Animadversions UPON Dr. SHERLOCK's Book ENTITULED A Vindication of the Holy and Ever-Blessed Trinity c. TOGETHER With a more Necessary Vindication of that Sacred and Prime Article of the Christian Faith from his New Notions and False Explications of it Humbly offered to His Admirers and to Himself the Chief of them By a Divine of the Church of England The Second Edition with some Additions LONDON Printed for Randal Taylor near Stationers-Hall MDCXCIII A PREFACE OR INTRODUCTION To the following Animadversions TO be Impugned from without and Betrayed from within is certainly the worst Condition that either Church or State can fall into and the best of Churches the Church of England has had experience of Both. It had been to be wished and one would think might very reasonably have been expected That when Providence had took the Work of destroying the Church of England out of the Papists Hands some would have been contented with her Preserments without either attempting to give up her Rites and Liturgy or deserting her Doctrine But it has proved much otherwise And amongst those who are justly chargeable with the latter I know none who has faced the World and defied the Church with so bold a Front as the Author of Two very Heterodox Books the first Entituled A Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ c. Published in the Year 1674. And the other A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and ever-Blessed Trinity c. Published in the Year 1690. And as one would think Wrote purposely to let the World see that the Truth cannot be so much shaken by a direct Opposition as by a Treacherous and False Defence I shall in this Preliminary Address to the Reader pass some brief Remarks upon both these Books But first upon this which I have here undertook to Animadvert upon It is now of about Three Years standing in the World and I have wondered even to Astonishment that a Book so full of Paradoxes and those so positively as well as absurdly delivered could pass Unanswered for so long a time For the Author having therein advanced a Notion immediately and unavoidably inferring Three Gods has yet had the Confidence not only to Assert it but to Declare it Heresie and Nonsence to think or hold otherwise that is in other Words to call the whole Christian Church in all Ages and Places Fools and Hereticks For I do here averr and will undertake to prove it as far as a Negative may be proved That no Church known to us by History or otherwise ever held this Notion of the Trinity before And must we then be all Fools and Hereticks who will not acknowledge the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity to be Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits that is in other Terms to be Three Gods And can so Learned and every way Excellent a Clergy bear this For if they could not whence is it that some Writers amongst them while they are declaring their dislike of his Opinions yet do it with so soft an Air and so gentle a Touch as if they were afraid either to Condemn the Opinion or to Attack the Author Nay and some I find creeping under his Feet with the Title of Very Reverend while they are charging him with such Qualities and Humours as none can be justly chargeable with and deserve Reverence too For my own part I franckly own That I neither Reverence nor Fear him that is I Reverence none who gives whole Communities and Churches such Words nor Fear any One who Writes such Things and in such a manner For even those Mean Spirits who can both Court and Censure him in the same Breath complain That he gives no Quarter where he supposes he has his Adversary upon the least Advantage And if this be his Way and Temper never to give Quarter I am sure he has no cause to expect any whatsoever he may find But still methinks I can hardly believe my Eyes while I read such a Pettit Novellist Charging the Whole Church as Fools and Hereticks for not Subscribing to a Silly Heretical Notion solely of his own Invention For does he or can he think to Live and Converse in the World upon these Terms And to throw his Scurrility at High and Low at all About him Above him and Below him if there be any such at this insufferable rate Does he I would fain know in this speak his Judgment or his Breeding Was it the School the University or Gravel-Lane that taught him this Language Or does he never reflect upon himself nor consider That though he does not others assuredly will One would think by his Words and Carriage that he had ingrossed all Reason and Learning to Himself But on the contrary that this his scornful looking down upon all the World besides is not from his standing upon any higher ground of Learning and Sufficiency than the rest of the World and that he Huffs and Dictates at a much more commanding rate than he Reasons the perusal of my Ninth Tenth and Eleventh Chapters will or I am sure may sufficiently inform the Impartial Reader and shew him how many things there are in this Author's Vindication which too much need Another but admit none In the mean time I do and must declare both to himself and to all others That the forementioned Charge of Heresie and Nonsence as he has laid it is so very Rude Scandalous and Provoking that it is impossible for the Tongue or Pen of Man to reply any Thing so severely upon him which the foulness of the said Expression will not abundantly warrant both the Speaking and the Writing of The Church of England is certainly very Merciful Merciful as a Great Judge once said of K. Charles II. even to a Fault For who by her silence upon what this Bold Man has Wrote and the Encouragement he has since received would not be shrewdly induced after some consider able number of Years if his stuff should live so long to believe that his Notions were the Current Doctrine of our Church or at least of our Church-men at that time None then opposing them most over-looking them and some countenancing and advancing the Author of them and perhaps for them too This is truly the Case and I hope to do the Church of England so much Service at least as to break the Universality both of the Silence and the presumed Acceptance by one plain resolute and full Negative put in against it For upon a due Consideration of the Things vented by this Author and comparing them with the Proceedings and Zeal of the Primitive Church in its Councils I do from my Heart believe That had he lived and published this Book in those Days and Asserted That the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity were Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits And that Their Personal distinction consisted only in Self-Consciousness and their Unity only in Mutual-Consciousness And withal That the Terms Essence Nature Substance
make an Explication of it superfluous this Author having quoted Peter Lombard in such or such a sence ought in all Reason to have produced the Major and more eminent part of the School-men and Writers upon him and shewn their Unanimous Concurrence in the same Sence and Notion which he took him in and quoted him for And this indeed would have been to his Purpose and look'd like proving his Opinion to have been the Doctrine of the Schools Otherwise I cannot see how the Master of the Sentences can be called or pass for all the School men any more than the Master of the Temple can pass for all the Divines of the Church of England Unless we should imagine that this Peter Lombard had by a kind of Mutual Consciousness gathered all his Numerous Brood into Himself and so united them all into one Author So that the Sum of all is this That this Author having declared his Opinion the constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools to make his words good has produced for it Three or Four Greek Fathers and Two Latin though even these no more to his purpose than if he had quoted Dod and Cleaver or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Homer and lastly One Sentence out of one School-man Which if it be allowed to pass for a good just and sufficient Proof of any Controverted Conclusion let it for the future by all means for this our Author's sake be an Established Rule in Logick from a Particular to infer an Universal And now that I am bringing my Reader towards a close of this long Chapter I must desire him to look a little back towards the beginning of the foregoing Chapter wherein upon this Man 's Confident Affirmation That his Opinion was the constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools I thought it necessary to state what his Opinion was and accordingly I shew'd that it consisted of Four Heads 1st That the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity were three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits which how far he was from being able to prove from the Authority of any of the Fathers cited by him was sufficiently shewn by us in the preceding Chapter