Nature and Persons and particularly shewing the Propriety of applying the Words Essence Substance Nature Infinity and the like to this great Subject and lastly proving this Author's Exceptions against the use of them about the same false groundless and impertinent With some further Remarks upon his forementioned Apology OUR Author seems so desirous to advance nothing upon this sublime Subject but what shall be perfectly new that in order to the making way for his particular Novelties he Quarrels with almost all the old words which Divines in their Discourses about the Divine Nature and Persons were heretofore accustomed to make use of He can by no means approve of the words Essence Substance Nature Subsistence and such like as reckoning them the Causes of all the Difficulties and seeming Absurdities that are apt to perplex Mens minds in their Speculations of the Deity and the Trinity 4 Sect. p. 68 69 70. and therefore they must be laid aside and made to give way to other Terms which he judges properer and more accommodate to those Theories To which purpose though our Author has fixed upon two purely of his own Invention which are to do such wonderful feats upon this Subject as in all past Ages were never yet seen nor heard of before and which I therefore reserve in due place to be considered of particularly by themselves yet at present the Author seems most concerned to remove and cashier the fore-mentioned useless cumbersome words and to substitute some better and more useful in their room Such as Eternal Truth and Wisdom Goodness and Power Mind and Spirit c. which being once admitted and applyed to all Disputes about the Divine Nature and an Act of Exclusion past upon the other the way will become presently smooth and open before us and all things relating to the Mystery of the Trinity according to our Author 's own excellent words be made very plain easie and intelligible Nevertheless as I may so speak to borrow another of our Author's Elegancies let not him that putteth on his Armour boast as he that putteth it off A great Promissor with a great Hiatus being much better at raising an Expectation than at answering it And hitherto I can see nothing but words and vapour Though after all it is Performance and the issue of things alone that must shew the strength and reason of the biggest Pretences Now for the clearer and more distinct discussion of the matter in hand I shall endeavour to do these Four things I. I shall shew That the ground upon which this Author excepts against the use of the Terms Nature Essence Substance Subsistence c. in this Subject is false and mistaken II. I shall shew That the same Difficulties arise from the Terms Truth Wisdom Goodness Power c. used for the Explication of the Divine Being that are objected against Essence Substance Nature and the like III. I shall shew That these Terms do better and more naturally explain the Deity or Divine Being than those other of Truth Wisdom Goodness c. And IV. And Lastly I shall shew That the Difficulty of our Conceiving rightly of the Deity and the Divine Persons does really proceed from other Causes These four things I say I will give some brief Account of But because the Subject I am about to engage in is of that Nature that most of the Metaphysical and School-Terms hitherto made use of by Divines upon this occasion will naturally and necessarily fall in with it I think it will contribute not a little to our more perspicuous proceeding in this Dispute to state the Import and Signification of these Terms Essence Substance Existence Subsistence Nature and Personality with such others as will of course come in our way while we are treating of and explaining these And here first of all according to the old Peripatetick Philosophy which for ought I see as to the main Body of it at least has stood it's ground hitherto against all Assaults I look upon the Division of Ens or Being a summary word for all things into Substance and Accident as the Primary and most Comprehensive as we hinted before in our first Chapter But that I may fix the sense and signification of these Terms all along as I go by giving them their respective Definitions or at least Descriptions where the former cannot be had I look upon Ens or Being to be truly and well defined That which is though I must confess it is not so much a perfect Definition as a Notation of the word from the original Verb est For to define it by the Term Essence by saying That Ens or Being is that which has an Essence though it be a true Proposition yet I believe it not so exactly proper a Definition since the Terms of a Definition ought to be rather more known than the thing defined Which in the fore-mentioned Case is otherwise As for Substance I define that to be a Being not inhering in another that is to say so existing by it self as not to be subjected in it or supported this way by it Accident I define a Being inherent in another as in a
Argument I. Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits are Three distinct Gods But the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not Three distinct Gods And therefore the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits The Minor I suppose this Author will readily concur with me in howbeit his Hypothesis as shall be shewn in the certain Consequences of it Contradicts it and if it should stand would effectually overturn it For by that he asserts a perfect Tritheisme though I have so much Charity for him as to believe that he does not know it The Major Proposition therefore is that which must be debated between us This Author holds it in the Negative and I in the Affirmative and my Reason for what I affirm viz. That Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits are Three distinct Gods is this That God and Infinite Mind or Spirit are Terms Equipollent and Convertible God being truly and properly an Infinite Mind or Spirit and an Infinite Mind or Spirit being as truly and properly God And to shew this Convertibility and Commensuration between them yet further Whatsoever may be affirmed or denied of the one may with equal Truth and Propriety be affirmed or denied of the