denominates him the particular Person of the Father This last Question is what the Fathers were chiefly concerned in The Noetianists the Patri-Passianists rarely disputed the Personality of Father Son and Holy-Ghost None who understand the meaning of the Term can deny that Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them a proper Person if he acknowledges that each of them is properly God None can imagine that that Being which is God is either an Accident a Part or to please the Animadverter an Adjunct to any other Being Those only deny the Personality who esteem the Son and Holy Spirit that is each of them not properly God but something in God the Personal Word or Wisdom of God the Father or his Personal Power This was the great Controverted Debate Whether the Father Son and Holy Ghost that is whether Each of them was a Distinct Person and consequently whether they were Three Persons Now Paternity say the Ancient Fathers in this sense constituted the Father a distinct Divine Person The Schoolmen change the Question and say That it constituted him a Person In the same sense Filiation according to the Ancients constituted the Son a distinct Person and Procession Sanctification constituted the Holy Spirit a distinct Person from Father and Son This Observation will be of great use to any one who shall read the Ancients concerning the Personality of Father Son and Holy Ghost CHAP. III. P. 93. N. 1. COnsideration 5. When the terms Cause formal Reason constituent or productive Principle and the like are used about the Divine Nature and Persons they are not to be understood as applicable to them in the strict and proper signification of the said Terms but only by way of Analogy as really meaning no more than a causal or necessary dependance of one Notion or Conceptus Objectivus upon another so that it is impossible for the Mind to conceive distinctly of the one but as depending upon or proceeding from the other Compare this with his first Consideration P. 92. That the natural Order of Prius and Posterius founded in the universal Reason of things according to which the Conception of one thing presupposes and depends upon the Conception of another makes no Prius or Posterius and yet is by no means to be contradicted or confounded in our discoursing of God This the Animadverter lays down as a Rule to guide our Discourses concerning the Divine Persons To which I answer First That these Considerations contain a direct Heresy the express Heresy of Sabellius Secondly That the Animadverter himself notoriously breaks these Rules even where he ought to have kept them First It is the direct Heresy of Sabellius to assert That there is no Prius and Posterius between the Divine Persons The Compiler of the Athanasian Creed denies a Prius or Posterius in the Trinity in reference to Duration or Time they are all three Co-eternal But to deny a Prius and Posterius in Original is to deny that there is a Father and Son in the Trinity Again it is very pleasant for the Animadverter to tell us That this Prius and Posterius is founded in the Vniversal Reason of things and yet denies it in the Divine Nature As if Universal Reason did not reach infinite as well as finite Nature I suppose he means That there is a natural Order of Prius and Posterius founded in the particular reason of finite Natures which makes no Prius or Posterius in the infinite Divine Nature And it is as pleasant to hear him telling us That this natural Order of Prius and Posterius must not be contradicted in our discoursing of God when in the very immediate preceding words himself had contradicted it and affirmed that there was no Prius and Posterius in the Divine Nature Secondly Himself most shamefully confounds this Natural Order of Prius and Posterius when he asserts p. 98. That the Father is formally constituted a Person by his own personal Act of Generation P. 249. That personal Properties are properly Personalities P. 250. That the Relation and Mode of Subsistence make but one single indivisible Mode of Being Yet says the Animadverter in the next immediate words according to the Natural Order of conceiving things we must conceive of the Subsistence as precedent to the Relation For as much as Human Reason considers things simply as subsisting before it can consider them as related to one another The meaning of all this is That these are Rules when he hopes that he can confute the Dean of St. Paul's Self-Consciousness cannot be Subsistence because according to the natural Order of conceiving things we must conceive of the Subsistence before the Self-Consciousness Self-Consciousness cannot be the formal Reason of Personality for as much as it is a Personal Act one property of the Person already constituted These are Demonstrations against the Dean of St. Paul's What pity was it that the Dean of St. Paul's never asserted this once in all his Book for then it would have been allowed the Animadverter that in one single Article he had been too hard for the Dean But why are not these Rules to himself Is not Generation as much a personal Act as Self-Consciousness Is not the Attribute of being a Father one property of a Person already constituted Is not this Relation founded upon and posterior to a personal Act of Generation Can any thing according to human Reason be related before it is I believe the Animadverter in this point must borrow his own words and tell us That his Thoughts and Words can reach no higher Lastly The Animadverter denies a Prius and Posterius in the Divine Nature to purpose when he tells us That even Productive Principles when used in reference to the Divine Persons that is Father and Son are not applicable to them in the strict and proper Signification of the said term With his leave the Father is strictly and properly the productive Principle of his Son or else he cannot be strictly and properly the Father of his Son or else he did never strictly and properly beget his Son The Arians deny a proper Generation and assert That the Father is an Adoptive Creative and not Generative Father of his Son The Sabellians on the other hand adulterate both the Divine Generation and Mission and expound them in a figurative improper Sense Against both these Heresies the Church has ever professed a true and proper Generation amongst the Divine Persons P. 94. lin 25. N. 2. Self-Consciousness is a personal Act and therefore Self-Consciousness cannot be the formal reason of Personality in the Person whose Act it is and to whom it personally belongs The Consequence I allow the Animadverter I only enquire Why it concludes not against Generation which is as confessedly a Personal Act as Self-consciousness Secondly To affirm that Self-consciousness is a Personal Act is the greatest Heresie to the Schoolmen A Personal Act is an Act proper and peculiar to some
one Divine Person as Generation is a Personal Act proper and peculiar to the Person of the Father and distinguishes the Father from the Son and Holy Spirit Now Self-consciousness is an Absolute Attribute and upon that account cannot be esteemed Personal by the Schoolmen Self-consciousness is but one conception of Omniscience and will the Animadverter say That the Father has a distinct Personal Omniscience If he does he multiplies Omniscience with the Persons that is he multiplies the Divine Nature in such Person Self-consciousness as well as Mutual Consciousness to the Schoolmen is an Essential Act Father Son and Holy Ghost according to the Schoolmen as they have but one singular Divine Nature so they have but one singular Omniscience but one singular Self-consciousness and one singular Mutual Consciousness Every Act proceeds not only from some Agent but by vertue of some power to produce that Act Therefore a Personal Act must have a Personal Power a Personal principium quo The Personal Act of Generation by the Father supposes a Personal Power to generate peculiar to the Father A Personal Act of Self-consciousness therefore will imply a Personal Power to exert such Act that is a Personal Omniscience or a Personal Divine Nature Not therefore the Phrase of Three Infinite Minds but the asserting that Self-consciousness is a Personal Act does in the Judgment of the Schoolmen unavoidably infer Three Gods The Personality of every One of the Divine Persons is purely and perfectly Relative P. 98. lin 12. N. 3. and therefore nothing Absolute as Self-consciousness is can be the Formal constituent reason of their Personality The Conclusion and Consequence are granted to the Animadverter The Antecedent viz. That the Personality of every one of the Divine Persons is purely and perfectly Relative is also the General Assertion of the Schoolmen as Petavius observes Lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 10. sect 6. Paucissimi quidem è Schola Theologi vel opinati sunt vel probabile judicant personales proprietatès absolutum non-nihil habere à quibus meritò dissentiunt coeteri How universally soever this Conclusion is embraced by the Schoolmen and from them by the Animadverter I can scarce persuade my self that the Animadverter understood the meaning of the very Conclusion this I am sure of That his pretended Arguments to prove this Conclusion are the greatest Objections against the truth of it and that he all along betrays the grossest Ignorance of the Schoolmens meaning I will give the Reader his own words and then examine them And that the Persons in the Blessed Trinity are purely Relative to one another and consequently that their Personalities are so many Relations is no less evident from this that two of them relate to one another as Father and Son and the third to both as proceeding from both and it is impossible for one thing to proceed from another especially by a continual act of Procession without importing a relation to that from which it so proceeds so that the very Personal Subsistence implies and carries in it a formal Relation For the Father subsists Personally as a Father by that Eternal Communication of his Nature to his Son which Act as proceeding from him is called Generation and renders him formally a Father and as terminated in the Son is called Filiation and constitutes him formally a Son and in like manner the Holy Ghost subsists personally by that Act of Procession by which he proceeds from and relates to both the Father and the Son So that that proper Mode of Subsistence by which in conjunction with the Divine Essence always included in it each of them is rendred a Person is wholly Relative and so belongs to one of them that it also bears a necessary reference to another From all which it undeniably follows that the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are in the formal Constitution of them Relative to one another and consequently that the Three Personalities by which they become formally Three Persons and are so denominated are Three Eternal Relations The Ancient Fathers confess That the Divine Relations constitute each of them a distinct Person that they enable us to conceive them distinct this therefore is not the question The question is Whether the Relations constitute each of them a Person indefinitely Spiration is a Relative Attribute in the Father relates the Father to the Holy Spirit but yet Spiration is not properly a Personality not properly the subsistential Form but a subsistential or personal Property A little to examine the Animadverter's proofs First The Persons in the Blessed Trinity are purely Relative This is too much more than ever any asserted before him A Person in the Blessed Trinity is God an infinite Mind but to be God to be an infinite Mind are confessedly absolute Attributes The Schoolmen say That the Persons in the Blessed Trinity are purely Relative in their Personalities that is purely Relative secundum quid or in one Respect The Animadverter turns the Proposition into a simple Affirmation that they are in all Respects purely Relative Secondly The Divine Persons are purely Relative because two of them relate to one another as Father and Son and the third to both The Animadverter knows not the difference betwixt a Relative Person and a Person who sustains a Relation Adam is related to God to Eve to Seth yet none ever stiled Adam a Relative Person The Personality of Adam is not a Relation but a proper Mode of Subsistence which can never be conceived otherwise than Absolute Thirdly The Father subsists personally as a Father This is the question it self and by the Rules of Logick ought to have been proved and not supposed The sole Enquiry is Whether to be a Father and to be a Person or subsist personally be formally the same Paternitas sc Divina rationem fundandi non postulat ut in rerum natura sit nam si aliquam talem fundandi rationem haberet maximè generationem activam Illam autem non respicit ut rationem sui esse sed potius est in suo genere ratio cur ipsa sit In quo etiam Paternitas illa aeterna antecellit omnem aliam Paternitatem quae in coelo in terra nominatur Omnis enim alius Pater ideo est Pater quia generat Pater autem aeternus ideo generat quia per Paternitatem est constitutus in suo esse Personali Suarez lib. 5. de Trin. cap. 8. N. 8. p. 437. Fourthly The Father subsists Personally by an Act of Generation How can a Personal Act which supposes the Person already constituted be the formal Cause of Personality in the same Person The Schoolmen were wiser in their Generation they confess that if the Father is denominated a Father from his Act of Generation it is impossible that the Father's Paternity should be his Mode of Subsistence since it is impossible not to suppose a Person subsisting before we can conceive of him acting The first Person of
the Trinity say the Schoolmen is not therefore a Father because he generates but therefore generates because he is a Father Fifthly Filiation constitutes the Son formally a Son that 's not the question But does Filiation constitute the Son a Person that is the thing in debate and which the Animadverter ought to have proved Sixthly The very Personal Subsistence of these Persons implies and carries in it a formal Relation This is not sufficient to imply a Relation to carry in it a Relation except the Animadverter means that the Personal Subsistence is it self a Relation Again Subsistence in relation to a productive Principle which is all the Relation the Animadverter here mentions is a quite different thing from Personal Subsistence Every Human Person subsists relatively in Relation to God his Creator but what is this to his Personality This does not denominate an Human Person relative in his Personality The Son and Holy Spirit relate to the Father as their productive Principle but how does this prove them Relative Persons It is certain That to be a Father P. 101. lin 3. N. 4. is a Relative Subsistence A Father as understood in this Mystery viz. as implying the property of being unbegotten can have no Relation to a productive Principle A Father has indeed a Relation to a Son but the natural Order of conceiving things obliges us to conceive of a Person as subsisting before we can conceive him capable of the Act of Generation or of the Relation of a Father The Schoolmen therefore call this not a thing certain and evident but a Mystery and confess that unless the Father be so denominated antecedently to his Act of Generation it is impossible that the Father's being a Relative Subsistence or Person should be so much as true And having said thus much from the Animadverter concerning this Subtilty of the Schools viz. the Relativeness of the Divine Persons in their Personalities give me leave to consider it more generally And first it is no small prejudice with me against the Scholastick Subtilties that in this material Article all Antiquity for above a thousand Years have affirmed the quite contrary viz. that to be a Person is an absolute Attribute Petrus Abelardus Peter Lombard Council of Trent examined and disproved c. p. 79. August lib. 7. de Trin. cap. 6. Hugo de St. Victore who first shewed the way to School-Divinity saith the Learned Bishop of Worcester all agreed with St. Augustin That Pater dicitur ad se persona that the Father was absolutely and not relatively called a Person Indeed St. Augustin has given us an unanswerable Argument against this Assertion of the Relativeness of this Attribute of being a Person in this Sacred Mystery August lib. 7. de Trin. cap. 6. If to be a Person be a Relative Attribute as to be a Friend is then according to the nature of all Relatives the Father when denominated a Person must be defined by his Correlate and so of the other Persons