The 2d Was That Self Consciousness was the formal Reason of Personality in the said three Persons and consequently That whereby they were distinguished from each other which in the same Chapter I shew'd he was so far from proving from the Authority of those Ancient Writers that he did not alledge one Tittle out of any of them for it nor indeed so much as mention it in any of the Quotations there made by him And as for the 3d. Member of his said Hypothesis viz. That the Unity of the Divine Nature in the three Blessed Persons Consisted in the Mutual Consciousness belonging to them This we have Examined at large and confuted in this Chapter But still there remains the 4th And last to be spoken to as completeing his whole Hypothesis and resulting by direct Consequence from the other Three viz. That a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity explained by the three forementioned Terms or Principles is a very plain easie and intelligible Notion which having been in a most Confident Peremptory manner affirmed by him all along as I shew in Chap. 1. and upon that Score making so great a part of his Hypothesis ought in all reason to be proved to have been the Sence and Doctrine of the Fathers concerning this Article But not one word does he produce upon this Head neither Nor for my own part do I expect ever to find the least Sentence or Syllable in any Ancient Writer tending this way And I challenge this Author to produce so much as one to this purpose In the mean time how and with what kind of words I find these Ancient Writers expressing themselves about this venerable Mystery I shall here set down Only I shall premise a Sentence or two out of this Author himself and which I have had occasion to quote more than once before from Page 106. line 7. viz. That the Unity in Trinity being as he confesses so great a Mystery that we have no Example of it in Nature it is no wonder if it cannot be explained by any one kind of Natural Union and that therefore it was necessary to use several Examples and to allude to several kinds of Union to form an Adequate Notion of the God head and moreover Page 139. line 26. c. That there is nothing like this Mysterious Distinction and Unity and that we want proper words to express it by All which Passages lying clear open and express in the fore-cited places of this Author I must needs ask him Whether all these are used by him to prove the Unity in Trinity a plain easie and intelligible Notion as he has frequently elsewhere asserted it to be As to go over each of the Particulars First Whether we must account it plain because he says It is a great Mystery of which we have no Example in Nature And Secondly Whether we must reckon it easie because he says That it cannot be Explained by any one kind of Natural Union but that several Examples must be used and several sorts of Union alluded to for this purpose And Lastly Whether it must pass for Intelligible because he tells us That we want proper Words to express it by that is in other Terms to make it Intelligible since to express a Thing and to make it Intelligible I take to be Terms equivalent In fine I here appeal to the Reader Whether we ought from the forementioned Passages of this Author to take the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity for a plain easie Intelligible Notion according to the same Author's affirmation so frequently inculcated in so many Parts of his Book But I shall now proceed to shew as I promised how the Fathers speak and declare themselves upon this great Point And here we will begin first with Iustin Martyr A Singularity or Unity says he is understood by us and a Trinity in Unity is acknowledged But how it is thus I am neither willing to ask others nor can I perswade my self with my Muddy Tongue and Polluted Flesh to attempt a Declaration of such Ineffable Matters And again speaking of the Oeconomy of the blessed Trinity the nature and manner says he of this Oeconomy is unutterable And yet again speaking of this Mysterious Oeconomy of the Deity and the Trinity as one of the greatest Mysteries of the Christian Faith I cry out says he O wonderful For that the Principles and Articles of our Religion surpass and transcend the Understanding Reason and Comprehension of a Created Nature In the next place Dionysius the Areopagite or some very Ancient Writer under that Name calls it the Transcendent Superessential and Superlatively Divine Trinity In like manner Gregory Nyssen we apprehend says he in these viz. the three Divine Persons a certain Inexpressible Inconceivable
Fathers to have been not only less happy in expressing themselves about this Mystery than this Author as with great Modesty and Deference to them he often tells us they were but which is yet much worse that they were the most wretchedly unhappy in wording their own Notions of all Men who ever yet set Pen to Paper And as for this Author if Unutterable Unconceivable and Unintelligible can pass with him for Plain Easie and Intelligible it is high time for me to leave off disputing with him and either to have no more to do with him or without any further demurr to profess my self as ready to believe and grant Contradictions as he is or can be to Write them CHAP. VIII In which is set down the Ancient and generally received Doctrine of the Church concerning the Article of the Blessed Trinity as it is Delivered and Explained by Councils Fathers School-men and other later Divines together with a Vindication of the said Doctrine so Explained from this Author s Exceptions THough I cannot think that the Nature and Design of the Work undertook by me which was only to Animadvert upon and confute this Author's Novel Heterodox Notions about the Trinity does or can directly engage me to proceed any further or lay any Necessity upon me to give a positive Account of the Doctrine and Sence of the Church about this great Article yet since this Author in asserting his own Opinion could not be content to do it without reproaching and reflecting upon those Ancient Terms which the Church has been so long in possession of and has still thought fit to use in declaring it self upon this Subject as if instead of Explaining they served only to perplex obscure and confound it and since the Reasonableness or Unreasonableness of either Hypothesis is most likely to appear by fairly setting down one as well as the other and shewing what this Opiniator is gone off from as well as what he is gone over to I judge it neither improper nor unuseful to represent what the Church has hitherto held and taught concerning this Important Article of the Trinity as I find it in Councils Confessions Fathers School-men and other Church-Writers Ancient and Modern And in this also I must be again content to entertain my Reader only with a Tast or Specimen out of so vast a store which yet I do with very good Reason judge both satisfactory and sufficient in a Point of Divinity Universally owned received and embraced and unless by such as reject and deny the Trinity it self never Impugned or Contradicted before 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 Faith 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 alloted to one and the same God-head and these also distinguished from one another by three distinct Relations Concerning which we must observe That albeit according to the Reality of the Thing the Subsistence and Relation of each Person make but one Single Indivisible Mode of Being yet according to the Natural Order of conceiving Things we must conceive of the Subsistence as precedent to the Relation Forasmuch as humane Reason considers Things simply as Subsisting before it can consider them as Relating to one another But for the further Explication of the Point before us it will here be necessary to premise what is properly a Mode of Being And this the School Divines do not allow to be either a Substance or an Accident which yet makes the adequate Division of Real Beings since there is no such Being but what is contained under one of them but a Mode is properly a certain Habitude of some Being Essence or Thing whereby the said Essence or Being is determined to some particular State or Condition which barely of it self it would not be determined to And according to this account of it a Mode in Things Spiritual and Immaterial seems to have much the like reference to such kind of Beings that a Posture has to a Body to which it gives some difference or distinction without superadding any new Entity or Being to it In a word a Mode is not properly a Being either Substance or Accident but a certain affection cleaving to it and determining it from its common general Nature and indifference to something more particular as we have just now explained As for Instance in Created Beings Dependence is a Mode determining the general Nature of Being to that particular State or Condition by vertue