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.
three I turned over with great speed to p. 229. where in the front of the Page in Italick Characters I found this innocent Syllogism Tritheism c. p. 229. Three Distinct Infinite Intelligent Persons are Three Gods But there are not Three Distinct Gods and therefore there are not Three Distinct Infinite Intelligent Persons in the Godhead The Major of this Proposition is false but what other fault to find with it was past my Skill in Logick I therefore consulted the Animadverter in the following words Ibid. In which Syllogism we have these two Terms viz. Three Distinct Infinite Intelligent Persons and Three Distinct Gods But as for the third Term I desire this Author to shew it me for I must confess I cannot find it Alas Who can help the Animadverter's blindness the Reverend Dean's Son at the Vniversity The meanest Sophister of a years standing in the Animadverter's own words could have solved this riddle for this profound Logician and Philosopher In all Syllogisms there is a Major and Minor and Medius Terminus It is clear that Three Distinct Gods is the middle Term as not entring the Conclusion So that if any Term be wanting it must either be the Major or Minor Terminus that is either the Predicate or Subject of the Conclusion Now let me ask this great Logician Can there be a Conclusion a Proposition as this is without a Subject and Predicate that is in other words Can there be an Affirmation and nothing affirmed a Negation and nothing denied Can there be a Proposition of one Term Can there be a Term and Copula and yet nothing coupled Will not that be a Marriage of a Man to himself Is there any thing denied of Three Distinct Infinite Intelligent Persons in the Godhead in the Conclusion or not But I am ashamed to spend the Reader 's time and abuse his patience to teach this great Dictator in Philosophy and Divinity the first Rudiments of Logick the Verb substantive est or sunt in Latine is in these Cases resolvendum hoc modo says Dutrieu Logica Dutrieu p. 3. est existens sunt existentes and the Conclusion in the Reverend Dean's Syllogism is resolved into this and therefore Three distinct infinite intelligent Persons in the Godhead are not existing which term existing is the third term in this Syllogism and to be supplied in this Syllogism both in the Minor Proposition and Conclusion and none but a person of no Logick could have been ignorant of it The Animadverter adds Ibid. I know well enough how this Socinian Syllogism must be supplied and perfected and therefore though it is not my business to correct his Blunders but to expose them I shall set it right for him thus Three distinct infinite intelligent Persons are three distinct Gods but Father Son and Holy Ghost are not three distinct Gods and therefore Father Son and Holy Ghost are not three infinite intelligent Persons Thus I say this Socinian ought to proceed c. First The Animadverter has changed the whole Syllogism the Conclusion was universal or equivalent to universal in the first form in this last it is particular in the former it was simply universally denied that there are any infinite c. Persons in the Godhead in the latter it is only particularly denied that Father Son and Holy Ghost are infinite intelligent Persons Secondly In the Conclusion of the last Syllogism not the Subject but the Predicate was to be supplied Three infinite c. Persons in the former Syllogism was the Subject and not Predicate of the Conclusion whereas in the Animadverter's Syllogism he has made three infinite Persons the Predicate From whence it is plain that this profound Logician who so often upbraids others with the want of Logick does not yet know the Subject and Predicate of a Proposition the Subject commonly precedes the Verb or copula and the Predicate commonly follows but let me tell this great Critick that this Rule is not Vniversal and I find that he cannot yet tell when it fails And now let the Animadverter jeer others of their mistakes in Orthography and the like slips more tenderly for the future since I persuade my self that a Syllogism with two terms and a Proposition with one term which is included in the former will not easily be forgotten or pardoned to such an insulting Adversary Shall I be pardoned if I add one Error in Divinity out of the same Book Error did I call it it is too mild a name I esteem it a downright blasphemy p. 230. The Animadverter notes this for an absurd and illogical Proposition to say that God is the Father How often do the sacred Scriptures tell us that God sent his Son gave his only begotten Son Are these Expressions absurd and illogical I blush to relate such blasphemous stuff since I challenge the Animadverter any other ways to expound them than by the term of the Father viz. The Father sent his Son gave his only begotten Son Our Saviour Truth it self says I am the Son of God Is this an absurd and illogical Expression since the undoubted meaning of these words are I am the Son of the Father St. Paul tells us That to us there is one God and Father Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Are all these absurd and illogical Does not Scripture all the Creeds use the Expression of God the Father Had the Animadverter that skill in Logick he so often upbraids others with the want of he would have known that God the Father is equivalent in Logick to this that God is a Father and if a Father the Father He would have understood that if this Proposition be true The Father is God it is by the Rules of Logick capable of a conversion of putting the Predicate in the place of the Subject and of the Subject in the place of the Predicate without any alteration of the signa Logica omnis nullus aliquis c. where the Subject and Predicate are both singular as I believe them in this Proposition The Father is God and I have the consent of the Schools on my side And where the Predicate is a terminus communis as the Animadverter contends that God is there a particular sign is to be added to the Predicate when it becomes the Subject as Peter is a Man some Man is Peter And now I leave it with the Animadverter to consider whether he will speak with the Scriptures the Catholick Church the Schools in saying that God is the Father or condemn all these for absurd and illogical Dances and declare that we ought to say that some particular God is the Father as some particular Man is Peter I challenge him to avoid one of these Phrases if he can by the Rules of Logick unless he denies the Divinity of the Father denies that the Father is God The same Expressions of Scripture confute what the Animadverter tells us Tritheism c. p. 130.