that is to say that this Phrase viz. The Person of the Father cannot signify the Father but the Son And this Phrase viz. The Person of the Son cannot signify the Son but the Father for so it is in all other Relatives The Friend of James cannot be James but must be Peter or some other Person This is a just Consequence of this Scholastick Subtilty I need not note the Paradoxicalness of it To which I add as an Argument ad homines to the Animadverter and those who follow the Schools That to be a Person is as common to Father Son and Holy Ghost Animadv p. 113. as to be God is common to the Three If therefore this be a sure Rule that whatever Attribute is communicable is absolute to be a Person will be an absolute Attribute Si enim tres personae commune est eis id quod persona est St. August lib. 7 de Trin. cap. 4. as certainly communicable And they strain very hard to maintain this Scholastick Subtilty who deny that this Attribute of being a Person is common to Father Son and Holy Ghost save only in Name or aequivocally and yet this is a just consequence of asserting the Relativeness of this Attribute That which drove the Schoolmen to this novel and unintelligible Subtilty shall be considered hereafter P. 101. N. 5. Argument III. If Self-Consciousness be the formal reason of Personality in the Three Divine Persons then there is no repugnancy in the Nature and Reason of the thing it self but that there might be Three thousand Persons in the Deity as well as Three P. 102. lin 1. c. Because this repugnancy if there be any must be either from the nature of Self-Consciousness or from the Nature of the Godhead But it is from neither of them For first there is nothing in the Nature of Self-Consciousness to hinder its Multiplication c. Nor in the next place is there any repugnancy on the part of the Godhead that Three thousand Self-Conscious Spirits should subsist in it any more than that Three should For the Godhead considered precisely and abstractedly in it self and not as actually included in any Person is as able to communicate it self to the greatest number as to the smallest This is an old Socinian Objection and were it of any force it would conclude universally against the Faith of Three Divine Persons viz. that if we once acknowledg a plurality of Divine Persons we can give no reason why we stop at the number Three we might equally assert Three thousand as well as Three For to suppose a Socinian retorting the Animadverter's own Argument against himself If Three distinct Modalities or Modes be sufficient to constitute Three Divine Persons then there is no repugnancy in the Nature and Reason of the thing but that there might be Three thousand Persons in the Deity as well as Three Because this repugnancy if there be any must be either from the Nature of a Mode or from the Nature of the Godhead But it is from neither of them for first there is nothing in the Nature of a Mode to hinder its Multiplication into never so great a number of particulars but that there may be Three thousand or Three millions of Modes as well as Three Nor in the next place is there any repugnancy on the part of the Godhead that Three thousand Modes subsist in it or be sustained by it any more than that Three should For the Godhead considered precisely and abstractedly and not as actually included in any Person is as able to communicate it self to the greatest number of Modes as to the smallest Now there is not a surer sign that an Author does not understand the Subject he writes upon than his bringing an Objection which is so plainly and easily retorted upon his own Hypothesis The Animadverter cannot answer this Objection in the mouth of a Socinian but in the same words he will answer himself The Faith of
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 tho wise Men despise nothing but they will know it first and for that very cause very rationally despise them First I believe that the Animadvertor is the very first Person who commended the School-men for venturing little or for proceeding upon the surest Grounds both of Scripture and Reason The Boldness of the Schools is known to a Proverb he that has but cast his Eye upon Aquinas his Sums must from his own Experience confute the Animadvertor this Character of the School-men that they ventured little puts me in mind of a certain Person I once knew who commended Aristotle for Writing excellent Latin I leave the Application to the Animadvertor himself The second part of their Character is almost as proper they and the Animadvertor proceed upon the surest Grounds of Scripture much alike This last in his Eighth Chapter wherein he professedly endeavours to state the Doctrine of the Trinity quotes only one single place Heb. 1.3 and even that he has mistaken The School-men's Principles were for the most part St. Augustin's Authority as to the first Schoolmen for the latter generally Transcribed one from another A wise Man will no more praise than he will despise any thing till he first knows it and for that cause rationally praise it and not as the Animadvertor has done praise them for venturing little and for proceeding upon Scripture Grounds when it is notorious that they were guilty of the contrary faults After all Praising the School-men is Dispraising himself and his own Hypothesis The Modes of the School-men are only such in name in our imperfect Conception of things the Animadvertor's Modes are such in reality but of this hereafter P. 119. n. 4. Argument I. Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits are three distinct Gods c. Here I shall enquire into the import of these two Phrases Three infinite Spirits and Three Gods An Explication of these two Phrases is sufficient to solve this Objection and indeed the whole difficulty The rigid'st of the School-men allow That Father Son and Holy Ghost are Tres infinitam Spiritualem naturam habentes nor can there be any dispute either from Grammar or Logick that infinitus Spiritus and infinitam Spiritualem naturam habens are in sense exactly Equipollent and if these two are Equipollent in the singular number I would fain know a reason why the plural Number of these two Phrases should not be Equipollent that is why tres infiniti Spiritus should not signify the same with tres infinitam Spiritualem naturam habentes If any shall object the distinction of the Schools concerning Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective that Spiritus is a Noun Substantive and therefore according to them implys a multiplication of the form viz. the Spiritual Nature whereas Spiritualem naturam habens is an Adjective and only implys a multiplication of the Suppositum First I Answer That the distinction is groundless in it self and needless in respect of the difficulty it pretends to solve Secondly Allowing it to be true It only causes the Phrase to be less accurate not as the Animadvertor pretends absolutely Heretical the Phrases of the Athanasian Creed non tres aeterni c. observe not this rule yet the School-men charge not Athanasius with Heresy with denying a plurality of Persons but choose to say that he understood those Phrases Substantively the same favourable Construction ought a School-man to make of this Phrase viz. that Spiritus in this Phrase ought to be taken Personally Adjectively for Spiritualem naturam habentes and then it is Orthodox But if I will not allow this Criticism of the Schools concerning Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective how came no Man to venture upon it before the Dean of St. Paul's I Answer First That there is a very good reason why this Phrase is not to be found in Antiquity the reason the Reverend Dean himself gives viz That though there are three Holy Spirits yet not three Holy Ghosts in the Trinity that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Spiritus was by the Ancient Fathers Appropriated to signify the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or tres Spiritus would accordingly to them have implyed Three Holy Ghosts strictly so called And for the same Reason the Phrase of one Spirit in reference to the whole Trinity is not that I know of above once to be found in all Antiquity and that in that bold Father St. Augustin Lib. 5. de Trin. cap. 11. Hom. 5. in Jerem. who was not afraid to say of the Phrase of Three Persons Non ut illud diceretur Secondly I find Origen quoted for the very Phrase Tres Spiritus David in Psalmo confessionis postulat Amongst the Moderns the learned Genebrard a Man of great Note in his Time and of great Skill in relation to this Mystery Genebrard Resp ad Scheghium p. 52. not barely justifies the Orthodoxness of the Proposition but declares that it was Propositio vera ac fide ab Ecclaesia Catholica omnibus temporibus recepta a true Article nay an Article of Faith and received as such by the Catholick Church of all Ages The Proposition is thus set down by Genebrard Tres sunt Spiritus oeterni quorum quilibet per se Deus there are three Eternal Spirits whereof every single Spirit is God with much more to the same purpose in the same place The same Answer will serve in reference to the Animadvertor's Objection That three Infinite Spirits are three Gods Tres Dei when it signifies the same with tres Deitatem habentes with tres Divinae Personae is Orthodox Genebrard lib. 2. de Trin. p. 155 Hear the learned Genebrard Si mavis dicere tres Deos id est tres Divinas Personas possis dicere atque interpretari Nam vocabulum Deus aliquando sumitur Hypostaticè ac ultrò citroque commeat cum Divina Persona sive Hypostasi ut cum in Niceno Symbolo legitur Deum de Deo c. But this Objection of Polytheism against the Doctrine of the Trinity I reserve to be handled at large in my Second Part. p. 119. lin 29. n. 5. 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 concertible Every Page of the New Testament confutes this assertion This term God is a thousand times in Scripture appropriated to signifie the Person of the Father as in these and the like Phrases The Son of God the Spirit of God God sent his Son c. But this term Infinite Mind or Spirit is not capable of such Appropriation any more than the Phrase of a Divine Person can be appropriated to that signification Infinite Mind or Spirit is therefore
is one he is not the other this latter is a Modal not simple Negation But the Animadvertor himself tells us That wheresoever there are Two distinct Persons we do and must by all the Rules of Grammar and Logick say Animadv c. p. 74. l. 1. that one of them is simply not the other Which single passage overthrows our Animadvertor's Hypothesis that the Divine Persons differ by a Modal difference We have no way from Logicks of knowing when Two Beings differ wholly but from such simple negation a Negative Sign in Logicks distributes all which follows it in the same Proposition but of this more hereafter And therefore to argue from a Person to a Spirit here is manifestly sophistical P. 121. N. 9. and that which is called Fallacia accidentis or since several fallacies may concur in the same proposition it may be also a dicto secundum 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 absolute distinct Natures or Substances Where are we now this is a perfectly new Topick To argue from a Person to a Spirit is manifestly sophistical it is fallacia Accidentis and fallacia a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Grant all this for once how is this a consequence from the former why is this ushered in with a therefore The former Answer obscurely denies that there are Three Persons this denies that a Divine Person or a person in this Mystery is a Spirit or God and asserts that a Divine Person is only ex accidenti or secundum quid a Spirit or God This will make strange Divinity if we apply it to the Father Son or Holy Ghost The Father is a Divine Person or a Person in this Mystery Will the Animadvertor himself have the Confidence to deduce the Conclusion that the Person of the Father is only ex accidenti or secundum quid a Spirit or God If the Animadvertor does not already know it let me inform him that the Catholick Faith is That every single Divine Person is essentially quidditative as the Schools speak a Spirit or God as fully as every single Angelical person is essentially a Spirit or an Angel And therefore when the Animadvertor tells us in the same page That a Person here imports only a Relation or Mode of Subsistence in conjunction with the nature it belongs to he is guilty of two absurdities First it is unintelligible cant a singular nature or substance in conjunction with the Mode or a singular nature sustaining a Mode is usual but to put the cart before the Horses to put the Mode before the Nature the Adjunct before the Subject is new Philosophy peculiar to the Animadvertor Secondly A person in this Mystery is not in recto a relation or Mode but the subject of the Relation or Mode a Divine Person has a Relation or Mode the Father has a relation or Mode but the Father is not a relation or Mode Animad c. p. 321. The Animadvertor himself tells us that a Person as such is a Substance and a compleat substance therefore not a Mode Ib. p. 121. Every Spirit has a Mode a proper Mode of subsistence belonging to it and yet in the same place the Animadvertor tells us that a Spirit is not a Mode of Being Ib. p. 121. N. 10. The ternary number all the while not belonging to their infinity but only to their personalities Will the Animadvertor stand by this Conclusion that the ternary Number belongs only to the Personalities if he does I am satisfied he gives up the Catholick Faith for that asserts that the ternary Number belongs to the Persons as well as Personalities If the Animadvertor will confess to the Socinians that there is but one Person in the Trinity I believe they will scarce think it worth their while to dispute whether there are Three Modes or not or whether these Modes are to be called Personalities or not One and the same Nature may sustain several distinct Relations or Modes of Subsistence P. 121. N. 11. A Mode of Subsistence in the sense of the Animadvertor for a Subsistential form or Personality is improperly said to be sustained Personality is the constituent form of the Person and not an adjunct of the Person Again Nature when distinguished from the Suppositum or Person is not the Subject of the Relations or Modes The Suppositum or Person is the proper Subject of the Relations or Modes sustained by that Person Further The common Assertion of the Schools is not barely that the Divine Nature sustains three distinct Relations or three distinct Modes but that it sustains three Relations of the same kind three distinct Personalities which is the great difficulty One and the same Person may be twice a Father if he has Two Children that is Natural But can we conceive that a Man can be twice a Father of one and the same Son This is the question how according to the Schools one and the same singular Nature when it is become one Person in the Father by one subsistential form can receive a distinct subsistential form without losing the first and also a third without losing the first or second I freely acknowledge that this is to me an insuperable difficulty and therefore I bless God that to me the Faith of Three Divine Persons needs not so nice a speculation Argument II. Three distinct Minds or Spirits P. 122. N. 12. are Three distinct Substances c. Tres Substantiae signifies no more than Tres Substantialem naturam habentes which is allowed by the strictest of the School-men Secondly The Phrase of Three Substances has been more or less allowed in all Ages of the Church to be predicated of the Three Divine Persons Calvin 's Instit lib. 1. cap. 13. n. 5. St. Hillary calls them so says the Learned Calvin plus Centies more than an hundred times The Greek Fathers understood the same by the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural Number St. Augustin confesses this of the Greek Fathers and that he knew no other signification of the term Hypostasis In Monologia cap. Anselmus very plainly Hoec nomina sc Persona substantia aptius eliguntur ad designandam pluralitatem in summa essentia quia Persona non dicitur nisi de individuâ rationali natura Substantia principaliter dicitur de individuis quoe maximè inpluralitate subsistunt Suarez lib. 1. de Trin. cap. 2. n. 11. Suarez Metaph. Disp 34. s. 1. n. 6. The School-men acknowledge Tres substantias incommunicabiles Ita D. Thom. 1 Part quoest 30. artic 1. ad 1. dicit juxta consuetudinem Eclesioe non esse absolutè dicendas tres substantias propter nominis oequivocationem addendo vero aliquid quod determinet significationem dici posse ut si