whereof it proceeds from and is supported by another and the like may be said of Mutability Presence Absence Inherence Adherence and such like viz. That they are not Beings but Modes or Affections of Being and inseparable from it so far that they can have no Existence of their own after a separation or division from the Things or Beings to which they do belong And thus having explained in General what a Mode is we are to know That the Personalities by which the Deity stands diversified into Three Distinct Persons 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 Creature by a perfect Univocation And moreover 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 ofits proper Mode of Subsistence includes in it the Godhead it self and is properly the Godhead as subsisting with and under such a certain Mode or Relation And this I affirm to be the Current Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools concerning the Persons of the Blessed Trinity and the constantly received Account given by them of a Divine Person so far as they pretend to Explain what such a Person is And accordingly as these Relations are Three and but Three so the Persons of the Godhead to whom they belong are so too viz. Father Son and Holy Ghost But then we must observe also That the Relations which the Godhead may sustain are of Two sorts 1st Extrinsecal and founded upon some External act issuing from God of which sort are the Relations of Creator Preserver Governour and the like to the Things Created Preserved and Governed by him Which though they leave a real effect upon
Person and Hypostasis or Subsistence c. applyed to the Godhead and the Divine Persons served only to perplex obscure and confound Men's Apprehensions of them and for that cause ought to be laid aside I say I do not in the least question but that all and every one of these Propositions would have been publickly and solemnly Condemned in Council and the Author of them as high as he now carries his Head like another Abbot Joachim severely dealt with for Asserting them and that upon great Reason Forasmuch as the Two chief of those Terms viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Substance and Subsistence were equally with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self opposed by those Two grand Arian Hereticks and Furious Disturbers of the Church Ursacius and Valens who with their Accomplices vehemently contended to have them all wholly suppressed and disused So that as for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Father and the Son they would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no mention at all to be made of any such Thing and as for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so much as to be named concerning any of the Three Persons And as one Reason for this they alledged the satisfaction of Tender Consciences Which shews That there are some such tender Consciences in the World as when opportunity serves may put the Church not only to part with its Liturgy Rites and Ceremonies but its very Creed also for their sake But right or wrong those Two Arian Incendiaries pressed hard for the Abolition of these Two Words as this Author also does in this his Vindication treading hereby exactly in the steps of those Blessed Leaders who no doubt understood the Interest of their base Cause well enough and were both Self-Conscious and Mutually-Conscious how much they served the design they drove at by what they did And since Things were so in former Days what hinders but that in these latter Days likewise the same if not prevented may happen again And that One who tho' he carries himself as if he were able to teach the whole World yet for some certain Reasons professes himself a Learner still having already exploded the Terms Substance and Subsistence as not to be used about the Trinity may upon the winning prospect of some Approaching Advantage as where Advantage is the Teacher some care not how long they continue Learners be very easily prevailed upon to send the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 packing after its Fellows and to abandon and cast off that too For though such an One should give the Church his Oath to the contrary there is no security from thence but that a Perpetual Learner by a due waiting upon Providence may all in convenient time Learn to forget it too And a Self-Contradictor having freely allowed a Thing at one time as freely and fully disown it at another Wherefore it was no doubt upon a most serious consideration of the force of Words in Conjunction with the Tempers of Men That the Sixth General Council and Third of Constantinople was so jealously concerned and so remarkably strict to fence against all Heretical Mischief from that Quarter as appears from the Concluding Article of the Synodical Sentence pronounced by the said Council against the Monothelites as we find it thus set down in the Acts thereof These Things therefore being thus with the utmost care and exactness on all sides formed and drawn up by us We Decree and Enact That it shall not be lawful for any one to Produce Write Compose Conceive or Teach another Faith or this in any other way or manner But as for those who shall presume to Compose or Contrive another Faith or Publish Teach or deliver forth another Creed to such as shall be ready to come over to the Acknowledgment of the Truth from Heathenism or Judaisine or any other Sect whatsoever or shall introduce any unusual way of speaking or new Invented Terms as tending to Subvert all that has been defined by us if they be Bishops or in Clerical Orders we decree That they shall be deprived of their Bishopricks or said Orders or if they be Monks or Laymen that they shall be Anathematized So that we have here a clear and full Declaration of a General Council against all teaching not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not only against delivering another Faith but against delivering the same in another way or manner than the Council had settled and against the use of all new-Invented Terms all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness themselves not excepted as in the Judgment of the Council destructive in their consequence to the Faith declared and all this upon pain of Deprivation or Anathematization as the Quality of the Persons concerned should happen to be According to the rigour of which Sentence and the Proceeding of the Church in those â—ges sutable to it Deprivation or Suspension would no doubt have attended this Author had he then lived and produced his new Terms in defiance and reproach of the former received ones And if such a punishment had actually befallen him he would have found that in those Days Men were not wont either to be Suspended or Deprived in order to their Promotion I know indeed that in the Apology lately put out by him for Writing against the Socinians he utters some Things contrary to what he had Asserted in this his Vindication of the Trinity But this the Reader ought not at all to be surprized at it being as Natural to some Men to Write as to Breath and to Contradict themselves at to Write And no Man of Sence who knows this Author will reckon that he knows his Iudgment or Opinion from any Book Wrote by Him any longer than till he Writes another nor from that neither till he has Wrote his last Having given the Reader this short Prelibation or Taste of the Book which I shall more particularly and fully examine presently I think fit to remark something also upon that other Piece mentioned by me and Entituled A Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ c. A Book fraught with such Vile and Scandalous Reflexions upon God's Justice with reference to Christ's Satisfaction that it may deservedly pass for a Blasphemous Libel upon both And I do seriously think that never was any Book Licensed Published and suffered to pass Uncontrolled more to the Disgrace of the Church of England than this which the Reader will quickly see upon his Reading some Passages of it which I am sure if he be but Christianly disposed be cannot do but with extreme Horrour But before I direct the Reader to his Blasphemies I shall lay before him one Grand leading Absurdity which utterly Evacuates and Overthrows the whole Doctrine of Free Grace and the Redemption of Mankind thereby and indeed by Consequence