suppose some will object P. 78. lin 1. N. 8. That the Soul in a state of separation is not properly a Part for as much as it exists not in any Compound nor goes to the composition of it To which I answer That an actual inexistence in a Compound is not the only Condition which makes the thing a part but its essential relation to a Compound which relation is founded partly upon its original designation and partly upon its natural aptitude to be an ingredient in the constitution of a Compound This Objection lies very obvious That the Soul in a state of separation is a Person as subsisting by it self neither being a part in any Whole nor an adjunct to any Subject Animad c. p. 34. which is his own Definition of subsistence or personality The Animadverter answers That the Soul is then a part notwithstanding it exists in no whole Now in Logicks totum and pars whole and part are Relatives and mutually infer one another There can no more then be a Part without an actual Whole than a Son without a Father Adam was originally designed by God to be a Father and had a natural aptitude to become such What then Will the Animadverter or any one else affirm That he was a Father before he had a Son as the Animadverter here tells us That the Soul in a state of separation is a part tho there is no whole to which such part can belong However Secondly I confess that there is more of truth in this Answer than I believe the Animadverter was aware of viz. That when to be a Part and a Person are opposed as Contradictions We do not take this Term Part in a nice Logical sense of the Term but in a Physical sense for an incomplete Being which naturally requires to be compleated perfected by some other Co-part And thus his own Answer will be strongly retorted against himself viz. That an actual Inexistence in a Compound is not that which absolutely denies any thing to be a Person but its existing incompleatly in the Composition its Existence ad modum adjuncti instrumenti vel principii quo to some superior nature Now in this sense the WORD is not a Part the WORD is not perfected compleated by the Composition The Soul of Man is indeed compleated perfected in its Operations by the Composition is capable of the actions of sense by the Composition but yet the Soul is not perfected in its Metaphysical Suppositality the Soul is not less a principium quod of its own actions in the Composition than in a state of Separation N. 9. Thirdly This Socinian Objection falls as heavy upon the Socinians and the Animadverter in the instance of a Human Person Both will confess that the Soul is a Part and Man a Whole From whence in the Animadverter's words I argue A Whole compounded of Soul and Body as Man is and a Simple uncompounded Part as the Soul is can never be numerically one and the same Being for that differing from one another as Simple and Compound they differ as two Beings whereof one implies a Contradiction and Negation of the other A Compound Being 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 Being and his Soul after Death be a Being too it is impossible for the Soul to be one and the same Being with the Man And from these Premises I can also add P. 77. lin 1. That wheresoever there are two distinct Beings we do and must by all the Rules of Grammar and Logick say that one of them is not the other and where one is not the other we cannot in Truth or Justice say that one ought to account for what was done or not done by the other c. Let the Animadverter answer this and he answers himself A Simple and Compounded Person may as well be the same Person as a Simple and Compounded Being be the same Being These two differ modally and not really And now to return from the Mystery of the Incarnation N. 10. to that of the Sacred Trinity and to the Question the Animadverter is considering as preparatory to it viz. What is the Formal Reason of Personality in Finite Created Persons This is I confess a very proper Enquiry but there is another as proper that is unfortunately omitted by most who treat of this Sacred Mystery viz. Not what that is which strictly and formally denominates any Finite Being a Suppositum or Person but What that is which denominates it this particular Person These are two Questions What strictly and properly denominates Adam a Person And what that is which denominates him the singular Person of Adam To be a Human Person is a common indefinite universal Attribute but to be the Person of Adam is proper to the first Man That which strictly and properly denominates Adam a Person is a Mode of Subsistence totale Attributum the being a compleat Whole as the Fathers often speak That which denominates Adam the particular Person of Adam is unknown to us that which the Schoolmen call Haecceity cannot be defined Ancients and Moderns supply the place of the Individuating difference by a Collection of Accidents says Porphyry by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Personal Properties say the Ancient Fathers It is says the Author of Expositio Fidei the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Adam to be immediately formed by the hands of God to be the Husband of Eve the First Man the Father of Cain Abel Seth c. Again since the Formal Cause of any thing denominates that thing Res omnes communiter denominavi a suis formis sicut album ab albedine homo ab humanitate quare omne illud a quo aliquid denominatur quantum ad hoc habet habitudinem formae Ut si dicam iste est indutus vestimento iste ablativus construitur in habitudine causae formalis quamvis non sit forma Aquin. 1. Par. Q. 37. Art 2. of which it is the Formal Cause hence from what any thing is denominated that thing is conceived by us in the similitude of a Formal Cause nay and often so stiled In which sense * Porphyr Introd ad Arist Organon cap. 2. Porphyry says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Singulars or Individuals are so called for that each is constituted by certain Properties the Collection of which is in no other Individual Not that a Property or Proprium is a Form or Differentia but because it supplies the place of such in the imperfect description of Individuals To apply this to the Divine Persons 't is a double Enquiry What denominates the Father a Person and what denominates him the Person of the Father Subsistence totale Attributum denominates the Father a Person which is a common Attribute to Father Son and Holy Ghost Paternity to be unbegotten to send his Son c.