dicamus tres substantioe incommunicabiles seu relativoe Lib. 3. de Trin. cap. 6. The Learned Suarez acknowledges the Divine Persons to be tres res tria entia but he thinks it better to add tria entia relativa to be tria aliquid No Protestant Writer can deny them to be tres per se subsistentes and in that sense tres substantias Indeed there never had been any scruple of this Phrase had not this term Substantia been ambiguous and sometimes signified the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence Whence the warm St. Jerom Quis ore sacrilego tres substantias proedicabit Whence himself says that there was Poyson in the term Hypostasis whereas there is neither Poyson in the one or the other term if rightly Interpreted P. 123. l. 13. n. 13. And Bellarmin a Writer Orthodox enough in these Points and of unquestionable Learning otherwise in his second Tome p. 348. about the end says that to assert that the Father and Son differ in Substance is Arianism And yet if they were two distinct Substances for them not to differ in Substance would be impossible Authority is very low with the Animadvertor when he takes shelter in Orthodox Bellarmin and lays hold on a dubious Expression in a plain case Every one knows that the Arians asserted that the Substance of the Son was not barely different in number but different in kind specifically different from the Substance of the Father and how impossible soever the Animadvertor judges it for two Substances not to differ in Substance the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon did expresly assert That Christ in his Humane Nature and we Men who are confessedly two Substances in number were consubstantial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I am perswaded that the unquestionably Learned and Orthodox Bellarmin if he were now alive nor the Animadvertor for him will have the Boldness to say that this term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to differ in Substance Again the Orthodox Bellarmin justified Calvin who ventured to Condemn that Expression of the Nicene Council that the Son was God of God and affirmed that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself Dr. Bull. def fidei Nicaenae S. 4. cap. 1. n. 7. p. 439. Bellarmin thought this only a Dispute of a Phrase Verbi solum locutionis Such an Orthodox Person who can thus easily part with the Nicene Faith may easily find out a new sort of Arianism For to believe Father Son and Holy Ghost three co-equal co-eternal Substances Hypostases was not the Arianism which the Nicene Fathers opposed Since for one and the same Substance to be common to all three Persons p. 124. lin 4. n. 14 and withal to belong incommunicably to each of the three and thereby to distinguish them from one another is contradictious and impossible This is the Faith of the Schools that one and the same Substance one and the same singular Nature is common to all three Persons and withal belongs incommunicably to the Father quatenus ingenita incommunicably to the Son quatenus genita incommunicably to the Holy Spirit quatenus spirita See Animadv c. p. 160. This Faith the Animadvertor declares to be contradictious and impossible which is in his own words not to be able to forbear Writing and yet not know when one writes for and when against an Opinion p. 124. lin 8. n. 15. 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 The Schoolmen who assert an Absolute Substance and a Relative Substance in each Divine Person deny a composition from hence for that the Absolute and Relative Substance are not united but identified one with another The Ancient Fathers asserted that the common Divine Nature and each single Hypostasis differed not really but only ratione from each other as Homo and Petrus Angelus and Michael in which cases there is no composition and therefore à majori there is no composition in a Divine Person p. 124. n. 16. Argument III. One Infinite Mind cannot be three Infinite Minds Nor three Infinite Minds one Infinite Mind Therefore the Divine Persons who are one Infinite Mind as they are one God cannot be three Infinite Minds This is the sum in short of his Third Argument which to swell up his Book and make a shew of he repeats backwards and forwards This Argument is a meer Fallacy equivocating in the term Mind or Spirit which is to be interpreted in a concrete or in an abstract sense When the Schoolmen say That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God they do not take this term God in a concrete sense but in an abstract sense Father Son and Holy Ghost are not habens Deitatem which is the concrete sense of this term God but either habentes Deitatem in the Plural Number or Deitas the Godhead it self in the Singular Number So the learned Genebrard Lib. 2. de Trin. p. 154 Nota Dei nomen aliter accipi in his enuntiationibus Pater est Deus Filius est Deus Spiritus Sanctus est Deus aliter in hac Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus sunt unus Deus Nam in primis Deus idem quod habens Deitatem quod quidem Personae congruit in postrema non simpliciter habentem Deitatem sonat sed ipsam potiùs Deitatem Now the Animadvertor himself will not say that tres habentes Deitatem cannot be one Essence nor that tres habentes infinitam spiritualem naturam cannot be one Infinite Spiritual Nature one Infinite Mind or Spirit in the abstract sense of the term in which only the Divine Persons are said to be one Infinite Mind or Spirit It is in a different sense of this term Infinite Mind or Spirit viz. in the concrete sense that we multiply it and say that three Divine Persons are three Infinite Minds And this Answers the Animadvertor's Fourth Argument drawn from the Athanasian Form p. 128. n. 17. which is grounded upon a false Supposition viz. That this term Infinite Mind is necessarily a Predicate perfectly Essential whereas p. 130. lin 17. when it is taken concretely it must be understood as a Personal Attribute viz. for habens infinitam spiritualem naturam which in the words of Genebrard personoe congruit The Animadvertor's Overplus p. 131. lin 2. n. 18. That the Heathens believed God to be one Infinite Mind cuts deeper than he is aware of For these same Heathens did as certainly believe that God was one single Person as well as one Infinite Mind Nay which is a far greater Objection the Jews God's own People not only did but to this day do most firmly believe that God is one Divine Person and
plead those Sacred words of their Law I am the Lord thy God Thou shalt have no other Gods before me That all their Doctors for the space of two thousand Years interpreted those words in their Natural sense viz. as spoke of one Divine Person What shall we say to this Objection Did God suffer the wisest of the Heathen Philosophers the most Pious Persons of the Jewish Religion to believe an Heresie of him for so many Ages Did God speak of himself in the most Sacred part of the Law in such words which Naturally lead to Heresie For I and me Naturally lead to the belief of one Person speaking This is the great Objection with which the Socinians flourish An Answer to which would be of more worth than a thousand such Books of Inadversions as the Socinian Considerer calls these Animadversions Considerations on the Explications c p. 23. For my own part I cannot be so fond of the Subtilties of the Schools as for the sake of them to confess so harsh a Conclusion I do most firmly believe that the Faith of a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Article of the Unity of God as it was believed by the wisest of the Heathens and the Jewish Church are by no means inconsistent The whole Truth was not revealed to the Jewish Church or at least so very obscurely that very few of them understood it But yet I verily believe that what was revealed was a most Sacred truth I believe that the God whom the Heathen Philosophers by the Light of Nature worshipped was one Divine Person I believe that the same one Divine Person spake of Himself in those Sacred words of the Law I am the Lord thy God c. I also believe that this One Divine Person was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Nor does this contradict that common Article of the Christian Faith viz. That God is Three Persons as the Socinians vainly pretend and some others unwarily grant them God is not three Persons as he is Just or Good or Holy as if three Persons were Essentially included in the Divine Nature For then no one single Person could by himself be God then there could not be a Son of God or a Spirit of God When God is said to be three Persons the term God is taken in a Logical sense equivalent in Predication to a terminus communis or a Species and signifies that the Divine Nature subsists in three Persons that this term God is truly predicable of three distinct Persons But a further disquisition of this Difficulty belongs to my Second Part. The Animadvertor accuses the Reverend Dean of giving a scurvy stroke at the Trinity p. 135. lin 7. n. 19. p. 89. where he the Reverend Dean affirms that the Expression of the one true God and the only true God cannot properly be attributed to the Son nor Holy Ghost Ibid. l. 19. and consequently if he asserts that these terms cannot with equal Propriety be attributed to and predicated of the Son and Holy Ghost we have him both Arian and Macedonian together in this Assertion First The Reverend Dean never asserted that the Son or Holy Ghost could not properly be called the one God or only true God only that they could not so properly be stiled so as the Father The Fathers of the Nicene Council indeed of the whole Eastern Church did expresly appropriate the Title of One God to the Father and God of God to the Son by which Opposition it appears that by One God in the first Article of the Creed they meant a God of himself which is a Personal Attribute and peculiar to the Father Our Saviour appropriates this Title of Only true God to the Person of the Father Hilary lib. 3. de Trin. and St. Hilary who was never hitherto esteemed either an Arian or Macedonian expresly asserts this to be Debitum Honorem Patri St. Paul has patronized this Appropriation Ephes 4.6 To us there is one God and Father Now for my part I had rather be esteemed an Heretick Arian and Macedonian with my Saviour St. Paul St. Hilary all the Oriental Fathers than Orthodox with the Animadvertor and Bellarmin I do assure him that I am neither afraid of him nor the Socinians I crave no Favour at either of their Hands for this Profession of my Faith That the Title of one God only true God is a Proper Personal Prerogative of the Father alone p. 138. lin 21. n. 20. And as for the Father's being the Fountain of the Deity I hope he looks upon the Expression only as Metaphorical and such as ought not to be stretched to the utmost of its Native sense for fear the Consequences of it may engage him too far to be able to make an handsome Retreat which I assure him if he does not take heed they certainly will Oratio contra gregales Sabellii propè initium Athanasius tells us that we might rightly call the Father the only God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he only is unbegotten and he only is the Fountain of the Deity This learned Father has hitherto been esteemed the very Test of Orthodoxy in this Mystery The Reverend Dean's Notion and Phrase is borrowed from him who would not have thought himself safe under so Venerable a Name But alas the World is strangely altered Athanasius himself must come to School to the Animadvertor to learn how to speak I hope he that poor Novice Athanasius looks on the Expression as Metaphorical and such as ought not to be stretched to the utmost of its Native sense I hope also that I may be allowed to vindicate this Phrase of that great Light of the Church from the Exceptions of a bold Animadvertor May I in the Name of Athanasius enquire of this great Critick which of these two words Fountain or Deity are to be interpreted Metaphorically That of Fountain is plainly Metaphorical Athanasius was never so weak as to believe that the Deity was a River of Waters and the Father the Fountain of it If the Animadvertor means that this term Deity is Metaphorical I must require his Proof and not his Affirmation Again neither Athanasius nor any of the Ancient Fathers ever intended by this Phrase that the Father is the Fountain of the Deity that he was the positive Fountain of the Divinity in his own Person any more than Philosophers and Divines mean that God was the cause of Himself when they say that God is of Himself Athanasius added to avoid the suspicion of such an absurd sense that he was unbegotten as well as the Fountain of the Deity What then is the fault of this Phrase of Athanasius Why alas poor Athanasius was unacquainted with the subtilties of the Schools He said plainly and bluntly that the Father was the Fountain of the Deity whereas he ought to have said Animadv c. p. 191. lin 10. That he was the Fountain of the two other Divine Persons To say
that the Divinity has a Fountain is to say in other words that the Divinity is begotten which can neither be affirmed in truth or propriety of speech p. 159. lin 18. The Divine Persons may properly be said to be begotten but not the Divine Nature But with the leave of the Animadvertor all Antiquity before Peter Lombard and the Oxthodox Lateran Council not considering the Consequences of Expressions did venture thus far and used the Phrase of Begotten Wisdom speaking of the Divine Nature of the Son Nay which may possibly sway more with the Animadvertor he himself has allowed it to be very true p. 156. l. 10. that the Son is an Eternal begotten Mind and Wisdom and I am sure then the Son must be an Eternal Begotten Divine Nature and the Father the Fountain of the Deity to the Son For my part I like the Subtilties of the Schools never a whit the better for charging those Expressions with Falshood or Impropriety which so many great Lights of the Church thought both true and proper I fear not his Consequences nor his Threats I do believe with Athanasius that the Father is truly the Fountain of the Deity to the Son and Holy Ghost and that he has no Fountain of his own Divinity and that his being thus the Fountain of the Divinity is the reason of appropriating the Title of one God to his Person alone And that though the Son and Holy Spirit are each of them truly Essentially God yet they cannot with any more Propriety be called the One God the only true God than each of them may be stiled unbegotten the Fountain of the Deity or God of Himself The Socinians say That the Person of the Father is the only true God so say the Ancients so says the Animadvertor so say I But the Socinians say that this Title of Only true God is an Essential Attribute distinguishing the Essence of the Father from the Son and Holy Spirit I say that it is only a Personal Attribute and Prerogative distinguishing the Person of the Father from the Son and Holy Ghost but not dividing their Essence The Animadvertor declares That it is an Essential Attribute in common to Father Son and Holy Ghost which of these Interpretations best Vindicate the Christian Faith will be more fully discussed in my Second Part. CHAP. V. n. 1. THE last Chapter was chiefly spent in considering the import of several Plural Predications and Phrases concerning the three Divine Persons and particularly of the Phrase of three Infinite Minds In this the Animadvertor enquires into the Historical truth of this Assertion whether the Ancients believed the Divine Persons to be Intelligent Minds or Beings This the Reverend Dean thought an uncontested Article to all who professed the Faith of a Trinity of Divine Persons The Reverend Dean was of the learned Genebrard's Opinion before quoted viz. That this was Propositio vera ac fide ab Ecclesia Catholica omnibus temporibus recepta and therefore as it is usual in uncontested Articles was less curious in Collecting the Proofs of an undisputed Opinion which yet I speak not as if I thought the Proofs of this Assertion brought by the Reverend Dean insufficient One thing however I can by no means omit that the Animadvertor has disjoynted the fairest Proof of the Fathers Opinion in this Debate and treated of it in his next Chapter viz. That Father Son and Holy Ghost were esteemed so certainly to be three Infinite Minds by the Ancients that they asserted Father Son and Holy Ghost to be one by a Specifick Unity Now though I should grant to the Animadvertor that the Fathers did not understand such Assertions in the strictest sense of such Phrases but only by way of Resemblance of which afterwards yet this must be allowed that the Ancient Fathers could have had no shadow or pretence for such an Assertion unless they had believed Father Son and Holy Ghost to be three Intelligent Beings which is but another Phrase for three Intelligent Minds It never entred into the Mind of any one Man who understood what a Specifick Unity means that One simple Being under three distinct Relations which is the Animadvertor's Hypothesis of the Trinity was one by a Specifick Vnity Animadv c. p. 120. lin 32. But of this more in its proper place p. 154. lin 29. n. 2. 