the whole Oeconomy of the Christian Religion And it is that Wonderful Assertion concerning the Goodness of God in Page 44. of his Knowledge of Christ viz. That it is not possible to understand what Goodness is without Pardoning Grace Now certain it is that Natural Reason by its own light is able from the Common Works of God's Providence to collect the Knowledge of God's Goodness as St. Paul expresly told those Heathens of Lycaonia Acts 14. 17. and therefore if the Knowledge of God's Goodness necessarily implies in it the Knowledge of Pardoning Grace it will follow That the Heathens by understanding one from the Works of Providence must needs understand and know the other also and consequently that the Knowledge of Pardoning Grace is not owing to Revelation nor the Gospel necessary to make a Discovery of it to Mankind A Blessed Principle and Foundation no doubt to establish the New-designed Scheme of a Natural Religion upon For it is not unknown what Projects were on foot amongst some when this Book was Wrote though the Author had the ill luck to be left in the Lurch and not seconded in the Attempt But in opposition to this Paganish Assertion I do here affirm That if God may be Good and that both as to the Essential Attribute of his Goodness and as to the actual Exercise of the same without the Pardon of Sin then it is not impossible to understand the Goodness of God without Pardoning Grace The Consequence is evident For whatsoever any Thing is it is capable of being understood to be And as for the Antecedent that is manifest from these Considerations First That God was Good and exerted Acts of Goodness before there was any Sin in the World and therefore might be and undoubtedly was understood both as Good and as exercising his Goodness by the Angels before the Fall of any of them and for that reason before Pardon of Sin could come into Consideration In the next Place God had been Good and had exercised his Goodness had Men and Angels been Created Impeccable and I am sure it is no Contradiction to hold That they might have been Originally made such as all Glorified Spirits now actually are And Lastly God is and may be understood to be Good even in respect of those whose Sins shall never be pardoned And therefore that Assertion of this Author That it is not possible to understand what Goodness is without Pardoning Grace is apparently false and absurd as drawing after it One of these Two Consequences First That either we cannot understand the Creation and Support of Angels and of this visible World and particularly of Mankind to have been Acts and Instances of the Divine Goodness which yet no doubt were very great ones Or Secondly That we cannot understand them as such but by understanding them also to imply in them Pardoning Grace And if so then supposing the Creation of Man and his Sin after his Creation and the Goodness of God remaining still entire notwithstanding Man's Sin as it certainly did it will follow that Pardoning Grace having according to the forementioned Principle a necessary Connexion with or result from the said Goodness must have fallen in of course and by necessary consequence from thence And then Where could be the Freedom of this Grace Nay Where could be this Grace it self For the very Nature of Grace consists in this that it be an Act perfectly Free so free that God might have chosen after Man had sinned whether he would ever have offered him any Conditions of Pardon or no And if he had not Men might notwithstanding that have abundantly known and understood the Goodness of God by several other Acts and Instances in which it had sufficiently declared it self So that the foregoing Assertion is nothing but a gross Paradox and a Scurvy Blow at all Revealed Religion besides if the Knowledge of Pardoning Grace could or may be had without it And now after this Absurdity presented to the Reader 's Examination I shall point out to him some of the Blasphemies also that occurr in the same Book Such as are these that follow The Justice of God says he having glutted it self with Revenge on Sin in the Death of Christ henceforward we may be sure he will be very kind as a Revengeful Man is when his Passion is over Knowledge of Christ P. 46. Again the Sum of the Matter is That God is all Love and Patience when he has taken his fill of Revenge as others use to say That the Devil himself is very good when he is pleased Pag. 47. Again The Death of Christ says he discovers the Naturalness of Justice to God that is That he is so Just that he has not one Dram of Goodness in him till his Rage and Vengeance be satisfied which I confess is a glorious kind of Justice And presently after Now the Justice and Vengeance of God having their Actings assigned them to the full being glutted and satiated with the Blood of Christ God may pardon as many and great Sins as he pleases P. 59. And sutable to this he likewise calls the Method of God 's saving Sinners upon a Previous Satisfaction made to his Iustice as necessary for the Remission of Sin God's Trucking and Bartering with Sin and the Devil for his Glory P. 52. Concerning which and the like Expressions uttered by this Great-Good Man as a certain poor Wretch calls him I cannot but out of a due Zeal and concern for that Eternal Truth by which I hope to be Saved declare That the Tongue that should Speak such things deserves to Speak no more and the Hand that should Write them to Write no more And great pity it is that at this time and in this case also his Ascendant had not tyed up his Hands from Writing For see how one of the Leading Dissenters Insults over our Church upon occasion of these Horrid Passages Is this says he Language becoming a Son of the Church of England Ought it not more justly to have been expected from a Iew or a Mahometan From Servetus or Socinus from whom also it was borrowed than from a Son of the Church in a Book published by Licence and Authority And thus he goes on equally Chastising his Arrogance and Exposing his Ignorance the poor Church 's Reputation all the while paying the Scores of both But now if either He himself or any for him shall plead That it was not fairly done to charge him with those Blasphemies which he may and perhaps does pretend to have been uttered by Him in the Person of his Adversary and as the genuine Consequences of the Doctrine maintained by him To this I Answer First That he who pretends to speak in the Person of another ought according to all Justice and Decorum to speak only such Things as that other whom he personates uses to speak and consonant to his known Avowed Sence But did his Adversary Dr. Owen ever speak so Or use the Expressions here
what concerns the Licensing this Book so severely and so justly reflected upon by Dr. Owen it did it must be confessed meet with a Person as it were framed for the very purpose For none certainly could be so fit to stamp an Imprimatur upon a Book Wrote against Christ 's Satisfaction as One who while he was Eating the Bread and Wearing the Honours of the Church could stab the Doctrine of it to the Heart by Writing for Transubstantiation And then in the next place for it s passing Uncontrolled it had really been to be wished That the Clergy in Convocation in the last especially in which so many of them acquitted themselves so exceeding worthily upon other Accounts would have vouchsafed to wipe off this foul Blot from the Church by a due Censure passed upon the forementioned Positions so reproachful to that and so Contumelious to our Common Christianity For what vast advantage the Dissenters have taken from hence to Scandalize and Bespatter the Government and Governours of our Church is but too well known and cannot be too much Lamented and I heartily wish That it had been a Scandal only Taken and not Given And the rather do I represent this as a Work fit for the Convocation since this Author has given the World such a Notable Proof That nothing but a Convocation can Convince or work upon him And thus I have given the Reader a Specimen of the Doctrines of this Author in these Two Books of his In the former of which he affects to be the Socinian 's humble Servant by Ridiculing and Exploding Christ 's Satisfaction of God 's Iustice and so in effect the whole Mystery of the Gospel And in the latter he pretends to oppose them by such a Vindication of the Trinity and of Christ's Incarnation as one would think were Wrote by Themselves But whatsoever it is that he either pretends or intends as it is hard to know the latter by the former this Character I shall give of him as a Writer That there is hardly any one Subject which he has Wrote upon that of Popery only excepted but he has Wrote both for it and against it too Not that I say that he has Printed all which he has so Wrote but Printing is not the only way of Publication and this I will say besides That where he has not Printed he has Acted it with a Witness And yet even for Printing could any thing be Wrote and Printed more sharp and bitter against the Dissenters than what this Man Wrote in his Answer to the Protestant Reconciler And yet how frankly or rather fulsomely does he open both his Arms to embrace them in his Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor on Novemb. 4. 