Adjective Form may as I have shewed be plurally predicated Nay if it were unlawful to predicate plurally an absolute Essential Attribute the Whole Church has hitherto erred which has never scrupled the Phrase of Three Divine Holy Omnipotent c. Persons or in the Phrase of the Athanasian Creed which all the Schoolmen esteemed to be genuine Three Co-eternal Persons The Schoolmen indeed were infinitely perplexed how to reconcile the Author of that Creed to himself that it was lawful to say Three Co-eternal Persons and yet at the same time forbidden to say Three Eternals in the Masculine Gender Here Thomas Aquinas their Leader help'd them at a dead lift and when he could not bring the Rule concerning the Distinction of Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective to this Creed he brought the Creed to the Rule And as Petavius somewhere observes contrary to all Rules of Grammar he interpreted all those Adjective Phrases Substantively that is he taught that they ought to have been put into the Neuter Gender it ought to have been non tria oeterna sed unum oeternum c. which Construction the Athanasian Creed will very well bear in our English Translation But I must here acknowledge to my Reader that this Distinction of an absolute and relative Predicate as the adaequate Reason of a Plural or Singular Predication in this Sacred Mystery is much Ancienter than the Schoolmen claims the Authority of the Latin Fathers who all received it from St. Augustin Augustin lib. 5. de Trin. cap. 3. That Learned and Acute Father pinch'd with an Arian Objection which himself calls calidissimum machinamentum first as I believe invented this Distinction and gave us this Maxim in relation to this Mystery Quicquid ad se dicitur Deus Ibid. Cap. 8. de singulis Personis simul de tota Trinitate singulariter non pluraliter dicitur His great Name gave this Axiom Authority with the succeeding Latin Fathers from whom the Schoolmen borrowed it First I ballance St. Augustin's Authority with his own words August Lib. 7. de Trin. cap. 6. Pater ad se dicitur persona with his own argument formerly mentioned N. 4. of this Chapter which demonstrates that this term Persona is an absolute Attribute Ibid. the same he saith of Hypostasis Omnis res ad seipsam subsistit quanto magis Deus And yet the undoubted Faith of the Church is that this term Hypostasis or Persona may be plurally predicated that we may say That there are Three Divine Hypostases or Persons If the Reader shall enquire Whether St. Augustin saw not this obvious Objection against his own Axiom I Answer That he did see it and that he chose rather to forsake the universal Faith and Language of the Church than to part with an Axiom he thought so serviceable against that Calidissimum Machinamentum that subtle Objection of the Arians Magna inopia Humanum laborat eloquium dictum est tamen tres personoe August Lib. 5. de Trin. cap. 9. non ut illud diceretur sed ne taceretur omnino which words if we strip them of that Rhetorick wherewith that Eloquent Father has cloathed and disguised them carry this plain sense That though the universal Language of the Church has called Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Persons yet to speak the truth the Phrase ought not to be used the thing ought not to be said we must say somewhat therefore we say Three Persons Non ut illud diceretur sed ne taceretur omnino I speak not this to derogate from the Honour of that deservedly Great and Learned Father but to Vindicate the Truth of this Sacred Mystery Amicus S. Augustinus magis Amica fides When St. Augustin departs from the received Faith of the Church it can be no fault to observe it or to depart from him That Learned Father confesses That he understood not the distinction of Hypostasis and Essence in this Sacred Mystery Augustin Lib. 5. de Trin. cap. 8. Dicunt quidam illi Groeci Hypostasim sed nescio quid volunt interesse inter Vsiam Hypostasim That Learned Father confesses the unhappy reason of these mistakes he wanted the assistance of the Greek Fathers the most accurate Writers in this Mystery of the Trinity as the Latin Fathers are judged the most accurate in the Pelagian Controversie Augustin Lib. 3. de Trin. praefatio Graecoe autem linguoe non sit nobis tantus habitus ut talium rerum libris legendis intelligendis ullo modo reperiamur idonei quo genere literarum ex ijs quoe nobis pauca interpretata sunt non dubito cuncta quoe utiliter quoerere possumus contineri II. Letter of Advice c. S. V. P. 148. P. 149. The Learned Mr. Dodwell has laid the same Charge to the Schoolmen viz. That they were Ignorant of the Greek Fathers and necessitated to rely on Ignorant Translations that they were Unskilful in Critical Learning that they were not ingenuously Rational in the proof of their Principles P. 151. That most of Lombard's Principles were for the much greater part Transcribed from St. Augustin that is originally from the Authority of one private Person from whom it was derived by the rest without any new Examination All I would observe from hence is That there is no necessity of concluding the Sacred Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation indefensible because the Subtleties of the Schools built for the much greater part upon the sole Authority of St. Augustin seem so to most St. Augustin himself confesses this Axiom of quicquid ad se dicitur Deus c. false in relation to this Term Person or which is worse That the Phrase of Three Persons ought not to be used A second Argument which I shall bring against this Axiom of St. Augustin's Quicquid ad se dicitur Deus c. I shall take from the Attribute of Existence Existence is an absolute Predicate