other And to give an Instance of this with reference to the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity As it is true that one and the same God or God-head is Common to and Subsists in all and every one of the Three Persons so is it true That one and the same Infinite Mind or Spirit is Common to and Subsists in the said Three Persons And consequently as it is false That one and the same God or God-head by being Common to and Subsisting in the Three Persons becomes Three Gods or Three God-heads so is it equally false That one and the same Infinite Mind or Spirit by being Common to and Subsisting in the said Three Persons becomes Three Infinite Minds or Spirits This is clear Argumentation and craves no Mercy at our Author's Hands If it be here objected That we allow of Three distinct Persons in the God-head of which every one is Infinite without admitting them to be Three distinct Gods and therefore why may we not as well allow of Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits in the same God-head without any necessity of inferring from thence That they are Three distinct Gods I Answer That the Case is very different and the Reason of the difference is this Because Three Infinite Minds or Spirits are Three Absolute Simple Beings or Essences and so stand distinguished from one another by their whole Beings or Natures But the Divine Persons are Three Relatives or one simple Being or Essence under three distinct Relations and consequently differ from one another not wholly and by all that is in them but only by some certain Mode or respect peculiar to each and upon that Account causing their Distinction And therefore to Argue from a Person to a Spirit here is manifestly Sophistical and that which is called Fallacia Accidentis or since several Fallacies may concur in the same Proposition it may be also à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter For so it is to conclude That Three Persons are Three distinct Gods since the difference of Persons is only from a diverse respect between them but Three Gods import Three absolutely distinct Natures or Substances And whereas we say That the Three Persons are all and every one of them Infinite yet it is but from one and the same Numerical Nature Common to them all that they are so the Ternary Number all the while not belonging to their Infinity but only to their Personalities The Case therefore between a Mind or Spirit and a Person is by no means the same Forasmuch as Person here imports only a Relation or Mode of Subsistence in Conjunction with the Nature it belongs to And therefore a Multiplication of Persons of it self imports only a Multiplication of such Modes or Relations without any necessary Multiplication of the Nature it self to which they adhere Forasmuch as one and the same Nature may sustain several distinct Relations or Modes of Subsistence But now on the other side a Mind or Spirit is not a Relation or Mode of Subsistence but it is an Absolute Being Nature or Substance and consequently cannot be multiplyed without a Multiplication of it into so many Numerical Absolute Beings Natures or Substances there being nothing in it to be multiplyed but it self So that Three Minds or Spirits are Three Absolute Beings Natures or Substances and Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits are accordingly Three distinct Infinite Absolute Beings Natures or Substances That is in other words They are Three Gods which was the Thing to be proved and let this Author ward off the Proof of it as he is able Argument II. My Second Argument against the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity being Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits is this Three distinct Minds or Spirits are Three distinct Substances But the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are not Three distinct Substances And therefore they are not Three distinct Minds or Spirits The Major Proposition is proved from the Definition of a Mind or Spirit That it is Substantia Incorporea Intelligens an Intelligent Incorporeal or Immaterial Substance and therefore Three distinct Minds or Spirits must be Three such distinct Substances And besides if a Mind or Spirit were not a Substance what could it be else If it be any Thing it must be either an Accident or Mode of Being But not an Accident since no Accident can be in God nor yet a Mode of Being since a Spirit not designed to concur as a part towards any Compound is an Absolute Entire Complete Being of itself and has its proper Mode of Subsistence belonging to it and therefore cannot be a Mode it self From whence it follows That a Spirit is and must be a Substance and can be nothing else As for the Minor viz. That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are not Three distinct Substances this is evident both from Authority and from Reason And first for Authority Tertullian against Praxeas affirms Semper in Deo una Substantia And St. Ierom in his Epistle to Damasus Quis ore sacrilego Tres substantias praedicabit And St. Austin in his 5th Book de Trinitate Chap. 9. and in Book 7. Chap. 4. And Ruffinus in the 1st Book of his History Chap. 29. All affirm One Substance in God and deny Three and yet the same Writers unanimously hold Three Persons which shews That they did not account these Three Persons Three Substances And Anselmus in his Book de Incarnatione Chap. 3. says That the Father and the Son may be said to be Two Beings provided that by Beings we understand Relations not Substances And Bellarmine a Writer Orthodox enough in these points and of unquestionable Learning otherwise in his 2d Tome page 348. about the end says