1688 Though I dare say That the Dissenters themselves are of that Constancy as to own That they were of the same Principles in 88 that they were of in 85. But the Truth is Old Friendships cannot be so easily forgot And it has been an Observation made by some that hardly can any one be found who was first tainted with a Conventicle whom a Cathedral could ever after cure but that still upon every cross Turn of Affairs against the Church the irresistible Magnetism of the Good Old Cause as some still think it would quickly draw him out of the Good Old Way The Fable tells us of a Cat once turned into a Woman but the next sight of a Mouse quickly dissolved the Metamorphosis cashiered the Woman and restored the Brute And some Virtuosi skilled in the Useful Philosophy of Alterations have thought her much a gainer by the latter change there being so many unlucky turns in the World in which it is not half so safe and advantagious to Walk Upright as to be able to fall always upon one's Legs But not to hold the Reader too long in the Entrance of the Work which I am about to present him with I do here assure him That in the following Animadversions I have strictly pursued this Author in every part of his new Hypothesis I have answered all his Arguments not omitting so much as one or any Thing that looks like one And if I have thought fit sometimes in a short Remark or two here and there to refresh the Reader and my self by exposing his Bold and Blind side together yet this has still been my method throughly to dispatch the Argument before I offer to divert upon the Author As for that part of his Book which peculiarly concerns the Socinians I leave him and them to fight it out My business is to shew That the Doctrine of our Church is absolutely a stranger to his Novel and Beloved Notions It knows them not It owns them not nor ought we to look upon him so far as he Asserts and Maintains them to be any True and Genuine Son of it And consequently whether he worries the Socinians or which is much the more likely the Socinians worry him the Church of England is not at all concerned The Contents of the Chapters CHAPTER I. REpresenting the Sence and Signification of the Word Mystery as also a Vindication of the Use and Application of it to some of the most Difficult and Sublime Truths of the Gospel and lastly a full Proof That the Account given by this Author of his Explication of the Article of the Trinity is wholly inconsistent with the Mysteriousness of it together with some Remarks upon his needless Apology for Writing against the Socinians CHAP. II. Containing an Account of several Terms commonly made use of in discoursing of the Divine Nature and Persons and particularly shewing the Propriety of Applying the Words Essence Substance Nature Infinity and the like to this great Subject and lastly proving this Author's Exceptions against the use of them about the same False Groundless and Impertinent With some further Remarks upon his forementioned Apology CHAP. III. In which this Author 's New Notion of Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness is briefly declared Self-Consciousness made by him the Formal Constituent Reason of Personality in all Persons both Create and Increate and on the contrary proved against him in the first place That it is not so in Persons Create CHAP. IV. In which is proved against this Author That neither is Self-Consciousness the Formal Constituent Reason of Personality in the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity nor Mutual-Consciousness the Reason of their Unity in one and the same Nature CHAP. V. In which is proved against this Author That the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits CHAP. VI. In which is considered what this Author pretends to from the Authority of the Fathers and the Schoolmen in behalf of his New Hypothesis and in the first place shewn That neither do the Fathers own the Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Infinite Minds nor Self-Consciousness to be the Formal Reason of their Distinction CHAP. VII In which is shewn That the Passages alledged by this Author
Subject he has as great or greater a Quarrel at the word Infinite as applyed to God and I shall here give his Exceptions against it in his own words being such as I believe few would dare to utter but himself and approaching so near or rather quite coming up to Blasphemy that it may be truly said That he has not spoke more blasphemously of God's Vindictive Iustice in his Book of the Knowledge of Christ than he has spoken of God's Infinity in this For in the 77 78 79 Pages he expresses his Thoughts of it thus The truth is says he this very word Infinite confounds our Notions of God and makes the most perfect and excellent Being the most perfectly unknown to us For Infinite is only a Negative Term and signifies that which has no end no bounds no measure and therefore no positive and determined Nature and therefore is Nothing mark that and withal That an Infinite Being had not Use and Custom reconciled us to that expression would be thought Nonsence and Contradiction Which I am so far from granting him that I affirm if there had never been any thing in the World besides God alone it had yet been most True and Rational But he goes on For says he every Real Being has a certain and determined Nature and therefore is not Infinite in this sense which is so far from being a Perfection that it signifies Nothing Real Thus he discourses And yet this word Infinite has been universally received and applyed to the Divine Nature by Learned Men in all Places and Ages and I desire this Man to tell me How if this word Infinite were so liable to be thought Nonsence and Contradiction this could possibly come to pass For what he speaks of Use and Custom reconciling us to this Expression is Impertinent and begs the Thing in dispute For still I would know of him how a word so utterly unfit to express the Thing it was applyed to could ever pass into Use and Custom so as to be took up approved and made use of by all Mankind Let him prevail with the whole World to speak Nonsence and to use words that signifie nothing if he can But this Man before he played the Aristarchus at this rate should have done well to have considered That every Term is not Negative which has a Negative Particle in the Composition of it Of which innumerable Instances may be given And if he does not know this for all his flirting at his Socinian Adversary as if he knew neither Greek nor Latin P. 95. it is a scurvy sign that he is not so over-stocked with either of them as to have any to spare And therefore whereas he goes on in Page 78. and pretends there to explain this word Infinite he might have kept his Explication to himself For no body ever used it otherwise but so as to signifie a Positive Perfection by it but yet withal connoting an Illimitation belonging to it It signifies I say a Thing Real Absolute and Positive but still with a Connotation of something which is to be removed from it and denied of it such as are all bounds and limits in respect of that Substantial All-comprehending Perfection of the Divine Nature In a word the Thing principally signified by this Term is Positive the Thing Consignified or Connoted which is but Secondary and Consequential is a Negation And this sufficiently overturns all his odd Descants upon it But if after all our Minds cannot fully master this Notion Persons as thinking as he can be know and acknowledge that it is not the word Infinite but the Thing Infinite that renders them so short and defective in this matter But it is pleasant to see him take his Turns backwards and forwards in speaking of this Thing There is says he Page 78. a measure of the most Absolute and in this sense Infinite Perfections and if such a measure there be then I hope there is as much Nonsence and Contradiction in the word Immense as in the word Infinite and withal if there is even in the most Absolute and Infinite Perfections a no plus ultrà and an ultimum quod sic as the School-men who were never bred at St. Mary Overies are apt to speak then I confess That an Infinite with all these Qualifications about it must needs according to his beloved Dialect be Nonsence and Contradiction and that of the highest Rank And again P. 79. We know not says he how far Infinite Wisdom and Power and Goodness reaches and thus much is very true but then says he again we certainly know that they have their Bounds and that the Divine Nature is the utmost Bounds of them By which words if he means That they have their fixed determinate Notions whereby they are formally distinguished among themselves as well as from other Things it is right For the Notion of Infinite Wisdom is so bounded that it cannot be said to be Infinite Power or Infinite Power to be Infinite Goodness or the like but still the Thing couched under all these is Infinite and neither has nor can have any Bounds set to its Being And if he should here reply That then the Notion of Infinite Wisdom Power and the like are false Notions as not answering the Things they