We say that God is that the Father is that the Son is that the Holy Ghost is yet we cannot say that Father Son and Holy Ghost is but are I and the Father are one these Three are One. Now every Novice in Logick can inform us that Deus est is the same with this Deus est existens Pater est the same with Pater est existens and consequently Hi tres sunt the same with Hi tres sunt existentes Here also again I may plead St. Augustin's Authority against his own Axiom He once ventured to change our Saviours words and to say Qui gignit quem gignit unum est But upon second thoughts he put this passage into his Retractations and in his Books of the Trinity he affirmed it to be Sabellianism Heresy to change the Verb. Pluraliter dictum est ego pater unum sumus Augustin lib. 5. de Trin. cap. 9. Non enim dixit unum est quod Sabelliani dicunt sed unum sumus Thirdly
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or likeness of Nature between them but therefore we have the less cause to wonder if there be defects in some of their Arguments if some of their reasonings about the Trinity seem to look no further than a specifick Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons This is as little to the advantage of the Animadvertor's cause as the former allegations The Arians would not allow so much as a specifick Unity between the Father and the Son Nicepho Callist Eccles His lib. 18. cap. 47. I would fain know what Hereticks ever did allow it Nicephorus Callistus charges indeed this Opinion upon Philoponus and his followers who are commonly called the Tritheit Hereticks but he is a later and fabulous Writer wrote in the fourteenth Century long after the prevailing of the School-Divinity Philoponus and his followers the Tritheit Hereticks of the seventh Century inclined nearer to Sabellianism than to a belief of a specifick Unity of the Trinity that hard name of Tritheit Hereticks was given them by reason of some uncouth Phrases which they used of which hereafter Secondly what consequence will the Animadvertor draw from the Arians not allowing a specifick Unity between the Father and the Son This is what he aims at that it sufficed to maintain a specifick Unity to confute the Arian Heresie I desire to know why the same Plea might not have served the Reverend Dean in his learned Vindication of this Article against the Socinians who no more allow a Specifick Unity of the Trinity than the Arians of old The Socinians deny them to be three infinite minds why will not that Apologize for the Reverend Dean Why is not this molified and called only a defect in the Reverend Dean as the Animadvertor here Stiles it in the Antient Fathers Thirdly the Arians objected Tritheism against the Orthodox Faith as the Socinians do to this day So that had the Ancient Fathers believed this Heresie a consequence of asserting a specifick Unity in the Trinity they would as carefully have avoided the asserting of it as the School-men and Moderns do on all occasions Fourthly The answer of the Antients to this Objection of Tritheism by the Arians is the clearest demonstration of their judgment this is the Objection Peter James and John are three Men therefore Father Son and Holy Ghost are three Gods The general answer of the Ancients is by denying the truth of the Antecedent that Peter James and John are improperly abusively called three Men that it is contrary to the rules of Philosophy to call them otherwise than one Man and three Human Persons as we say in the Blessed Trinity there are three Divine Persons and one God Now not one School-man or Modern as I believe ever gave such an answer Not one of them ever imagined that the affirming Father Son and Holy Ghost to be one God did in the least enforce them to affirm Peter James and John to be one Man The Animadvertor thinks this Objection only Jocular only fit to be Laughed at which the Antients thought so weighty that to get rid of it they endeavoured says the learned Dr. Cudworth reflectingly with their Logick to prove that three Human Persons ought not to be called three Men. I shall consider their Logicks afterwards at present I declare that is a manifest conviction to me that they did conceive the Unity of Nature between Human and Divine Persons parallel equal n. 9. Fifthly those words are very remarkable in our Animadvertor but instead of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 held only an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or likeness of Nature between them which insinuates as if the debate of the Catholicks and Arians in the Nicene Council were only about a Title whether the Son be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Father but this is to misrepresent the Fathers of that august Assembly The Arians liked neither the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and a Creature are improperly said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again the Catholicks approved of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 provided it were understood without equivocation if there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 added to it that is perfectly alike in their Essence is to the Catholicks the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consubstantial The Arians never consented to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when their Party was too weak and they were obliged to dissemble with some Catholicks who were otherwise favourable to their Persons and cause It must be confessed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not without great force suit with the Hypothesis of the Schools of the Singularity of the common Divine Essence A Singularity will