is more like to be known by than ever admired for and so much happiness attend him with it But as little success as we have had in seeking for his Darling and peculiar Notion of Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness in the Ancient Writers of the Church we are like to find no more in seeking for his other equally espoused Notion and Opinion there viz. That the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits We find indeed the Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but not one Tittle of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I hinted before is sometimes used in the same sense and signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in this case I am sure no difficulty of framing Words or Terms as might possibly in some measure be pretended in the Case of Self-Consciousness can with any colour of Reason be alledged for our not finding this Notion in the Fathers had the thing it self been at all there For can there be any words more Obvious and Familiar than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek or than Tres Spiritus or Tres Mentes in the Latine But neither one nor the other are to be met with any where amongst them as applied to the Subject now before us But in Answer to this I expect that our Author will reply That they are not the words Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits or those other of Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness but the things meant and signified by them which he affirms to be found in the Fathers But this is the very thing which I insist upon against him viz. That the Non-usage of these words nor any other equivalent to them in the Works of those Ancient Writers while they were so particularly and nicely disputing this Matter is a solid Argument That neither are the things themselves there For that all those Great and Acute Men should mean the very same thing with this Author and not one of them ever light upon the same words is not rationally to be imagined For What Reason can be given of this Was either the Thing it self as I noted before of such deep or sublime Speculation as not to be reached by them Or the Language they wrote in too scanty to express their Speculations by Or can we think that the Fathers wrote Things without Words as some do but too often write Words without Things So that to me it is evident to a Demonstration That the Fathers never judged nor held in this Matter as this Author pretends they did And besides all this there is yet one Consideration more and that of greater weight with me than all that has been or can be objected against this Man's pretensions viz. That it seems to me and I question not but to all Sober Persons else and that upon good reason wholly unsuteable to the wise and good Method of God's Providence That a clear Discovery of such a Principal Mystery of the Christian Religion as the Trinity is should now at length be owing to the Invention or lucky Hit of any one Man's single Mind or Fancy which so many Pious Humble as well as Excellently Learned Persons with long and tedious search and the hardest study and these no doubt joyned with frequent and servent Prayers to God to enlighten and direct them in that search have been continually breathing after but could never attain to for above Sixteen Hundred Years together This I freely own and declare That I judge it morally impossible for any serious thinking Person ever to bring himself to the belief of and much less for any one not intoxicated with intolerable Pride to arrogate to Himself To which sort of Persons God never reveals any thing extraordinary for the good of the World or of themselves either But since I am now upon Disputation which has its proper Laws and that this Author may have no ground of Exception I will proceed to examine his Quotations out of the Fathers and try whether his Hypothesis may be found there where it is certain that we can find none of his Terms And here he first begins with the Distinction of the Divine Persons where I must remind him That it is not the bare proving a Distinction of Persons which none who acknowledges a Trinity either doubts of or much less denies which will here serve his turn but He must prove also That they stand distinguished as Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits and that this Distinction is owing to Three distinct Self-Consciousnesses belonging to them otherwise all his Proofs will fall beside his Hypothesis This premised I will consider what he alledges And in the first place he positively tells us Page 101. That no Man who acknowledges a Trinity of Persons ever denied That the Son and Holy Spirit were Intelligent Minds or Beings To which I Answer First That it is not sufficient for him who advances a Controverted Proposition that none can be produced who before denied it but it lies upon him the Advancer of it to produce some who have affirmed it Forasmuch as a bare non-denial of a Thing never before affirmed can of it self neither prove nor disprove any Thing But Secondly I Answer further That if none of the Ancient Writers did ever in express Terms deny this it was because none had before in express Terms asserted it But then I add also That the Ancients have expresly asserted that which irrefragably inferrs a Negation of the said Proposition For they have affirmed That the Son and Holy Spirit are one single Intelligent Mind and consequently that being so they cannot possibly be more And this is a full Answer to this sorry shift for an Argument I am sure it deserves not to be called But he proceeds from Negatives to Positives and tells us Page 101. That it is the Constant Language of the Fathers for it seems he has read them all That the Son is the Substantial Word and Wisdom of the Father and that this can be nothing else but to say That he is an Intelligent Being or Infinite Mind And he is so I confess But does this inferr That He is therefore a distinct Intelligent Mind or Being from the Father This we deny and it is the very Thing which he ought to prove And it is not come to that pass yet that we should take his bare affirmation for a Proof of what he affirms He comes now to Particulars and tells us That Gregory Nyssen though since he neither mentions Book nor Page this ought not to pass for a Quotation calls the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which this Author renders Mind or Intellect And I will not deny but that it may by consequence import so much but I am sure it does not by direct Signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies properly Res quaedam Intellectualls or Intellectu praedita And since