are applyed to I answer That they are indeed imperfect and inadequate as not fully answering the Thing it self but they cannot be said to be false for all that But on the contrary if he will needs have the Thing hereby signified to have any Real Bounds or Limits of its Being then it will and must follow That in the forecited words he has with Accurate and Profound Speculation presented to us An Infinite with Bounds and the Divine Nature which has no Bounds made the Bounds of it These are the very words he uses and withal delivered by him with such a Magisterial Air and Contempt of the whole World besides who have hitherto approved and made use of these Expressions and that in a Sense and signification not to be born down by every self Opiniator after so long and universal a Prescription that so much Confidence cannot be sufficiently wondred at nor too severely rebuked And therefore to review a little the foregoing particulars and thereby to take some estimate of the Man Where shall we find such another Instance of a private Presbyter who in the Communion or rather in the very Bosom of so pure and Orthodox a Church as this our Church of England ever before durst in so great an Article of the Christian Faith draw his Pen against all the Writers of the Church Ancient and Modern Fathers and School-men and with one dash of it explode and strike off all those received Terms by which they constantly explained this Mystery as not only useless but mischievous in all Discourses about it Whereas not to anticipate what I intend more particularly and fully upon this Head in my Eighth Chapter I shall only affirm thus
much at present That the Greek Writers in expressing the Godhead or Divine Nature whensoever they do not use the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constantly express it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were commonly used in the same sense And likewise the Latins where they express not the same by Deitas or Divinitas do as constantly express it by Natura and Substantia which words stand now particularly condemned by this Presuming Man and that not only in Defiance of all the Ancients but also of the Church of England Her Self which has set her Authorizing Stamp upon those Two Words Substance and Person by applying them to this Subject both in her Articles and Liturgy In the first of them teaching us That in the Unity of the Godhead there are three Persons of one Substance Power and Eternity Artic. 1. And in her Liturgy rendring the Athanasian Creed by the same words Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance As likewise that Passage in the Nicene Creed by the Son 's being of one Substance with the Father And again in the Doxology at the Communion on Trinity Sunday it gives us these full and notable words One God one Lord not one onely Person but three Persons in one Substance After all which with what face can this strange Anomalar Son of the Church while he is sucking her Breasts and at the same time poysoning the Milk with which she should feed her Children I say with what Face can he aver to the World That this word Substance thus embraced owned and used by her ought to be thrown away as the Direct Cause of all the Errours Men are apt to fall into about this great Mystery And that we can have no Notion of Substance but what implies in it something gross and material Which were it so can any one imagine that the Church of England would ever have made use of such a word as could serve for nothing but a Snare and a Trap to betray the Understandings and Consciences of Men into such Errours as may cost them their Souls This is so fouly Reflexive upon her that I would have any Man living give me a good Reason Why this Author should not be call'd upon by Publick Authority to give the Church satisfaction for the Scandal given to all the Orthodox Members of it by the Contumely and Reproach which he has passed upon those Terms and Words which She has thought fit so solemnly to express her Faith and her Devotions by But some Men such is the Regard had to her Laws and Discipline will venture to utter and write any Thing that the Bookseller will pay them for though they throw their Conscience and Religion into the Bargain But God himself who resisteth the Proud seems to have took the Matter into his own Hands and to shew his Controlling Providence over the Minds and Hearts of Men has at length brought this Scornful Man to eat his own words the hardest Diet certainly that a proud Person can be put to and after all the black Dirt thrown by him upon the School-men and their Terms to lick it off again with his own Tongue So that after he had passed such a Terrible Killing Doom upon these words Essence Substance Subsistence Suppositum Person and the like here in his Vindication all on a suddain in a relenting Fit he graciously reaches out his Golden Scepter of Self-Contradiction and Restores them to Life again in his Apology And that the Reader may behold both sides of the Contradiction the more clearly I think it the best and fairest way to give him the Sense of this Author if it may be so call'd in his own Words Vindication I Have not troubled my Reader with the different signification of Essence Hypostasis Subsistence Persons Existence Nature c. which are Terms very differently used by the Greek and Latin Fathers and have very much obscured this Doctrine instead of explaining it P. 101. l. 12. The School-men have no Authority where they leave the Fathers whose sense they sometimes seem to mistake or to clog it with some peculiar Niceties and Distinctions of their own P. 138. l. 28. The Truth is that which has confounded this Mystery viz. of the Trinity has been the vain endeavour to reduce it to Terms of Art such as Nature Essence Substance Subsistence Hypostasis and the like Pag. 138. l. the last P. 139. l. 1. And speaking of the Ancient Fathers in the same Page he tells us They nicely distinguished between Person and Hypostasis and Nature and Essence and Substance that they were three Persons but one Nature Essence and Substance But that when Men curiously examined the signification of these words they found that upon some account or other They were very unapplicable to this Mystery Hereupon he asks the following Questions in an upbraiding manner viz. What is the Substance and Nature of God How can three distinct Persons have but one Numerical Substance And What is the distinction between Essence and Personality and Subsistence And Lastly At the end of the same Page He confesses that some tolerable Account of the School-Terms and Distinctions might be given but that it would be a work of more difficulty than use Apology HE viz. the melancholy Stander-by is very angry with the School-Doctors as worse Enemies to Christianity than either Heathen Philosophers or Persecuting Emperours Pray what hurt have they done I suppose he means the corruption of Christianity with those barbarous terms of Person Nature Essence Subsistence Consubstantiality c. which will not suffer Hereticks to lie concealed under Scripture-Phrases But why must the School-men bear all the blame of this Why does he not accuse the Ancient Fathers and Councils from whom the School-men learn'd these Terms Why does he let St. Austin escape from whom the Master of the Sentences borrowed most of his Distinctions and Subtleties But suppose these unlucky Wits had used some new Terms have they taught any new Faith about the Trinity in Unity which the Church did not teach And if they have only guarded the Christian Faith with an Hedge of Thorns which disguised Hereticks cannot break through is this to wound Christianity in its very Vitals No no They will only prick the Fingers of Hereticks and secure Christianity from being wounded and this is one great Cause why some Men are so angry with the School-Doctors tho' the more General Cause is because they have notIndustry enough to Read or understand them Apology P. 4 5. I have to prevent all exceptions given the Reader the whole Paragraph in which the last Clause strikes Home indeed tho' in such Cases some think this Author would do well to take heed of striking too Home and Hard for fear the Blow should rebound back again and do execution where