not admit of a Comparison of likeness so saith Ricardus de S. Victor Lib. 6. de Trin. c. 20. Siquidem ubi est simplex Vnitas summa simplicitas quid ibi facit qualis talis It is less wonder therefore if the School-men charge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Arianism or Semi-arrianism Vid. Petav. lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 6 per totum whereas it is capable of an Orthodox Exposition I thought it necessary to follow the Animadvertor thus closely in the examining of this Historical Truth viz. whether the Fathers of the Church believed the Modus of a Specifick Unity of the Trinity Two very great and learned Persons have said it have abundantly proved it saith the Reverend Dean Their Assertion has never yet been confuted They were not drawn into this Assertion by the heat of Disputation or to favour their own Hypothesis neither of them approve of a Specifick Unity of the Trinity The Reverend Dean rightly judged that those places they had already produced abundantly proved their conclusion and yet Petavius gives them but as an Essay and pronounces this Opinion to be the judgment of all the Greek Fathers especially Shall I ask the Animadvertor a few Questions Was not Petavius as capable of judging betwixt occasional and designed Expressions as himself as capable of judging betwixt an Allusion or an Argument a minore ad majus as himself Did not Petavius know that the Arians denyed a Specifick Unity of the Trinity Shall I ask the Animadvertor whether he ever consulted St. Basil's 43d Epistle and if he did whether he can have Brow enough to say That that Epistle was not designedly wrote of the difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether St. Basil has not in the fullest manner delivered his judgment in this point I particularly mention this Epistle because our Animadvertor quotes a passage out of it Pag. 149. of his Animadversions under the name of Greg. Nyssen de differentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom in the Printed Editions it is also ascribed and because this Epistle being both in the Works of St. Basil and Gregory
Trinity Genebrard justifies the Phrase of Three Infinite Minds Of the Phrase of Three Gods 70 N. 5 6. Whether God and Infinite Mind are Terms equipollent 72 N. 7. Of the Animadverter's Answer to the Objection of Polytheism from the Assertion of Three Divine Persons Three Relatives not one simple Being under Three Relations 73 N. 10. Whether the Ternary Number belongs only to the Personalities 78 N. 11. Whether the Divine Nature sustains Three Modes of Subsistence 79 N. 12. Of the Phrase of Three Substances N. 13. Whether two Substances necessarily differ in substance Of Bellarmin's Orthodoxness in relation to this Controversy 80 N. 16. Whether one Infinite Mind can be Three Infinite Minds In what sense the Trinity One God 82 N. 18. Of the God of the Heathens and Jews In what sense God Three Persons 83 N. 19. In what sense the Father is the only True God 85 N. 20. Of the Father's being the Fountain of the Deity 86 CHAP. V. N. 1. WHether the Ancients believed the Divine Persons to be Intelligent Beings 89 N. 2. How the Son is the Wisdom of the Father Of the Particle of in this Mystery God of God Whether Three Persons infer Three Gods 90 N. 3. Whether the same Wisdom can be both unbegotten and begotten 92 N. 4. Of the Distinction of the Divine Persons 95 CHAP. VI. N. 1. OF a double Care in Mysterious Articles What is fundamental in this Mystery Three Hypotheses concerning the Trinity In what sense I affirm the Universality of the Common Divine Essence Of the Blasphemy of the Modern Socinians compared with the Ancient Socinians Of the Antiquity of both parts of my Hypothesis 96 N. 2. Petavius and Dr. Cudworth's Assertion That a Specifick Unity of the Trinity was the dogma of the Nicene Fathers considered as to its Historical Truth and vindicated from the Animadverter's Exceptions 102 N. 10. The same discussed Problematically betwixt the Animadverter and my self 118 N. 12. How far a Specifick Unity is notional 119 N. 13. Whether a Specifick Unity implies a Multiplication in the several Individuals Lombard the first who denied that the Divine Persons differ in number Two Corollaries 1st That a numerical Unity and a specifick Unity are not according to the Philosophy of the Ancients inconsistent 2dly That it was no such Paradox in the Ancient Fathers to deny that three Human Persons ought to be called three men as it is commonly esteemed 121 N. 16. The Principles of Individuation according to the Schoolmen 128 N. 17. The Opinion of Philoponus and the Tritheit Hereticks 129 N. 18. How far a Multiplication of the Divine Nature may be allowed 130 N. 20. Whether the term Deus be a Terminus Communis 131 N. 21. The Divine Attributes no Modes 132 N. 22. Of the Animadverter's definition of the nature of God 138 CHAP. VII N. 1. SCripture the only Rule of Faith 139 N. 2. The Unity of God an Article of natural Riligion Heb. 1.3.141 Not the Warrant of Three Hypostases 142 What Three Personalities are Of the Subtleties of the Schools in relation to Three subsistences Of the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 143 The Trinity one Suppositum to Cajetan 217. The Godhead sustains not the modes of Subsistence 218. Of Personal acts according to the Schoolmen 219 N. 3. A Deity diversified Whether the Personalities are Modes 223 N. 4. Whether Modes in God Modes according to the new and old Philosophy 150 N. 6. Three Modes not sufficient to explain the Trinity The principal inquiry in this Mystery what the Three Persons are 155 N. 10. Of Real and Modal Distinction Whether the Divine Persons differ Modally 159 N. 11. Whether Personality is a personal property 161 N. 15. Three kinds of Sabellianism Confusion of Persons Contraction of the Deity to the single person of the Father The Compounding of the Trinity 163 N. 18. Rufinus acknowledges trinitatem in rebus 167 N. 19. Boetius for the Universality of the common Divine Essence N. 20. Peter Lombard 168 N. 21. Thomas Aquinas N. 22. Of a Relative subsistence and a subsisting relation The Conclusion Containing a summary Account of the whole 170 AN ANSWER TO THE ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE Vindication of the TRINITY c. By way of LETTER to the Animadverter SIR I Make bold to follow your own Example and offer the following Papers to your Admirers your self and the late Socinian Historian and Considerer This last Person has given us his judgment Considerations of the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity c. P. 12 13. That you are the only Writer since the revival of these Controversies who has indeed understood what the Church means by a Trinity in Vnity that your Explication is a true and orthodox Explication of what the Church intends to say That your design being only to declare and explain the Doctrine of the Trinity that is to notify in what sense and manner 't is held by the Church In reference to such design We this great Author and his Party the English Socinians must say That his Performance is an accurate and learned Work Thus this Socinian Historian like a Second Celsus pretends to know all the poor Orthodox are able to say in Defence of the tottering and falling Ark Ibid. p. 20. as he Blasphemously calls the Doctrine of the Sacred Trinity You you Sir have without question laid down the very Explication of the Schools Ibid. p. 4. the Doctrine or Explication generally received in Vniversities which he doubts not would be approved by most of the Chairs of our European Vniversities or Schools of Learning you verily have acquitted your self like a Man of Learning and Wit All must bow before you but his own greater Self In your Person he slays his ten thousands When Goliah is defeated the Philistines must fly This Euge concludes that Pamphlet Ibid. p. 35. And indeed he this Considerer and all others that have laboured in this Controversy may surcease their Pains henceforth and leave what they have already said to the Judgment and Conscience of all considerate and sincere Men. How much you are an Admirer of your own performance may be more than surmized from several Passages in your Book and especially from your scornful treating of your Reverend and Learned Antagonist In your Preface you tell us That you neither Reverence nor Fear him and in the same Preface you charge him P. III. With defying the Church with so bold a Front P. II. with being so very Rude Scandalous and Provoking P. IV. that it is impossible for the Tongue or Pen of Man to reply any thing so severely upon him which the foulness of his Expression will not abundantly warrant both the speaking and writing of And in the same page with peculiar Modesty you call his Vindication Stuff if his Stuff should live so long Nay not content with this Censure upon his own Person you add in the same place concerning the Governors of
the Animadvertor they are three Infinite Minds in the highest sense The Animadvertor charges the Phrase of three Infinite Minds with the grossest Tritheism it immediately and unavoidably infers three Gods Preface pag. II. The Reverend Dean pleads the Authority of the Nicene Fathers that they had said as much nay more than he they had asserted a Specifick Unity of the Trinity which in the Animadvertor's Judgment implies a multiplication of the Divine Nature that is three Infinite Spiritual Natures whereas three Infinite Spirits in the bare Phrase implies no more than that there are three possessing one Infinite Spiritual Nature Now I presume if the Dean or rather if Petavius and Dr. Cudworth were not mistaken the Animadvertor will abate something of his Confidence he will hardly have brow enough to say That the Notion of the Trinity which the Nicene Fathers advanced was a silly Heretical Notion immediately and unavoidably inferring three Gods The same Request I make to all my Orthodox Readers that they will be pleased to lay aside their Prejudice against the Admission of a Specifick Unity in the Trinity till this Historical Truth be fairly determined The Nicene Fathers Judgment is not indeed the Rule of our Faith but it deservedly demands a Veneration from all Modest and Pious Christians and is infinitely to be preferred before the bare Authority of the Schoolmen or Moderns The Animadvertor Answers n. 3. p. 174. lin 16. I must confess my self very unfit to take such great and truly learned Persons to task and that upon comparing this Author the Reverend Dean and Petavius together I find much more Reason to believe that he mistook the meaning of Petavius than that Petavius could mistake the meaning of the Fathers If the Animadvertor is unfit to take two such learned Persons to task why does he contradict their Judgment Why does he call it a traducing misrepresenting the Fathers Why does he so confidently aver That the Fathers never mark that word never used the Example of three or more individual Men agreeing in the same Nature as a parallel instance of the same sort or degree of Unity He should have added p. 175. lin 5. of Nature with that which is in the three Divine Persons The Fathers never believed indefinitely universally the same Unity betwixt Humane Persons as betwixt the Divine Persons nor is that the Question but whether they believed the same Unity of Nature betwixt the latter as is