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 the Animadvertor confess But does this infer 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 It seems the Animadvertor is one of those who do not know a Proof unless it be put into Mood and Figure for him There is a Personal Word and Wisdom of the Father so there is of the Son and Holy Ghost that is to say the Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them Personally Wise and Personally Act. The Personal Wisdom of the Divine Persons is an Attribute the Personal Word of every one of the Divine Persons is an Act and not a Person But the Person of the Son is the Substantial WORD and Wisdom of the Father such a Wisdom which is an Infinite Mind and not the Attribute of an Infinite Mind such a WORD who is a Person and not a Personal Act. And it is absolutely impossible that both these Characters of being an Infinite Mind and also the Wisdom of the Father can belong to the Son unless he be a distinct a Personally distinct Intelligent Mind from the Father This little Particle of is the same in this Mystery with proceeding Of the Father is the same with proceeding from the Father God of God the same with God proceeding from God Light of Light the same with Light proceeding from Light The Son is the Substantial WORD and Wisdom proceeding from the Father Now as the Procession of the Divine Persons from one another is the allowed Proof of their Plurality so if there be a Substantial Wisdom proceeding from the Father there must be the same distinction between this Substantial Wisdom and the Person of the Father But here comes the mighty Objection Obj. p. 156. lin 27. That if Wisdom of Wisdom proves two Wisdoms or Light of Light imports two Lights then by the same Reason God of God very God of very God will and must infer two distinct Gods two distinct very Gods which says the Animadvertor is most monstrous blasphemous stuff I Answer That the Phrase God of God Sol. does necessarily imply a multiplication of this term God in some sense or other One and the same Numerical God in concreto can never be God of God and also
for the first I grant that the three Persons in the Blessed Trinity differ as really as Peter James and John 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 James and John I Answer that this Phrase as really signifies in the same degree of real distinction as this Phrase as Wisely imports the same degree of Wisdom Again it is an idle Enquiry to dispute by what Name we must call the distinction of the Divine Persons If they were three Infinite Minds they can but be simply denyed one of the other we could then only say that the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son and this I shall hereafter shew is not a Modal but a strictly real distinction CHAP. VI. n. 1. THERE ought to be a double care in treating of Mysterious Articles of Faith on the one hand not to debase them to avoid the difficulties which attend the Article in its Native sense and on the other hand not studiously to seek out for Mysteries which possibly God never intended nor to refuse such Illustrations of the Article from Natural Examples which readily offer themselves especially if they have the Suffrage of the most Pious and Learned Fathers of the Church The Sabellian Hereticks have adulterated the Divine Generation because they could not explain how God an Immortal Spirit can generate On the other Hand the Schoolmen are not satisfied that the Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation in the general contain great Mysteries in them but they will have every Conclusion throughout both the Articles to be so These two Articles are delivered with so much plainness and simplicity in the Sacred Scriptures and with so much subtilty in the Writings of the Schoolmen that a stranger to the Christian Faith upon the comparing of them both together could hardly be perswaded that the latter were pretended to be an explication of the former The Sacred Writings contented themselves to teach us that the Father and Son are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that these three are one The Fathers of the Church justly explained this Unity that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one in Nature one in Godhead the Unity of a Father and a begotten Son is an Unity of Nature The Shoolmen advance one step higher it is not sufficient with them for any one to acknowledge the Divine Persons to be one in Nature Essence Divinity unless he adds in one singular Essence in one singular Nature in one singular Divinity and that under pain of being guilty of the worst of Heresies Tritheism it self The Animadvertor keeps pace with the warmest not only contends against the admission of a Specifick Unity in the Trinity but calls it a Traducing of the Fathers to assert that they held this Specifick Unity As to the Question it self I wish from the bottom of my Heart that we might learn to distinguish betwixt the Primary Conclusions of our Faith and disputed Articles that they who contend for the singularity of the common Divine Nature with the Schools would not overthrow the received Faith of three Divine Persons and that the Article of the Unity of God be esteemed infinitely more Sacred than any seeming Advantages that the Assertion of a Specifick Unity of the Trinity might afford us in the maintaining the Faith of three Divine Persons The Christian Faith professes an Unity in Trinity and a Trinity in Unity He therefore who asserts an Unity to destroy the Trinity or a Trinity in derogation of the Unity offends against the Christian Religion I shall much rather choose my self and recommend to my Orthodox Reader the Belief that the Divine Nature is above these terms of Art above these distinctions of Logick of Singular and Universal that it is transcendental to those Rules by which we judge of created inferiour Natures than any ways weaken either of those Fundamental Articles before mentioned either of the Unity of God or of the Trinity of Divine Persons The learned Petavius seems to me to incline to this Opinion where speaking of the Unity of the Divine Nature Petav. lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 1583. he has these words Speciei unitate constituta etiam individua singularis sequitur And in that Famous Objection of the Greeks against the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son viz. that then Father and Son are one Principle of the Holy Spirit either specie sola or numero Lib. 7. de Trin. c. 16. n. 1. p. 156. To which Petavius Answers That they are Vnum reverà numero specie Principium quatenus in Deum convenire ambo ista possunt Where he expresly asserts that a Specifick Unity and an Unity of Singularity are consistent in the Divine Nature nay that the latter follows from the former as also that the vis spiratrix which to Petavius and the Schools has the same Unity with the common Divine Essence is one both in specie and in number Suarez Metaph. Disp 5. S. 1. n. 6. Non desunt Theologi qui dicant Divinam essentiam nec singularem nec universalem esse And in the Margin Vide Durandum alios in 1. D. 35. To the same purpose I understand those Divines who assert that the common Divine Essence is neither a first nor second Substance that is neither strictly Singular nor Universal but in some measure partaking of both transcendental to both However it must not be dissembled that since every created Nature is either strictly Singular or Universal we want a medium to prove that the Divine Nature can be transcendental to both these and therefore how Modest and Peaceable and otherwise Eligible such an Assertion seems to be yet when we contend with an obstinate Adversary with a subtile Socinian it will be hazardous to found the Defence of so Sacred an Article upon what he will be apt to stile a Precarious Hypothesis The common Opinion of Philosophers is that Singulare and Vniversale are contradictorily opposed in Finite Creatures and consequently that there can be no medium betwixt them and it is not easie to give a Reason why the same Rule should not hold in the Divine Nature especially since we cannot in this Conclusion plead the Authority of express Revelation as we can in that Mysterious Article of a Divine Generation and Procession There is no need of this Precaution in reference to the Animadvertor my Debate with him is rather Historical and Problematical than Dogmatical Historical as whether the Ancient Fathers held this Opinion of the Universality of the common Divine Essence Problematical whether those Reasons which he has brought against the admission of a Specifick Unity of the Trinity prove such Notion to be unphilosophical Nay I do here disclaim all Dogmaticalness in this Conclusion I shall not in the least contend with any Orthodox Divine who
except Innascibility or the property of being unbegotten which notifies not a difference of Essence or a different essential Dignity but a personal Property even as Adam being unbegotten for he was immediately formed by God and Seth begotten for he was the Son of Adam and Eve proceeding out of the side of Adam for she was not begotten differ not in Nature for they are all Men or human Persons but in a distinct personal Property These words need no Comment Seth's Birth and Eve's Procession of the Rib of Adam are not their Personalities not their Modes of Subsistence but their personal Properties not that which constituted them Persons but that which distinguished them in our Conception one from another that which constituted them distinct Persons one from another Besides the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not of it self capable of any other Interpretation to be unbegotten a negation See Ch. 2. n. 10. can never be the Father's Mode of Subsistence his Personality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the Animadverter is a term not importing in it any positive Relation but only a meer Negation of all Producibility by any superior Principle Anim. c. p. 248. This term therefore cannot signifie causally and consequently not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here stiled contrary to the Animadverter's Observation I acknowledge to the Animadverter that every Person Ibid p. 250 251. and consequently the Divine Persons are formally constituted such by a Mode of Subsistence or what we are obliged to conceive of as a Mode of Subsistence that is each distinct Person has a distinct Mode of Subsistence and the three Divine Persons have in our Conception three distinct Modes of Subsistence Nay I will add further that I believe that no Man who understands the meaning of the term Hypostasis and uses it without Aequivocation will or can deny any part of this The Reverend Dean expresly acknowledges this truth A Beast is a Suppositum Vind. of the Trinity p. 262. that is a distinct living subsisting Being by it self But I do here deny to the Animadverter that the Ancient Fathers did ever assert that the Divine Relations were in this proper formal Sense Modes of Subsistence or that That Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applied to the Divine Relations and much more when applied to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was by them understood in the proper formal Sense of which we are now enquiring Secondly If the Animadverter could get over the first Difficulty Anim. c. p. 120. he would find a second behind how one simple Being which is the Animadverter's Hypothesis of the Trinity can have three Modes of Subsistence The whole School of the Thomists and Scotists assert an absolute essential Subsistence and consequently one Subsistence of the whole Trinity they esteem the three Divine Persons to be unum subsistens unum suppositum aut personam incompletam says Cajetan one of the most famous Commentators upon Aquinas to which Suarez only replies Suarez de incar q 3. Act. 1. disp 11. S. 5. p. 285. Cavendus est hic loquendi modus utpote alienus à modo loquendi conciliorum Patrum Theologorum that is have a care lest Hereticks hear us and take advantage at such a novel Expression otherwise Suarez finds no fault with the Doctrine and indeed to say That Existence or Subsistence by it self is Relative is a contradiction to the very Phrase Subsistence by it self denies all relation to any other So that according to the Thomists and Scotists the three Personalities are not three Modes of Subsistence not three Subsistences but one essential absolute Subsistence with three Relations or three relative Modes or three Modes of Incommunicability But of this I have already spoke Chap. 1. n. 11 12 13. Thirdly To allot three Subsistences to the God-head is to contradict the Ancients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Properties are not Names of the Essence of the God-head but of the Persons The God head does not properly subsist but the Divine Persons subsist Cajetan may inform the Animadverter what is the consequence of ascribing Subsistence to the God-head even the same with calling it a suppositum or incompleat Person where the term incompleat is only added to avoid the grossness of the Phrase otherwise they ascribe all the Divine Acts to this unum subsistens unum suppositum and call them essential Acts whereas the Notion of Philosophers is that actiones non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attribuuntur that Actions ought not to be attributed to the Nature but to the Person endowed with such Nature The Person is the principium quod Nature only the principium quo the power by which the Person acteth The School-men retain in words the personal Acts of the Divine Persons that Generation is the personal Act of the Father Incarnation the personal Act of the Son Sanctification the personal Act of the Holy Spirit Active Spiration the personal Act of the Father and Son But these are meer words Generation according to the School-men is the reflex Act of the Divine Understanding whereby it knows it self and this singular individual Act they ascribe in common to Father Son and Holy Ghost So every thing that is an Act in Incarnation is according to them the Act of the whole Trinity they pretend indeed that the same singular reflex Act of the Divine Understanding only generates as it proceeds from the Person of the Father and that the Incarnation is only terminated upon the Person of the Son But what Pretence to invent for Sanctification I do not find that they are yet agreed The sacred Scriptures give Sanctification for the distinguishing Character of the third Person he is so called in the very Form of Baptism to deny this distinguishing Character was Sabellianism to the Ancients Yet this the School-men have undeniably done in the Act of Sanctification The Maxim of the Ancients was that Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa They have not only misconstrued indivisa for confusa but in reality left out the Exception ad extra and confounded the Actions ad intra as well as those ad extra So Spiration to the School-men is that Act of the Divine Will whereby it loves it self and this singular individual Act they also ascribe to the Holy Spirit equally with the Father and the Son Only say they The Divine Will 's loving it self is not Spiration in the Person of the Holy Ghost but only in the Person of the Father and Son How much better is it with the Ancient Fathers to confess these to be inscrutable Mysteries than to expose the sacred Article by such bold and abstruse Definitions and yet these are the Gentlemen whom the Animadverter commends for venturing little for preceding upon the surest grounds of Reason and Scripture Again Sanctification which the divinely inspired Writings give us as the peculiar
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Holy Ghost relating to the Creatures to a temporal Act can never be the Personality of the Holy Ghost but only a personal Property of the third Person of the Blessed Trinity The School-men take shelter in the Term Spirit which of it self is common to the whole Trinity and call the Procession of the Holy Ghost by the Term Spiration But the whole Greek Church believe the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son and yet denies the Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and whatever may be said for the pious Credibility of this Article in the Sense of the Western Church yet I find that our greatest Divines Laud Stillingfleet Chillingworth c. have deny'd that this is an Article of Faith or that the Greek Church is guilty of Heresy in denying of it Further from St. Augustin we learn that this Sense of this Term Spiration was unknown to the Latin Church in his time Lib 5. de Tr. cap 11. Ille spiritus sanctus qui non Trinitas sed in Trinitate intelligitur in eo quod propriè dicitur spiritus sanctus relativè dicitur cum ad patrem filium refertur quia spiritus sanctus patris filii spiritus est sed ipsa relatio non apparet in hoc nomine Nor has the Mission of the Divine Persons which to the Ancients was a sacred proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Blessed Trinity fared better in the Exposition of the Schoolmen than the internal personal Acts. According to their Master they affirm that the Son was sent not only by the Father and the Holy Spirit Lib. 1. Sent. Dist 15. which last may be allowed in an improper Sense but also by himself So true is that ancient Observation of Athanasius Athan. graecolat apud comel Tom. 1. p. 516. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who assert the Trinity to be a Monad with the Animadverter a simple Being will find themselves obliged to adulterate the Divine Mission and Generation The Personalities by which the Deity stands diversify'd into three distinct Persons P. 241. l. ult n. 3. are by the Generality of Divines both Ancient and Modern called and accounted Modes or at least something Analogous to them since no one thing can agree both to God and the Creatures by a perfect Univocation I intreat the Animadverter to inform me where he learnt that new Phrase of a Deity diversified Many have scrupled the Phrase concerning the Divine Persons are afraid of asserting that the Divine Persons differ or are diverse Himself tells us Anim. c. p. 175. that they are distinguished from one another and no more But to tell us of a singular Deity diversify'd which is the Animadverter's Hypothesis is to me new Divinity Secondly The Personalities are called and accounted Modes c. Does the Animadverter know no difference betwixt these two in our treating of God or a Divine Person The former I allow the latter I as positively deny and I find the Animadverter's heart failed him Modes or at least something analogous to Modes I desire the Reader to compare these words with what he lays down p 285. l. 13. That it is equally absurd to deny Modes of Being to belong to God where equally absurd from the foregoing Line is the same with grosly absurd and this explained p. 284. To be a gross Absurdity and no small proof of Ignorance Now this gross Absurdity this no small proof of Ignorance was the Assertion of the Reverend Dean That there are no Accidents or Modes in God Himself allows no Accidents nor do the Reverend Dean's Words in the least deny a Distinction of Modes and Accidents but rather confirm it As to the Animadverter's Distinction of them I have already spoken to it Chap. 1. n. 2 5 c. and shall only repeat that all the new Philosophers despise it and leave him to harangue by himself P. 284. that none of them have any skill in Logicks or Metaphysicks that they are grosly absurd Philosophers and have given no small proof of their Ignorance by such their opinion The same Absurdity the Animadverter lays to the charge of this other Assertion That there are no Modes in God and this the Animadverter will prove both from the manifest Reason of the thing P. 285. and from unquestionable Authority Ibid. n. 4. First for the reason of the thing If Modes of Being should not be allowed in God then I affirm it to be impossible for any distinction and consequently for any Person to be in God This Argument as he has framed it is built upon a mistake in Divinity If we take this term God in a Concrete Sense for habens Deitatem in the singular number there is no Distinction nor any Persons in habente Deitatem See Chap. 4. n. 2. The Argument ought therefore to run thus If Modes of Being should not be allowed in the Trinity then I affirm it to be impossible for any Distinction and consequently for any Persons to be in the Trinity and even thus framed I take it to be the boldest Assertion I ever met with in Divinity Another Person would certainly have worded the Argument thus Then I conceive it to be impossible or it seems to be impossible but this pleases not our positive Animadverter he affirms the thing to be impossible I deny the consequence which the Animadverter proves thus If there be any Distinction in God or the Deity or the Trinity it must be either from some distinct Substance or some Accident or some Mode of Being For I desire Him or any Mortal breathing to assign a fourth thing beside these But it cannot be from any distinct Substance for that would make a manifest Composition in the Divine Nature or Trinity nor yet from any Accident for that would make a worse Composition and therefore it follows That this Distinction must unavoidably proceed from one or more distinct Modes of Being To which I answer briefly That three distinct Substances make no Composition in the Trinity Three distinct Substances make no Composition in a Trinity of Angels Every Plurality is not a Composition but when the Plurality is by way of component Parts But the Father a Divine Person is not a part of God that is the Heresy of Sabellius The Father a Divine Person is perfectly compleatly God An Accident would make a Composition in God because it is impossible that a Divine Person should solely consist of an Accident A Divine Person is certainly a Substance if therefore we add an Accident we compound a Divine Person of Substance and Accident By the same Argument a Mode of Being inferrs a Composition A Divine Person the Father can never be solely a Mode but must consist of Substance and Mode See cap. 1. n. 14. and become a modal compositum as Substance and Accident inferr an accidental compositum Secondly A Mode is in its own Nature
Ancient Fathers denied them to have one simple subject Vt visum est Sabellio sed diversitatem illam multiplicitatem in subjecto esse reverà To assent to the ternary number to be only in the Modes or Properties is the Sabellian Heresy the Catholick Faith is that there are three Persons as well as three Personalities three Subjects of the Divine Relations It is no contradiction that the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same Subject should be Father and Son the contradiction is that the same Subject should be Father and Son to it self These Properties cannot have relation to the same Subject Otherwise they are consistent in the same Subject in the same Person in the same finite Person the same Man is both Father and Son The Divine Person of the Son according to the Western Church is produced himself and doth produce the Holy Spirit which are opposite Relations as well as Paternity and Filiation But the contradiction vanishes since those opposite relations respect distinct Subjects He is produced by the Father he doth produce the Holy Spirit This therefore is the principal enquiry in this sacred Article what is the Subject of Paternity not what is Paternity that is but a secondary Article of less moment what is the Subject of Filiation not what Filiation is What is the Subject of Procession not what Procession is in other words what is the Father what is the Son what is the Holy Ghost The Subject of Paternity is not the Subject of Filiation for then the Father would be the Son Nor is the Subject of Procession the Subject either of Paternity or Filiation for then the Holy Ghost would either be Father or Son or both To say that the Divine Nature is the Subject of Paternity Filiation and Procession is not only contrary to the Ancients who assert these Properties not to be the Names of the Essence but renders the Sabellian Heresy impossible to be confuted since an infinite Person is as capable of sustaining these three distinct relations as an infinite nature and makes one and the same Subject Father and Son to it self lastly contradicts our formal conception of these sacred Articles The Divine Nature is according to our conception the essential Form of the Divine Persons is predicated of the Divine Persons in obliquo Father Son and Holy Ghost have each of them the full whole and entire Divine Nature in them We are enquiring what it is which may be predicated in recto of them and which may be multiplied with them what is the Subject to which the essential form in our imperfect conception of these things is joyned and which we conceive as the proper subject of the Divine Relations And after the strictest enquiry I can make no better Answer than the Church has done before me Father Son and Holy Ghost are three Hypostases three Substances when that term is not understood as equipollent with Essence three infinite Substances so say the Schoolmen only they add Relative three infinite spiritual Beings which is all the Reverend Dean understood by three infinite Spirits That is that they are not three Faculties or Affections of one Being but three proper Beings Both Accidents and Modes are affections of Being And moreover P. 242. l. 5. n. 7. as every Mode essentially includes in it the Thing or Being of which it is the Mode so every Person of the Blessed Trinity by vertue of its proper Mode of Subsistence includes in it the God-head it self and is properly and formally p. 293. the God-head it self as subsisting with and under such a certain Mode or Relation This is a very fruitfull Period of Paradoxes A Mode according to the Animadverter is an Abstract not concrete Term to be understood as a simple Form as the Affection of a Being as Himself defines it p. 31. and not a Being affected The Concrete of a Mode includes the Being as well as the Mode Album includes the Thing that is white as well as whiteness but Album is not formally the Mode not Whiteness but that which has Whiteness the subject of Whiteness Whiteness the Affection the Mode is an Abstract and by the Term abstracts from the Subject Secondly The Father is Essentially God by his Nature this all confess but who ever said that the Father is Essentially God by his Personality by his Paternity Thirdly There can be no such Heresy as that of Sabellius if every Mode of the Deity essentially includes the Deity the Rankest Sabellianist never denied that Father Son and Holy Ghost signified three Modes of the Deity Fourthly I cannot but ask this great Master of Language why he uses those Terms its and it speaking of a Divine Person He was pleased to condemn this Language as improper and absurd when used of Human Persons Anim. c. p. 341. is there more respect due to Human Persons than to Divine Persons Had it been any fault to have expressed it thus So every Person of the Blessed Trinity by vertue of his not its proper Mode of Subsistence includes in Him not it the God-head it self Far be it from me to pretend to be a Critick in Words or Phrases I rather crave the Reader 's even the Animadverter's pardon for much greater slips than this However 't is some comfort that I find Homer Himself may nod sometimes P. 242. l. 17. n. 8. And accordingly as these Relations are three and and but three so the Persons of the God-head to whom they belong are so too viz. Father Son and Holy Ghost Some Persons take a priviledge to speak and write what they please The Animadverter might almost as well have said that the Persons of the God-head are but two as that the Relations are but three Nothing is more notorious than that there are four Relations in the Trinity if the Relation of the Father to the Son and of the Son to the Father inferr two Relations there can be no shadow of pretence why the Relation of the Father and Son to the Holy Spirit and of the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son should not make two more P. 243. There are says the Animadverter four internal Acts Generation Filiation Spiration Procession though by the By two of these are not Acts but Passions viz. Filiation and Procession upon which the Divine Relations are founded and from which they flow And in the same Page puts the Objection That four Relations inferr four Persons which he endeavours to solve in the following Words That is one Difficulty and unanswerable upon the Animadverter's Principles that one singular Divine Nature is the Subject of these four Relations The Second is What this Relation of it self is whether a Mode or not an infinite relative Substance or not The Schoolmen are obliged to confess this a Property of a Person already constituted and not a Mode of Subsistence Whereas if with the Ancients we assert the Divine Persons to be three substantial Beings three Hypostases
second Substance So says Thomas Aquinas in his own quotation Anim. p. 272. Hoc nomen Hypostasis apud Graecos significat tantum substantiam particularem quoe est substantia prima sed Latini utuntur nomine substantioe tam pro primâ quam pro secundà P. 249. lin 24. n. 13. The word Subsistentia being by them looked upon as barbarous and not in use St. Augustin manifestly derived Substantia from Subsistere St. August lib. 7. de Tr. cap. 4. and in that Sense translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet argued against the Plurality of the Phrase Nam si hoc est Deo esse quod subsistere ita non erant dicendoe tres substantioe ut non dicuntur tres essentioe Si autem aliud est Deo esse aliud subsistere sicut aliud Deo esse aliud Patrem esse vel Dominum esse relativè ergo subsistet sicut relativè gignet relativè dominatur Ita substantia non erit substantia quia relativum erit Sicut enim ab eo quod est esse appellatur essentia ita ab eo quod est subsistere substantiam dicimus absurdum est autem ut substantia relativè dicatur omnis res ad seipsum subsistet quanto magis Deus Nothing is more evident than that St. Augustin thought relativè subsistere to be a great Absurdity which is his Objection against the Phrase of three Hypostases and also three Persons that they signified absolutely Ibid. cap. 6. yet the Animadverter has the Confidence to quote St. Augustin p. 267. As stating the divine Personalities upon Relation for founding Personality in and upon something relative Nor on the other side P. 249. lin 29. n. 14. would the Greeks acquiesce in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor admit of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for fear of falling thereby into the contrary Error of Sabellius I doubt not that the Sabellian Heresy was the cause why the Greeks were not content with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they did not refuse to admit of the Phrase but thought it alone insufficient but required afterwards either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vide Pet. lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 2. S. 9. N. 15. I. that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are three kinds of Sabellianism The first is the most common the confounding the Persons of the Blessed Trinity which was otherwise called the Patri-passian Heresy which asserts That Father Son and Holy Ghost are only three Names or three Offices of one Person and consequently that the Father suffered this is properly the Heresy of Noetus and not of Sabellius Sabellius Petav. lib. 1. de Trin. cap. 6. S. 5. says Epiphanius expresly denied the Father to suffer However the Latin Fathers scarce knew any other Species of Sabellianism which with Submission I conceive to be one cause why they are less accurate in treating of this Mystery than the Greek Fathers II. A second Species of Sabellianism is the Contraction of the Trinity to the single Person of the Father acknowledging the Father to be a true proper Person asserting the Word or Son to be not strictly and formally the Person of the Father but an Attribute of the Father His personal Wisdom in the same Analogy as Wisdom is an habit of Man in like manner asserting the Holy Spirit to be the personal Power of the Father This Sabellius himself embraced and explained the Trinity by the Similitude of the Body of the Sun its Light or Ray and its Heat The first Epiphan Hoer 62. he resembled to