for representing the vanity of his Hypothesis by the forementioned Example and Comparison But I hope the World will give me leave to distinguish between Things Sacred and his Absurd Phantastick way of treating of them which I can by no means look upon as Sacred nor indeed any Thing else in his whole Book but the bare Subject it treats of and the Scriptures there quoted by him For to speak my thoughts plainly I believe this Sacred Mystery of the Trinity was never so ridiculed and exposed to the Contempt of the Profane Scoffers at it as it has been by this New-fashioned Defence of it And so I dismiss his two so much Admired Terms by himself I mean as in no degree answering the Expectation he raised of them For I cannot find That they have either heightned or strength'ned Men's Intellectual Faculties or cast a greater light and clearness upon that Object which has so long exercised them but that a Trinity in Unity is as Mysterious as ever and the Mind of Man as unable to grasp and comprehend it as it has been from the beginning of Christianity to this day In a word Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness have rendred nothing about the Divine Nature and Persons plainer easier and more Intelligible nor indeed after such a mighty stress so irrationally laid upon two slight empty words have they made any thing but the Author himself better understood than it was before CHAP. V. In which is proved against this Author That the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not Three Distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits IT being certain both from Philosophy and Religion that there is but one only God or God-head in which Christian Religion has taught us That there are Three Persons Many Eminent Professors of it have attempted to shew how one and the same Nature might Subsist in Three Persons and how the said Three Persons might meet in one and make no more than one simple undivided Nature It had been to be wished I confess that Divines had rested in the bare Expressions delivered in Scripture concerning this Mystery and ventured no further by any particular and bold Explications of it But since the Nature or rather Humour of Man has been still too strong for his Duty and his Curiosity especially in things Sacred been apt to carry him too far those however have been all along the most pardonable who have ventured least and proceeded upon the surest grounds both of Scripture it self and of Reason discoursing upon it And such I affirm the Ancient Writers and Fathers of the Church and after them the School-men to have been who with all their Faults or rather Infelicities caused by the Times and Circumstances they lived in are better Divines and Soberer Reasoners than any of those Pert Confident Raw Men who are much better at Despising and Carping at them than at Reading and Understanding them Though Wise Men Despise nothing but they will know it first and for that Cause very rationally despise them But among those who leaving the Common Road of the Church have took a By-way to themselves none of late Years especially have ventured so boldly and so far as this Author who pretending to be more happy forsooth in his Explication of this Mystery than all before him as who would not believe a Man in his own Commendation and to give a more satisfactory Account of this long received and Revered Article by Terms perfectly New and peculiarly his own has advanced quite different Notions about this Mystery from any that our Church was ever yet acquainted with Affirming as he does That the Three Persons in the God-head are Three Distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits as will appear from the several places of his Book where he declares his Thoughts upon this great Subject As First in Page 50. he says The Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Infinite Minds really distinct from each other Again in Page 66. The Persons says he are perfectly distinct for they are Three distinct and Infinite Minds and therefore Three distinct Persons For a Person is an Intelligent Being and to say they are Three Divine Persons and not Three distinct Infinite Minds is both Heresie and Nonsense For which extraordinary Complement passed upon the whole Body of the Church of England and perhaps all the Churches of Christendom besides as I have paid him part of my thanks already so I will not fail yet further to account with him before I put an end to this Chapter In the mean time he goes on in Page 102. I plainly assert says he That as the Father is an Eternal and Infinite Mind so the Son is an Eternal and Infinite Mind distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost is an Eternal and Infinite Mind distinct both from Father and Son Adding withall these words Which says he every Body can understand without any skill in Logick or Metaphysicks And this I confess is most truly and seasonably remarked by him For the want of this Qualification is so far from being any hindrance in the Case mentioned that I dare undertake that nothing but want of skill in Logick and Metaphysicks can bring any Man living who acknowledges the Trinity to own this Assertion I need repeat no more of his Expressions to this purpose these being sufficient to declare his Opinion save only that in Page 119. where he says That Three Minds or Spirits which have no other difference are yet distinguish'd by Self-Consciousness and are Three distinct Spirits And that other in Page 258. where speaking of the Three Persons I grant says he that they are Three Holy Spirits By the same Token that he there very Learnedly distinguishes between Ghost and Spirit allowing the said Three Persons as we have shewn to be Three Holy Spirits but at the same time denying them to be Three Holy Ghosts and this with great scorn of those who should hold or speak otherwise To which at present I shall say no more but this That he would do well to turn these two Propositions into Greek or Latin and that will presently shew him what difference and distinction there is between a Ghost and a Spirit and why the very same things which are affirmed of the one notwithstanding the difference of those words in English may not with the same Truth be affirmed of the other also But the Examination of this odd Assertion will fall in more naturally towards the latter end of this Chapter where it shall be particularly considered I have now shewn this Author's Judgment in the Point and in opposition to what he has so boldly Asserted and laid down I do here deny That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Three distinct Infinite Spirits And to overthrow his Assertion and evince the Truth of mine I shall trouble neither my Reader nor my self with many Arguments But of those which I shall make use of the first is this
expressing himself in this sacred and arduous Subject to give it no worse word whatsoever it may deserve affords the Arians and Socinians no small Advantages against this Doctrine should it stand upon the strength of His Defence as thanks be to God it does not But I must not here omit that Passage which in the former part of this Chapter I promised more particularly to consider a Passage which indeed looks something strangely It is that in P. 258. line 27. where he tells us that he allows That in the Blessed Trinity there are Three Holy Spirits but denys That there are Three Holy Ghosts so natural is it for false Opinions to force Men to absurd Expressions But my Answer to him is short and positive That neither are there Three Holy Spirits nor Three Holy Ghosts in the Blessed Trinity in any sense properly belonging to these words However the Thing meant by him so far as it is reducible to Truth and Reason is and must be this viz. That when the Third Person of the Trinity is called the Holy Ghost there the word Holy Ghost which otherwise signifies the same with Holy Spirit must be taken Personally and consequently Incommunicably but when the Father or Son is said to be a Spirit or Holy Spirit there Spirit must be understood Essentially for that Immaterial Spiritual and Divine Nature which is common to and Predicable of all the Divine Persons All which is most true But then for this very Reason I must tell our Author withal That as Holy Ghost taken Personally is but Numerically one so Spirit or Holy Spirit as it is understood Essentially is but Numerically one too And therefore though the Father may be called a Spirit or Holy Spirit and the two other Persons may each of them be called so likewise yet they are not therefore Three distinct Spirits or Holy Spirits nor can be truly so called as this Author pretends they ought to be and we have sufficiently disproved but they are all one and the same Holy Spirit Essentially taken and which so taken is as much as one and the same God And moreover though Spirit understood Personally distinguishes the Third Person from the other two yet taken Essentially it speaks him one and the same Spirit as well as one and the same God with them and can by no means distinguish him from them any more than the Divine Essence or Nature which Spirit in this sence is only another word for can discriminate the Three Persons from one another So that upon the whole Matter it is equally false and impossible That in the Blessed Trinity there should be Three Holy Spirits or Holy Ghosts Terms perfectly Synonymous either upon a Personal or an Essential account and consequently that there should be so at all For as the word Spirit imports a peculiar Mode of