confessedly betwixt the former A Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature if we for once only suppose such an Unity has quite different Consequences from what a Specifick Unity of a created Humane Nature implies which yet alters not the Unity of each Nature Well but the Animadvertor has compared the Dean and Petavius May I ask him why he did not also consult Dr. Cudworth He gives him a Complement in the foregoing Lines his Piece is not so rare but it might easily have been procured He was a Protestant Divine a Person of great and deserved Repute for Learning and Skill in Antiquity and which is more gives judgment against himself He himself embraces the Platonick Hypothesis which infers a Generical not Specifical Unity of the Trinity He lays a very severe charge to this Notion of a Specifick Unity It seems plain that this Trinity of St. Cyril and such who believe a Specifick Unity is no other than a kind of Tritheism and that of Gods independent and co-ordinate too The Platonick and Nicene Hypothesis of the Trinity both agreed in this that the common Divine Essence was an Universal They differed in this that the Platonists held the Divinity to be a genus and consequently capable of admitting degrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the distinct Divine Persons The Nicene Fathers held the Divinity to be a Species capable of no degrees of no essential degrees but that Father Son and Holy Ghost are perfectly equal touching the Godhead in the words of the Athanasian Creed The Godhead of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is all one the Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal I say the Testimony of this learned Person is of the more weight as being against his own Judgment We naturally in such cases weigh the words of an Author with more exactness when his Authority makes against us than when it agrees with us Him therefore we have left us as an unanswered Witness What does the Animadvertor say to Petavius Has the Reverend Dean misrepresented Petavius or not Why does not the Animadvertor speak plain Why does he keep a muttering between his Teeth That he finds more reason to believe that the Reverend Dean mistook the meaning of Petavius than that Petavius could mistake the meaning of the Fathers We want a categorical Answer whether Petavius did represent a specifick Unity of the Trinity to be the meaning of the Fathers and if he did so whether in so doing he mistook their meaning and sense This question which was too hard for the Animadvertor I will answer for him but I cannot promise to his good liking The Reverend Dean did not mistake the meaning of Petavius as might be proved from innumerable places of Petavius I shall content my self with two only Petav. l. 4. de Trin. cap. 7. S. 2. In hoc uno Graecorum proesertim omnium judicium opinionesque concordant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est essentiam sive substantiam sive naturam quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant generale esse aliquid commune ac minimè definitum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verò proprium singulare circumscriptum Ibid. c. 9. S. 1. Again Antiquorum plerosque dicentes audivimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive naturam commune quiddam esse multis quod universale vocant Hypostasim verò idem atque individuum sive singulare These words are capable of no Evasion Petavius in express terms declares that according to the Judgment of all the Greek Fathers the common Divine Essence is Generale quippiam as opposed to singulare is commune quiddam multis quod Vniversale vocant Thus Petavius as well as the Reverend Dean takes in the subject before us Common Nature and Specifick Nature to be all one Had the Animadvertor consulted the seventh and ninth Chapters of this fourth Book of Petavius concerning the Trinity he could neither have doubted of Petavius's Judgment nor well of that of the Ancient Fathers Well the Animadvertor has a Refuge for himself if Petavius has given his Judgment against him in the immediate following words n. 4. But however I shall lay down this as a Conclusion which I take to be undoubtedly true p. 174. ib. viz. That the Ancient Fathers as well the Nicene as those after them held only a Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature That is in other words They held and acknowledged one Numerical God and no more This Conclusion I hold and have good reason to believe that neither Petavius nor Dr. Cudworth shall be able to
is justly esteemed by all the Moderns who follow the Schools one of the difficultest Objections against the Faith of the Trinity viz. that if three Humane Persons have three singular Humane Natures and consequently are so many Men why three Divine Persons should not also infer three singular Divine Natures and consequently be three Gods And the Answer that the School men and Moderns give is that the case is vastly different that the Unity of three Humane Persons is only Notional the Unity of the Divine Persons strictly real The Animadvertor himself p. 300. can tell you of a better Allusion and Similitude to the Union of the three Divine Persons The Vnion of Vnderstanding Memory and Will as one and the same Soul One simple Being with three Faculties is a nearer resemblance of one simple Being under three Relations than three simple Beings n. 6. But let us hear the Animadvertor himself explain this Argument p. 175. à minore ad majus If several individual Men could not properly be said to have more than one Nature much less could this be said of the three Divine Persons To which I answer First Does the Animadvertor really believe that