the Father the second to the Son the third to the Holy Ghost this the ancient Fathers called Judaism that is such a Trinity which a Jew would own and by the same reason it may be stiled a Socinian Trinity No Socinian in this Sense will scruple a Father Vide Sti. Basilii Ep. 64. a Word and an Holy Spirit A third Species of Sabellianism is the compounding the Divine Persons which is contrary to a Confusion of them this asserts a real distinction betwixt the Divine Persons but then it makes Father Son and Holy Ghost to be as three parts of some whole Petav. Addenda ad Tom. 2. de Trin. p. 866. So Petavius varius à seipso discrepans videtur Sabellius fuisse ut interdum personas tres quasi partes alicujus totius esse diceret ut ex Epiphanii loco colligitur Petavius undoubtly alludes to that other Similitude of the Trinity mentioned by Epiphanius Epiphan Haer. 62. That the Trinity was by Sabellius sometimes compared to the Body Soul and Spirit in one Man These three are but one Hypostasis These three are Co-essential Parts of one Man which possibly moved Sabellius to invent this Hypothesis to have an evasion to assert in some Sense an Homoousian Trinity Vide Pet. lib. 1. de Tr. cap. 6. S. 3. This kind of Sabellianism was by some of the Fathers called Atheism This Hypothesis in reality ungodding Father Son and Holy Ghost Not the Body alone or the Soul alone or the Spirit alone but all three conjoyntly are one Man so not the Father alone or Son alone or Holy Ghost alone but all three conjoyntly are God whereas the Catholick Faith is that each distinct Person is God The Father is God the Father the Son is God of God the Holy Spirit is in the Language of the Church God the Holy Ghost See both these kinds of Sabellianism condemned by Athanasius in his Oration contra gregales Sabellii Now the Phrase of three Hypostases is contrary to all the Forms of the Sabellian Heresy Of the first there is no doubt the second is as plain to be an Hypostasis and to be an Attribute are inconsistent and contradictory So also to be an incompleat Part a component Part and an Hypostasis are inconsistent It is essential to an Hypostasis to have totale attributum to be a compleat and perfect whole so the Words of the first Article of the Augustan Confession quoted by the Animadverter p. 278. Et utuntur nomine personae ea significatione qua usi sunt scriptores Ecclesiastici ut significet non partem aut qualitatem sed quod propriè subsistet That which properly subsists can neither be as a Part of any Whole nor as a Quality or Attribute of any Being The Scripture says the Reverend Dean of St. Paul s Im sure represents Father Son and Holy Ghost Vindication of Trinity p. 66. as three intelligent Beings not as three Powers or Faculties of the same Being which is downright Sabellianism The very Dreggs of Sabellianism as I take it worse than Sabellianism for as the Reverend Dean adds Faculties are not Persons no nor one Person neither A Million of Faculties and Attributes will not make one Person A Million of Qualities will never make one Substance and a Person is a Substance
are not levelled against the Fundamental Truth of this Article the true Divinity of each single Person and their real Distinction but against the particular Hypothesis of the Schools the Singularity of the common Divine Essence these Objections are of no force against the Nicene Hypothesis and therefore we meet not with them in the Writings of the Ancients of the most learned Defenders of the Orthodox Faith against the Arians The Sophistry of those few Socinian Objections which remain appeared no less evident to me and I doubted not by God's Grace to be able to make them appear so to any unprejudiced Reader that is I doubted not by God's Assistance satisfactorily to any unbyass'd Person to reconcile the Nicene Hypothesis and the Article of the Unity of God I was fully perswaded that I could clearly answer all the Socinian Harangues of Nonsense and Contradiction which they so confidently charge upon this Article of the Trinity and thereby reduce the debate to this single Question Whether the Article be revealed or not The Article of the Trinity will still be a Mystery that is it will still be unfathomable to us Why there were a Trinity of Divine Persons neither more nor fewer How God an immaterial Spirit can generate or beget a Son Why but one Son Why the Holy Spirit is not also a Son Wherein his Procession differs from Filiation The Oeconomy also of the Divine Persons will be a Mystery How Father Son and Holy Ghost concurred to the Creation of the World In what manner they jointly acted in the natural Kingdom of Providence How they will govern after the surrender of the mediatorial Kingdom of the Son of God In these and the like Questions did the Ancient Fathers place the Mystery of this sacred Article in these the Nicene Hypothesis that I mean which I propose as the Nicene Hypothesis still places an unsearchable Mystery The Schoolmen can decide you these with the greatest ease if you believe them with the greatest exactness but then instead of these which they pretend to solve they have given us many others ten times more difficult These Mysteries claim express Revelation for their Foundation viz. That God has an only begotten Son and a Blessed Spirit proceeding from him That God the Father made the Worlds That the Son laid the Foundations of the Earth That the Spirit moved upon the Face of the Waters at the Creation For these we have the Authority of the Ancient Fathers these are manifestly Difficulties only in the Modus we cannot indeed tell how they can be nor can the Socinians prove that they cannot be And I hope these great Adorers of Reason the Socinians will esteem God's Word a sufficient proof for an Article of Faith against which they have no solid Objection at least I presume they will pardon the Orthodox if they take not the Mysteriousness of an Article for an Objection against the truth of it but this will be more proper when I have finished my Second Part which relates to the Article of the Unity of God which if God grant Life and Health and Ability shall be performed with all convenient speed To God the Father Almighty and his Eternal Son and ever Blessed Spirit be all Honour Praise Glory Dominion and Power now henceforth and for evermore Amen FINIS BOOKS Printed for and are to be Sold by William Rogers ARchbishop Tillotson's Sermons and Discourses in 4 Vol. 8 vo Discourse against Transubstantiation 8o. alone Price 3 d. stitcht Persuasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 8 vo stitcht 3 d. In 12o. bound 6 d. Sermons concerning the Divinity of our B. Saviour 8 vo Six Sermons I. Of Stedfastness in Religion II. Of Family-Religion III. IV. V. Of the Education of Children VI. Of the Advantages of an early Piety In 8 vo Price 3 s. In 12o. 1 s. 6 d. Bishop of Worcester's Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented c. 4 to Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compar'd in two Parts 4 to Bishop of Norwich's Two Sermons of the Wisdom and Goodness of Providence before the Queen at Whitehall 4 to Sermon preach'd at St. Andrews Holborn on Gal. 6.7 Of Religious Melancholy A Sermon preach'd before the Queen at Whitehall 4 to Of the Immortality of the Soul preach'd before the King and Queen at Whitehall on Palm-Sunday 4 to Dr. Sherlock Dean of St. Paul's Answer to a Discourse entituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery 2 d. Edit 4 to Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer 4 to Sermon at the Funeral of the Reverend Dr. Calamy 4 to Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick Communion c. 4 to Preservative against Popery in 2 Parts with the Vindication 4o. Discourse concerning the Nature Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church First Part. 4 to Sermon before the Lord Mayor November 4. 1688. 4 to Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity 3 d. Edit 4 to Case of Allegiance to Sovereign Powers stated c. 4 to Vindication of the Case of Allegiance c. 4 to Fast-Sermon before the Queen at Whitehall June 17. 4 to Practical Discourse concerning Death In Octavo Eighth Edition Price 3 s. In Twelves Price 2 s. Practical Discourse concerning Judgment Third Edit 8 vo Sermon before the House of Commons Jan. 30. 1692 4 to Sermon preach'd before the Queen Feb. 12. 1692 4 to The Charity of Lending without Usury in a Sermon before the Lord Mayor on Easter Tuesday 1692 4 to Sermon at the Temple Church May 29 1692 4 to Sermon preach'd before the Queen June 26. 1692. 4 to Sermon preach'd at the Funeral of the Reverend Dr. Meggot late Dean of Winchester Dec 10. 1692 4 to A Discourse concerning the Divine Providence 2 d. Edit 4 to Apology for writing against Socinians 4 to A Sermon at the Temple Church Decem. 30. 1694. upon the sad Occasion of the Death of our Gracious Queen 4 to Dr. Claget's Sermons in Two Volumes Octavo Dr. Wake 's Sermons and Discourses on several Occasions 8 vo Mr Elis's Necessity of serious Consideration and speedy Repentance 8o. Folly of Atheism demonstrated to the Capacity of the most Unlearned Reader 8 vo A short Scripture-Catechism 12o. A Defence of the Dean of St. Paul's Apology for writing against the Socinians 4 to A Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notion of a Trinity in Unity 4 to Mr. Wilson's Discourse of Religion shewing its Truth and Reality or the Suitableness of Religion to Human Nature 8 vo Discourse of the Resurrection shewing the Import and Certainty of it 8 vo Mr. Blackali's Sermon at Brentwood in Essex October 7. 1693 at the Visitation of Henry Lord Bishop of London 4 to A Sermon upon the Resurrection preach'd before the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen at St. Bridget's Church on Monday in Easter-Week April 9. 1694. 4 to A Commentary on the Five Books of Moses With a Dissertation concerning the Author or Writer of the said Books and a General Argument to each of them By Richard Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells In Two Volumes 8 vo Mousoleum A Funeral Poem on our late Gracious Sovereign Queen Mary of Blessed Memory An Elegy on his Grace John late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury both by N Tate Mr. Dryden's Translation of C. A. du Fresnoy's Art of Painting with an original Preface containing a Parallel betwixt Painting and Poetry c.
Composition So is the Soul compleat and the Human Body the Instrument or incompleat in the constitution of Man so that according to the strictest Rules of Philosophy both the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Man are Vnum per se not Vnum per Accidens Thirdly As little can I allow the Animadverter that every Vnum per Accidens must be an unnatural Compound According to these Philosophers a Learned Man a Pious Man is Vnum per Accidens ought we therefore to avoid Piety and Learning that we may not become an unnatural Compound Fourthly The Union of a Subject and its Adjunct is according to all Philosophers an accidental Union the Adjunct as I observed before predicated of the Subject more Accidentis This Objection therefore falls strongest upon his own Head who denied the Human Nature of Christ to be a part of Christ and affirmed That it was an Adjunct to the Person of the WORD Cap. 1. N. 10 which is in consequence to affirm that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Vnum per Accidens P. 76. lin 4. N. 7. If the Soul in a state of Separation from the Body be a Person then it is either the same Person which the Man himself was while he was living and in the Body or it is another Person But to assert either of them is extreamly absurd and therefore equally absurd that the Soul in such a State should be a Person c. This also is a Socinian Objection The Animadverter may be satisfied That no wise Man will chuse the later part of the Disjunction viz. that the Soul in a state of Separation is a different Person from the Man himself or that the WORD before the Incarnation is a different Person from Christ God and Man or the WORD incarnated For the Objection is equal against both Articles as by a small variation of the immediate following words will appear And first it is absurd to affirm it to be the same Person For a Person compounded of Soul and Body as a Man is and a simple uncompounded Person as the Soul if a Person at all must needs be can never be numerically one and the same For that differing from one another as Simple and Compound they differ as two things whereof one implies a Contradiction and Negation of the other A Compound as such including in it several Parts compounding it And a simple Being utterly excluding all Parts and Composition So that if a Man while alive be one Person and his Soul after Death be a Person too it is impossible for the Soul to be one and the same Person with the Man And first it is absurd to affirm it to be the same Person For a Person compounded of the Divine and Human Nature as Christ is and a simple uncompounded Person as the WORD is acknowledged to be can never be numerically one and the same For that differing from one another as Simple and Compound they differ as two things whereof one implies a Contradiction and Negation of the other A Compound as such including in it several Parts and a simple Being utterly excluding all Parts and Composition So that if Christ God and Man be one Person and the WORD before his Incarnation be a Person too it is impossible for the Word before the Incarnation to be one and the same Person with Christ God and Man Now thanks be to God this formidable Objection of the Socinians and the Animadverter is founded upon a mistake in Philosophy viz. That those things which differ from one another as Simple and Compound differ as two things whereof one implies a Contradiction and Negation of the other There may be a thousand instances brought to confute this pretended Axiom A Man learned is the same Man with himself before he was learned and yet in the Confession of all Philosophers A Man and a Man learned differ as Simple and Compound A Man learned is an accidental Compositum an Vnum per Accidens So a Man cloathed is the same Man with himself naked and yet a Man cloathed and a Man naked differ as Simple and Compound A Soul in a state of Separation is the same Soul with the Soul cloathed with an Human Body I am ashamed to be obliged to prove so plain a Conclusion In an Hypostatical Union the inferior Nature is so far an Adjunct to the superior Nature that what the WORD was before the Incarnation or the Soul before its cloathing with a Body the same each remains after the Union or Conjunction It is in some sense a Part otherwise the Union could not be substantial but accidental The WORD could with no more propriety be said to be a Man than a Man may be denominated an evil Angel because he is possessed of such Had the Divine and Human Nature of Christ been confounded or the Soul and Body of Man so mixt as to have denominated the Compositum of a different Nature from the component Parts then the WORD and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not be one Person nor the Soul and the Man the same Person But we maintain an Hypostatical Union and not a confusion of Substance or Nature That which has obscured the Analogy betwixt the Union of the two Natures in the One Person of Christ and of the Soul and Body in Man is for that in this latter instance Custom has prevailed with us to say That an Human Person has but one viz. an human Nature Whereas an Human Person properly consists of two unconfounded Natures the Nature of the Soul and Body are not confounded in the Hypostatical Composition of Man The Learned Damascen Vide Damasc lib. 3 de Ortho fide cap. 3. if I remember aright gives the reason of this form of Speech Because we see many distinct Persons possess the same common Nature whence we say That two or more Human Persons are of one and the same nature As also That if the Holy Spirit had been incarnated equally with the WORD we might have said that the WORD incarnate is of the same nature with the Holy Ghost incarnate To conclude All Philosophers assert That a totum differs only ratione from all its parts united if therefore it be possible for the superior part in an Hypostatick Union to retain all the Natural Perfections of a suppositum in the composition and for an inferior part to be united to the superior without confusion of its Nature and yet not as a distinct suppositum but as an instrumentum or principium quo to the superior part It will then evidently follow That the whole compositum is but one suppositum but one Person and the very same Person which the superior part was before the composition and that a simple and compounded Person is in such instance not two Persons but one and the same Person differing not really but modally from himself by such difference by which a Learned Man differs from himself before he was Learned And here I