three Men cannot properly be said to have more than one Nature or not If he believes it What will become of his Objection that a Specifick Unity implies a Multiplication of the said Nature in the several Individuals What becomes of that famous Passage of his P. 270. that Substantiis Consubstantialibus will neither be Truth nor Sense I suppose he will not deny that several individual Men are Substantioe Substances in the plural Number nor yet that Consubstantialibus signifies of one Substance of one Nature I intreat him to answer this Question Are several Men Consubstantial or not Is Christ according to his Humanity Consubstantial with us Men or not Will he dare to say that the whole Catholick Church has neither spoke Truth nor Sense For the whole Church has ever professed a Belief of Christ's Consubstantiality with us Men. If the Animadvertor shall plead that it was the Sense of the Fathers that three Men could not properly be said to have more than one Nature even that is sufficient for my purpose who am now enquiring only into the Judgment of the Fathers This is sufficient ad Hominem to the Animadvertor but for my Reader 's fuller Satisfaction I answer to the Point that so far as this Allegation is true 't is Impertinent and that so far as 't is pertinent 't is false 'T is an acknowledged Truth that the strictest Union that can be betwixt Humane Persons is but a resemblance an Allusion to that inseparable incomprehensible Union betwixt the Divine Persons But this is not the question concerning the Union of the Divine Persons indefinitely but concerning the Unity of their Nature The Fathers maintained that the Unity of the common Divine Nature was of the same kind and degree with the Unity of the common Humane Nature There is certainly a greater Union betwixt two Humane Persons who are dear and intimate Friends than betwixt two who are mortal Enemies There is a greater Union betwixt two Saints in Heaven than betwixt the best Friends on Earth And yet two mortal Enemies have the same Unity of Nature with the Saints in Heaven The Union of the Saints in Heaven is by our Saviour himself resembled to the Union of the Father and the Son John 17.22 That they may be one as we are one But these words no more denote an illimited equality than those other words of our Lord Matt. 5.48 Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect denote an equality in Perfection If we suppose three unbegotten unproduced Divine Persons three Fathers I cannot see how we can deny such to be Consubstantial since we acknowledge three Angelical Persons to be of one Nature and Substance yet three unbegotten Divine Persons three Fathers are to all the Ancient Fathers three Gods They did not therefore believe that a Specifick Unity was the only Unity of the Divine Persons that they were one upon no other account but if we can know their meaning by their words they did certainly believe a Specifick Unity And this I perswade my self the Animadvertor's Heart misgave him n. 7. He therefore comes in with a third Salvo p. 176. That he does not in the least deny but several Expressions may have dropped from the Fathers which if we looked no further might be drawn to a very inconvenient Sense That is in plain English several Expressions have dropped from them which assert if we look no further a Specifick Unity What from those Fathers who never alledged this Example as a parallel Instance but always used it by way of Allusion or à minore ad majus It seems the Animadvertor's always and never will bear an exception What Salvoe has he for this He gives it us in the following words But then also it is as little to be deny'd that the same Fathers professedly and designedly treating of the same Points here declared themselves in such terms as are very hardly if at all reconcileable to those occasional and accidental Expressions And therefore since their meaning cannot be taken from both it ought much rather to be taken from what was asserted by them designedly than what was asserted only occasionally Now it is well contrived to take the conclusion for granted he is to prove It seems that the Animadvertor would have things come to that pass that we must take his bare affirmation of a thing for a proof of it Petavius Dr. Cudworth the Reverend Dean of St. Paul's have asserted the quite contrary they have already equivalently denied it and the Animadvertor gives us his own ipse dixit that it is little to be denied Again the Animadvertor pretends no more than a difficulty or a doubt whether these designed expressions may not be reconciled to the occasional expressions The Animadvertor makes an if of it to him these latter are hardly if at all reconcileable with the former which is no great wonder since he believes tribus substantiis consubstantialibus to be neither truth nor sense since he believes a numerical Unity absolutely inconsistent with a Specifick Unity Lastly Why is the conclusion stronger than the premises Why does he make the conclusion positive Their meaning cannot be taken from both is the conclusion whereas the premises mentioned only a difficulty or a doubt They are hardly if at all reconcileable The Animadvertor was I believe n. 8. in some measure sensible of the weakness of these answers and therefore He provides a fourth Salvoe Ib. p. 176. viz. that the Orthodox Writers of the fourth and part of the fifth Century were chiefly exercised with the Arian Controversie And the Arians would not allow so much as a specifick Unity of Nature between the Father and the Son but instead of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sameness held only an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