more properly a term equipollent and convertible with a Divine Person than with the term God As it is true that one and the same God or Godhead is common to p. 120. l. 6. n. 6. and subsists in all and every one of the three Persons so it is true that one and the same Infinite Mind or Spirit is common to and subsists in the said three Persons This Fallacy is easily answered One Godhead and one Infinite Spiritual Nature in abstracto is common to the three Persons The Animadvertor must prove that this Rule holds of one Infinite Spirit in concreto God the Father is not God the Son God the Father and God the Son are not the same God in Person or Personality in the words of the learned Petavius Petav. lib. 3. de Trin. cap. 9. S. 3. p. 282. Non est igitur Filius idem ille unus Deus qui Pater Can the Animadvertor believe that Petavius would have scrupled to say Non est igitur Filius idem ille unus Spiritus qui Pater The same one Godhead by being common to three Persons becomes Deus trinus in Personis in which Phrase Trinus agrees with Deus and not with Personis nor is it capable of that common but groundless Interpretation of Tri-une God is three and not tri-une in Persons Had Trinus ever signified tri-une which yet it never did to the Ancients nor by any Rules of Grammar ought it to signifie so now If it be here objected p. 120. n. 7. that we allow of three distinct Persons in the Godhead 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 Godhead without any necessity of inferring from thence that they are three distinct Gods This Objection is every way to the purpose this is the Plea of the Reverend Dean To say they are three Divine Persons and not three Infinite Minds was what the Reverend Dean could not understand Secondly This is the great Objection of the Socinians three Humane Persons are three Men three Angelical Persons three Angels therefore three Divine Persons three Gods They esteem God and a Divine Person terms equipollent and convertible they esteem the Consequence from three Divine Persons to three Gods necessary immediate and unavoidable Not one Socinian who understands himself but will confess that he can as soon believe three Infinite Minds as three Divine Persons reconcileable with the Article of the Unity of God If the Animadvertor can give an Answer to this Socinian Objection from the Phrase of three Divine Persons which is not equally applicable to his own Objection against the Phrase of three Infinite Spirits I will yield him the Point he contends for One thing I must note which to me betrays the Animadvertor's fear I mean his not representing the Objection fair The Dean's Phrase is put down three distinct Infinite Minds why did he not equally say three distinct Infinite Persons Why must this last be expressed by a Circumlocution three Persons of which every one is Infinite How often has the Animadvertor used the Phrase of three Divine Persons which is the same with three Infinite Persons Is not this to make a distinction without a difference p. 120. n. 8. 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 This Answer puts me in mind of a certain Respondent who being at a great loss cryed Nego id not determining whether it was the Major Minor or Conclusion which he denyed And I believe most Readers will be equally at a loss whether the Animadvertor applies this Answer to the Premises or Conclusion The Animadvertor's Argument against the Reverend Dean's Assertion of three Infinite Minds is this One Infinite Mind is one God therefore three Infinite Minds are three Gods The Socinians Objection mutatis mutandis the same One Divine Person is one God therefore three Divine Persons are three Gods The Consequence of each Argument the same viz. That three Infinite Minds three Divine Persons must be thrice what one Infinite Mind or one Divine Person is The Consequence is a Mathematical Conclusion that three of any kind must be thrice what one of the same kind is Will the Animadvertor deny the Antecedent that one Divine Person is one God Or will he deny that Father Son and Holy Ghost are three Persons This Objection depends not immediately upon the Relativeness or Absoluteness of a Divine Person If one Mode one Accident one Relation be one God how shall we avoid the Conclusion that three Modes three Accidents or three Relations are three Gods The force of this Answer if it has any must lye in this that there are not properly three Divine Persons the Divine Persons are not three as three Infinite Minds are three to speak the truth the ternary number belongs not to the Persons but to the Personalities to the Modes to the Relations We use the Phrase of three Relatives but we mean only three relations of one simple Being and with equal Justice the Animadvertor might have said that we use the Phrase of three Persons but we mean only three Personalities of one absolute Person The Animadvertor entirely begs the Question if he takes three Relatives and one simple Being under three Relations to be equipollent Adam had three relations of a Creature an Husband and a Father yet he is but one Relative A Relative is not the Relation but that which has the Relation the Subject of the Relation The Person of the Father is one simple Being God under two Relations of Generation and Spiration is therefore the Person of the Father two Relatives two Persons Again the Divine Persons are three Relatives Why did not the Animadvertor speak out Are they three Relative Substances three Relative Accidents or three Relative Modes Further Genebrard and the same I believe of the Reverend Dean would have told him that three Infinite Minds or Spirits have but one singular individual Spiritual Nature or Essence and therefore according to Genebrard three Infinite Minds differ no more than three Divine Persons Lastly the difference of the Divine Persons is not the difference of one simple Being under three Relations For one simple Being under one Relation cannot be simply denyed of it self under another Relation Adam the Father is Adam the Husband Adam the Creature the Person of the Father is the Spirator of the Holy Ghost though as he
account of the Divine Attributes by Essence and a Mode is this in his own Words Ibid. The constant unanimously received Doctrine of Divines School-men and Metaphysitians in their Discourses upon God Can a Reader unacquainted with these Debates believe that by the constant unanimously received Doctrine of Divines School-men and Metaphysitians we are to understand the single Aninmadverter alone and yet that is the truth So p. 51. l. 3. he with the same confidence and something else tells us That all Divines hitherto have looked upon and professedly treated of the Divine Nature and Attributes as different and distinct from one another still considering the first as the Subject and the other as the Adjuncts of it What must we say when a Person shall set up for a Critick in the most mysterious Article of our Religion and himself understands not the first Elements of Divinity Did any Divine before himself compound God of Subject and Adjunct Did any Divine before himself assert that Holiness Goodness Truth Knowledge Eternity c. were Adjuncts in God Does he know what an Adjunct is Quod alicui preter essentiam adjungitur something added conjoyned to the Essence of a Being Do not all Divines teach That the Divine Attributes may be predicated in abstracto of God God is his Wisdom his Power his Goodness but a Subject cannot be so predicated of its Adjunct But I am ashamed of confuting so weak a Notion yet our Animadverter has the Face to say That without this Notion it is impossible to discourse intelligibly of the Divine Attributes Ibid. p. 217. P. 223 Qu. 3. n. 27. What is the Substance or Nature of God I answer It is a Being existing of and by it self Incorporeal Infinite Eternal Omniscient Omnipotent c. The Animadverter triumphs over this and some other questions the Reverend Dean had made as easie and trifling for that is the natural Sense of calling them not so very formidable c. But I conceive that he mistook the Reverend Dean's Mind in asking this question which probably was What Notion we can frame in our Minds of the Substance of God of an infinite immaterial Substance However I shall wave that and tell him That he has extremely failed in the answer of this easie Question First When he tells us that the Nature of God is a Being God is properly called a Being but his Nature ought to be stiled an Essence and not a Being when we speak properly and according to the formal Conception of things Secondly To be a Being existing of it self is not of the Nature or Essence of God otherwise the Son and Holy Spirit are not each of them God for certainly neither the Son nor Holy Spirit exist of themselves to be a Being existing of it self is a personal property of the Father alone Thirdly Existing by it self is but an explication of being an Hypostasis or Suppositum which indeed agrees to Father Son and Holy Ghost but yet by the Consent of sober Divines is not esteemed an essential Predication and consequently ought not to be put into the Definition of God Fourthly Incorporeal Infinite c. are Attributes that is according to the Animadverter Adjuncts to the Essence or Nature of God how come they therefore to make up part of the Definition of the Nature of God But I am tired and have reason to believe my Reader so with the observation of the Animadverter's Mistakes and therefore I have omitted very many I did observe and doubtless a more attentive Reader would find many which escaped my notice The Animadverter in this Book has concern'd himself chiefly with three Articles Christ's Satisfaction His Incarnation and the Doctrine of the Trinity and I do not find upon the strictest Search that he understands any one of them Concerning the last of these Articles the Reader cannot have a clearer Proof than by Examination of the Animadverter's eighth Chapter wherein he professedly endeavours to lay down the positive Faith of the Church concerning this Article CHAP. VII I judge it neither improper nor unusefull to represent what the Church has hitherto held and taught concerning this important Article of the Trinity p. 240. l. 2. n. 1. as I find it in Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern Make room for this mighty Man keep silence and learn what Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern have taught in this important Article Goliath himself was not more compleatly armed Cap-a-pee but Goliath wanted little David's Sling he came not in the name of the Lord. And it seems this great Opiniator has forgot his Bible behind him quite forgot Christ and his twelve Apostles in the Crowd of Fathers and School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern Shall I need to remind this great Critick that if Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern have determined I will not say against but without a sufficient Foundation of Scripture their determination is no rule of a Protestant's Faith Article 8. Our Church receives the Creeds themselves because they may be proved by most certain Warrants of Holy Scripture I acknowledge it a great Confirmation of my Faith as to this Article that Councils and Fathers have explained the Scriptures in the same Sense in which I believe them The Ecclesiastical Phrases and Forms of Speech are very usefull to detect aequivocating Hereticks or as they speak in short what the Scriptures deliver in several places or as they are Arguments ad homines to those who acknowledge their Authority p. 240. l. 14. n. 2. Now the commonly received Doctrine of the Church and Schools concerning the Blessed Trinity so far as I can judge but still with the humblest Submission to the Judgment of the Church of England in the Case is this That the Christian Religion having laid this sure Foundation that there is but one God and that there is nothing i. e. no positive real Being strictly and properly so called in God but what is God and lastly That there can be no Composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being distinct from the Deity it self and yet the Church finding in Scripture mention of three to whom distinctly the God-head does belong it has by warrant of the same Scripture Heb. 1.3 expressed these three by the Name of Persons and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence allotted to one and the same God-head and these also distinguished from one another by three distinct Relations First The Complement is very high to the Church of England that he will submit the Faith which he finds in Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-writers both ancient and modern to the Judgment of the Church of England but whom does the Animadverter mean by the Church of England this is his Character of the Churchmen the Clergy of the Church of England in
our Church whom you vouchsafe only the bare Title of Church-men to None then opposing them The Reverend Dean's Notions concerning the Trinity most overlooking them and some countenancing and advancing the Author of them and perhaps for them too This is truly the Case Is not this in your own words To throw your Scurrility at high and low Preface p. III. at all about you and below you at an unsufferable rate Is this the Character of so Learned and every way Excellent a Clergy not to oppose most to overlook nay some to countenance and advance the Author of the worst of Heresies Tritheism it self You explain your self p. 361. when you call the late Learned and Worthy Archbishop of Blessed Memory his Great Lord and Patron whom you here designed by those words and advancing the Author for them too I need add but one place more at present p. 379. where you tell the Reader how thin a Bottom the Reverend Dean has to support him But it seems Coward-like in my apprehension to accuse the Reverend Dean as a Person of so thin a Bottom and yet immediately in the same page to declare That if any one besides him shall attempt an Answer to your Discourse you shall not in the least trouble nor concern your self about him whosoever he be You mean probably that you will not in Print Answer any such Discourse but it is not always in our power to avoid being troubled or concerned However if that will do you any kindness I design not an Answer to your Animadversions so far as they are personal betwixt the Reverend Dean and your self The Reverend Dean needs not so weak a Pen as mine to defend him His own is best able to chastise you if that Learned Person were not better imployed more to the Glory of God and the Service of the Church of England If the Novelty of the phrase of three infinite Minds startled many of our Clergy I do assure you That yours of three Modes has displeased more not one whom I have had the honour to consult but are better reconciled to three infinite Minds since the reading of your eighth Chapter than they were before They believed the Article without enquiring into the Modus But if they must determine the Modus if they must chuse to profess three infinite Minds or only three Modes The former is an intelligible Notion There is a difficulty indeed how to reconcile this with the Article of the Unity of God but the latter is to most meer Metaphysical Cant. They believe and can readily understand that each distinct Divine Person is an infinite Mind from whence the Consequence lies fair that three distinct Divine Persons are three distinct infinite Minds But they cannot in the least comprehend how a Divine Person can be a Mode which you expresly affirm p. 121. A Person here in this Mystery imports only a Relation or Mode of Subsistence c. My design is by God's assistance to vindicate this great Article of a Trinity in Vnity against the Socinians The Church by God's Providence has overcome the Arian Heresy a much more subtle Heresy than that of the Socinians which perswaded me that treading in the steps of the Ancients was the best way to defend the Orthodox Faith at present It was a great surprise to me in my Enquiry to find 1st that those things which at this day are esteemed as the greatest Objections against this Sacred Article had a quite different import in the Judgment of the Ancients 2dly That all these Subtilties which the Schools have taught us in this Mystery were utterly unknown to Antiquity nay in many of them the direct contrary Conclusion most expresly maintained by the Fathers of the Church 3dly That the Subtilties of the Schools were little studied by the Moderns these Animadversions were no small confirmation of this point the Animadverter having in so many places and in the most material Articles not understood the Hypothesis of the Schools which yet at the same time he would be thought to embrace and shelter himself under 4thly That the Article of the Trinity is safe without recurring to the Scholastick Subtilties I am very sensible that to clear all this is a difficult Province and I heartily wish this Lot had fallen to an Abler Hand I am so conscious of my own Defects that nothing but Zeal for that Eternal Truth of this Article in the Belief of which I hope to be saved could have tempted me to expose my self and my own Deficiencies to the Censure of the world It often pleases the Divine Providence by weak means to bring to pass great effects If it shall please his Infinite Wisdom to use so weak an Instrument as my self to illustrate this great Truth or at least to incite by me some Abler Person to adorn this Great Mystery as it deserves To God and his Great Name be all the Glory and I shall then sit down contentedly joyfully with the Shame which any Mistake or Error of mine may bring to my self The Faith of the most Learned Fathers of the Church if I aright apprehend them that Faith at least which I embrace and propose is That the Extra Scriptural Terms used by the Church in this Great and Sacred Article viz. Trinity Person Hypostasis Consubstantial Essence are to be received and understood in the most proper native and genuine Sense of those Terms that is in the same Sense in which they were understood when by the same Fathers they were applied to Angelical or Human Persons And this I conceive in Sense to imply no more than what the same Fathers declared concerning the following Scriptural Expressions viz. That Father Son Spirit Begotten Proceeding Son of God Spirit of God Begotten Son of God c. are to be properly expounded and not in some improper uncouth figurative or Metaphorical Sense I shall divide my Design into Two Parts In the First I shall endeavour to give an Account of all the Metaphysical Terms used in this Mystery and as far as is necessary of the Subtilties which the Schoolmen have introduced in their Explication of them and this I have chosen to do by way of Animadversion upon our Animadverter from a double Reason First in relation to himself to convince him if possible of his Barbarous Treatment of a Worthy and Reverend Person for barely venturing on a new Expression in a Vindication of this Sacred Article The Piety of the Design with all Candid and Ingenuous Lovers of the Article would have attoned for a much greater Erratum Three Infinite Minds or Spirits is capable of an Orthodox Exposition even in the mouth of a Schoolman However the Animadverter of all persons ought to have been silent or the last to have found fault with it who has so often been guilty of greater Slips both in Philosophy and Divinity Secondly In relation to the Socinian Historian who by his Commendation of the Animadversions has adopted them for his own
a Trinity of Divine Persons is owing to Revelation alone and from thence ex posteriori we learn that a Trinity that is neither more nor fewer of Divine Persons is necessary Three Divine Persons are necessary because no Person can be Divine and not have necessary Existence Again we believe that there are no more than Three because God has revealed the existence but of Three and commanded us to worship but Three viz. Father Son and Holy Ghost The Schoolmen pretend to prove the number of a Trinity of Divine Persons not from the formal Reason of Personality for what Reason can we give why a fourth Divine Person might not have proceeded from the three first a fifth from the first four and so in infinitum but from these two Maxims First That there can be but one unproduced Divine Person This to me is a sacred Article by no means to be contradicted and in this I agree with the Learned Henry de Gandavo That those Arguments which prove the Article of the Unity of God demonstrate this Proposition Secondly That there can be no more than two distinct Processions viz. Generation and Spiration If the Schoolmen understood this Proposition That the Scriptures have revealed but these two Processions I entirely agree with them But they argue ex priori A Spirit say they can substantially produce only by his Understanding or Will the former they tell us is proper Generation the latter Spiration Animad c. p. 116. But I cannot keep pace with these Gentlemen whom the Animadverter commends for venturing so little It suffices to my Faith that the quod sit of this Mystery is expresly revealed in Scripture viz. That the Son is begotten and that the Holy Ghost proceeds But what either the One or the Other is how they differ or why God might not have had two Sons or two Holy Spirits or have produced a fourth Divine Person by a different sort of Procession from either Generation or Spiration are things above my thoughts and words I approve of that Ancient Anthem of the Church Quid sit gigni quid processus Me nescire sum professus far beyond the Modern Subtilties of the Schools For this is a received Maxim in the Schools P. 113. lin 10. N. 6. with reference to the Divine Nature and Persons Repugnat in Divinis dari absolutum incommunicabile Greg. de Valen. Tom. 1. p. 874. And it is a sure Rule whereby we may distinguish in every one of the Divine Persons what is Essential from what is Personal For every Attribute that is absolute is communicable and consequently essential and every one that is purely relative is incommunicable and therefore purely Personal and so è converso I shall crave leave to put this Question more largely than the Animadverter has done and enquire What it is which determines the singular or plural predication of any Attribute concerning the Three Divine Persons The Schoolmen commonly give the same Answer with the Animadverter viz. That a Personal Attribute may be plurally predicated an Essential Attribute may be predicated singularly of the Three Divine Persons Secondly That a Relative Attribute is a Personal Attribute and an Absolute Attribute an Essential one To whom I answer That the first distinction concerning a Personal and Essential Attribute is true but insufficient for the difficulty Secondly That the second distinction of an Absolute and Relative Attribute is not necessarily universally true I say the former part of this Rule I confess to be true but answers not the difficulty A Personal Attribute may be predicated plurally if common to more than one Person For all such Predications are reduced to this received one of the Church That there are Three Divine Persons All Essential Attributes may be predicated singularly being equipollent to this that there is but one Essence of Father Son and Holy Ghost But this will not give us satisfaction in our present Enquiry As for instance It is the received Language of the Church That Father Son and Holy Ghost may be truly stiled Vnus Deus Vnus Dominus Vnus Creator as also the allowed Phrase of the Schools that Father and Son are Vnus Spirator and that it is Heresy to assert that Father Son and Holy Ghost are Tres Dii Tres Domini Tres Creatores or to say of Father and Son that they are Duo Spiratores I know the Schoolmen assert that Deus Dominus Creator are Essential Attributes but they cannot pretend this of Spirator to be the Spirator of the Holy Ghost is confessedly a Personal Attribute Attributa Divina positiva adjectivè sumpta rectè praedicantur in plurali de Divinis Personis Suarez lib. 3. de Trin. cap. 11. n. 12. p. 401. how comes that under pain of Heresy to be predicated singularly of Two Divine Persons viz. of Father and Son Secondly Sic enim Tres Personae rectè dicuntur Divinae Dominantes ac Creantes Pater Filius dicuntur Spirantes Spiritum Sanctum licet sint unus Spirator N. 12. p. 401. It is confest by the most rigid of the Schoolmen that it is lawful to say That Father Son and Holy Ghost are Tres Deitatem habentes Tres Dominantes Tres Creantes That Father and Son are Duo Spirantes How shall we extricate our selves out of this difficulty Is Deus an Essential Attribute and Deitatem habens a Personal One What difference is there in sense betwixt Deus and Deitatem habens Dominus and Dominans Creator and Creans Spirator and Spirans Can the Concrete term Deus be better explained than by its abstract Deitatem habens It 's manifest from these Examples that the distinction of an Essential and Personal Attribute will not solve this difficulty The Schoolmen confess this and therefore give us a second distinction of a Noun Substantive and Noun Adjective viz. That an Essential Attribute when exprest by a Noun Substantive is always to be predicated singularly but when the same Attribute is exprest by a Noun Adjective then it may be plurally predicated of the Divine Persons But I enquire How comes this Rule also to hold in the Personal Attribute of a Spirator Can a Criticism of Grammar make a Personal Attribute to be predicated as an Essential one and an Essential Attribute to be predicated in the nature of a Personal Attribute Secondly This is the very Question Why two Phrases in Sense and according to all the Rules of Logick equipollent should be so differently interpreted merely from a Criticism of Grammar that the one of them should be Orthodox and the other Heretical It 's also manifest from these Instances that the second Rule of an Absolute and Relative Predicate is false Deus Dominus Creator Spirator are manifestly Relative Attributes There can be no dispute of the three last and the Scripture Expressions of my God thy God our God your God prove the Relativeness of this term God Besides that an absolute Attribute put into an
not God of God To be God of God and also not God of God are contradictious and therefore can never be verified of one and the same Subject of one and the same God in concreto of one and the same God in Person Nor is this any Blasphemous stuff it only proves that one sense of the term God is equipollent with a Divine Person in the words of Genebrard before quoted Chap. 4. n. 4. Vocabulum Deus aliquando sumitur Hypostaticè ac ultrò citróque commeat cum Divina persona sive Hypostasi ut cum in Niceno Symbolo legitur Deum de Deo c. It is the Faith and has been the Language of the Church before the Nicene Council that Deus est Trinus in Personis that God is Three in Persons And this is the just and easie Answer to that dreadful Objection of the Socinians that three Divine Persons infer three Gods as three Angelical Persons infer three Angels viz. That if by three Gods the Socinians mean that there are three Divine Persons that there are tres Deitatem habentes that Deus est trinus in personis in these senses in the term God we acknowledge and embrace the Conclusion as an Article of our Faith and despise the weak Sophistry of their Objection which only equivocates in the term God Ask a Socinian what he means by God in that Phrase of three Gods He will readily Answer that he means a Divine Person and consequently this Formidable Objection amounts to no more than this That three Divine Persons are three Divine Persons Therefore c. Just so does the Animadvertor deal with the Reverend Dean He declares that he takes God and Infinite Mind to be equipollent and I will assure him that none will deny that three Infinite Minds are three Infinite Minds And so the Reverend Dean is eternally confuted or rather the Animadvertor ought to be ashamed of so weak a Sophism If the Animadvertor or any Socinian will deal like a Scholar and not like a Sophister let either of them produce those Arguments which deny a Plurality of Gods and shew that they are equally strong against the Faith of three Infinite Minds or three Divine Persons and they shall not fail of an Answer by God's assistance as soon as I can finish it but this more properly belongs to my Second Part. It is a meer begging of the Question to say that this term God is not capable of Multiplication when it signifies equipollently with a Divine Person or any other equivalent Phrase as an Infinite Mind or the like p. 160. lin 3. n. 3. It is one and the same Wisdom which is both ingenita and genita though as it is one it is not the other The Animadvertor p. 156. lin 9. had declared it to be very true that the Son is a begotten Mind and Wisdom and in the same place denies That the Eternal Mind or Wisdom begetting and the Eternal Mind or Wisdom begotten are two distinct Minds but only one and the same Mind or Wisdom under these two distinct Modifications of Begetting and being Begot In this place the Animadvertor advances one step higher and tells us that unbegotten Wisdom and begotten Wisdom are not two Wisdoms but only one Wisdom under two several Modifications as also that Father Son and Holy Spirit are one Infinite Spirit under three distinct Modalities Now say I if this be a fair Solution of this difficulty it is impossible for the wisest Person to be certain that he can count two For ought any one then can tell the Reverend Dean and the Animadvertor may not be two Persons but only one Person under two Modifications The highest Proof that can be brought in such Enquiry is that Contradictions may be verified concerning the Reverend Dean and the Animadvertor that what the one is the other is not Now there cannot be a plainer fuller Contradiction than to be begotten and to be unbegotten Again this Answer undermines the Faith of the Catholick Chuch the Faith of three Divine Persons The Sabellianist asserts that Father Son and Holy Ghost are not three Persons but one Person under three distinct Modalities which Modifications diversifie and distinguish the Person they belong to but not multiply him The same Person is both the Father and the Son but as he is one he is not the other Now the allowed Proof of a Plurality of Divine Persons is from the contradictory Predicates which may be verified of Father Son and Holy Ghost in the words of the Athanasian Creed The Father is made of none neither created nor begotten the Son is of the Father alone not made not created but begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and Son neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding If this be a good Argumument to prove a Plurality of Divine Persons I desire to know why an unbegotten and begotten Wisdom are not equally two Wisdoms The Moderns who follow the Schoolmen say indeed the same thing with the Animadvertor that it is one and the same singular Wisdom which is both unbegotten and begotten that is one Wisdom under two distinct Modifications But then they understand themselves better than to say That it is very true that the Son is a begotten Wisdom They say that Begotten Wisdom is to be understood in an improper sense and consequently that the Contradiction is only in words and not in reality According to the Schoolmen the Son is unbegotten Wisdom The Wisdom of the Son is equally unbegotten with the Wisdom of the Father and that Proposition the Son is begotten Wisdom is only true according to them sensu reduplicativo viz. That the Son who is begotten is also Wisdom Now certainly unbegotten is a very improper sense of being begotten The Phrase of Begotten Wisdom was used without scruple by the Ancients and though Lombard and the bold Lateran Council condemned this Phrase Hand over Head yet the more Prudent Persons of the Romish Church thought it more elegible to allow the Phrase in complyance with Antiquity and strive to evade it by a stretched Interpretation by a sensus reduplicativus The Animadvertor has here borrowed the words of the Shoolmen but without understanding their meaning Nay it is very observable that the Animadvertor who here in p. 156. tells us That it is very true that there is a begotten Mind or Wisdom is of a quite different Opinion p. 159. lin 18. viz. That this cannot be said in Truth and Propriety of speech For God cannot properly be said to beget Wisdom c. I leave him at his leisure to reconcile these two places His the Reverend Dean's Allegation is this p. 166. lin 4. n. 4. That it is usual with the Fathers to represent the three Persons in the Blessed Trinity as distinct as Peter James and John The Animadvertor Answers That the term as distinct is ambiguous For it may either signifie 1. as Real or 2. as Great a distinction As