Subsistence by way of Spiration from the Father and the Son so it is Personal and Incommunicable but as it imports the Immaterial Substance of the Deity so indeed as being the same with the Deity it self it is equally Common to all the Three Persons but still for all that remains Numerically one and no more as all must acknowledge the Deity to be And this is the true state of the Case But to state the difference between the Holy Ghost and the other Two Persons upon something signified by Holy Ghost which is not signified by Holy Spirit as the words of this Author manifestly do while he affirms Three Holy Spirits but denies Three Holy Ghosts this is not only a playing with words which he pretends to scorn but a taking of words for things which I am sure is very ridiculous And now before I conclude this Chapter having a Debt upon me declared at the beginning of it I leave it to the Impartial and Discreet Reader to judge what is to be thought or said of that Man who in such an Insolent Decretorious manner shall in such a point as this before us charge Nonsense and Heresie two very vile words upon all that Subscribe not to this his New and before unheard of Opinion I must profess I never met with the like in any Sober Author and hardly in the most Licentious Libeller The Nature of the Subject I have according to my poor Abilities discussed and finding my self thereupon extremely to dissent from this Author am yet by no means willing to pass for a Nonsensical Heretick for my pains For must it be Nonsence not to own Contradictions viz. That One infinite Spirit is Three distinct Infinite Spirits Or must it be Heresie not to Subscribe to Tritheisme as the best and most Orthodox Explication of the Article of the Trinity As for Non-sence it must certainly imply the asserting of something for true concerning the Subject discoursed of which yet in truth is contradictory to it since there can be no Non-sence but what contradicts some Truth And whereas this Author has elsewhere viz. P. 4. declared it unreasonable to charge a contradiction in any Thing where the Nature of the Thing discoursed of is not throughly comprehended and understood I desire to know of him whether he throughly understands and comprehends the Article and Mystery of the Trinity If he says he does I need no other Demonstration of his unfitness to write about it But if he owns that he does not let him only stick to his own Rule and then he may keep the Charge of Non-sense to himself But what shall we say to the Charge of Heresie in which St. Austin would have no Person who is so charged to be silent Why in the first place we must search and enquire whether it be so or no And here if my Life lay upon it I cannot find either in Irenaeus adversùs Haereses or in Tertullian's Prescriptions contra Haereticos Cap. 49. Nor in Philastrius's Catalogue nor in Epiphanius nor in St. Austin nor in Theodoret nor in Iohannes Damascenus's Book de Haeresibus nor in the latter Haeresiologists such as Alphonsus à Castro Prateolus with several others I cannot I say find in all or in any one of these the Heresie of not asserting the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity to be Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits no nor yet the Heresie of denying them to be so But where then may we find it Why in this Author's Book And therefore look no further it is enough that so great a Master has said it whose Authority in saying a Thing is as good as another Man 's in proving it at any time And he says it as we see positively and perhaps if need be will be ready to take his Corporal Oath upon it That such as deny his Hypothesis are Hereticks Now in this case our Condition is in good earnest very sad and I know nothing to comfort us but that the Statute de Haeretico comburendo is Repealed And well is it for the Poor Clergy and Church of England that it is so for otherwise this Man
But what is this to our Author's Purpose And how does he prove this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Mutual Consciousness Why truly by no Argument or Reason produced or so much as offered at by him but only by a confident Over-bearing Affirmation That there is no other Account to be given of that Mutual In-being of the Divine Persons in each other which the Fathers call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by Mutual Consciousness Page 125. Lines 6 7 8. But by his leave I must debate the case a little with him before he carries it off so And in order to this I must tell him in the first place That the Question is not whether Mutual Consciousness best explains this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but whether it be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the Unity of the Divine Nature in the Three Persons And in the next place I demand of him Whether our Saviour's Words do not plainly and expresly signifie the Mutual In-being or In existence of the Persons in one another without any signification of their Mutual Consciousness at all And if so let me hear a Reason Why we should not take our Saviour's meaning from the Native signification of his own Words rather than from those of this Author For will he venture to affirm That the Father cannot be in the Son and the Son in the Father by a Mutual In-existence in one another but only by a Mutual Knowledge of one another Let him take heed what he says and how he ventures beyond his Depth Or will he say That our Saviour meant the same Thing with himself but was not so happy in expressing it For no other Reason but one of these two can be assigned That when our Saviour expresses himself in Terms importing Mutual In-existence this Man shall dare to say That he means nothing by them but Mutual Consciousness I referr it to the Serious and Impartial Reader to Judge of the Horrible Boldness of this Man and withal to observe how extremely he varies from himself about this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mutual Consciousness For First He sometimes says That Mutual Consciousness is the only thing wherein both the Unity of the Divine Nature and this Mutual In-dwelling of the three Divine Persons does Consist Page 124. lines 4 5. And Secondly He says That Mutual Consciousness is the only thing that can explain or give an account of this Mutual In-dwelling or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Page 125. lines 6 7. To which I Answer That when he speaks of giving an account of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he means only an Account that there is such a Thing belonging to the Divine Persons our Saviour's Words have given a sufficient Account of that already But Secondly If he means such an Account of it as explains and makes clear to us the Nature of it by shewing what it is and how it is I deny that any such Account can be given or perhaps understood by Humane Reason and much less that his Mutual Consciousness does or can give it Concerning which I shall ask him this one Question viz. Whether the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not Mutually Conscious to one another of their Mutual In-existence in one another I suppose he will not because he dares not deny it And if he grants it then it manifestly follows That their Mutual In-existence in one another is in Order of Nature before their Mutual Consciousness and consequently cannot be the same with it nor consist in it For certainly those Divine Persons must Exist Mutually in one another before they can know or be Conscious to themselves that they do so So that we see here that nothing is or can be concluded from this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his Mutual Consciousness whether we consider the Use of the Word or the Nature of the Thing But let us see how he makes good his Point from the Authority of the Fathers which was the grand Thing undertook by him in this his 4th Section And here as for the Fathers he both Despises and Reproaches them and that very grosly too For first he tells us That such an Union amongst the Divine Persons as is expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they all agree in but how to explain it they knew not Page 125. lines 17 18. And why then in the Name of God does he referr to the Fathers to justifie his Explanation of that which in the very same Breath he says They knew not how to Explain And the Truth is the Fathers never owned themselves able to explain it and that for a very good Reason viz. because they held it unexplicable and unconceivable and not for that scandalous Reason given by him viz. That they had gross Material Conceptions of the Deity by conceiving of it as of a Substance Page 125. lines 27 28. For says he within two lines after Had they Contemplated God as a pure Mind it had been easie to explain this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Indwelling of the Divine Persons in each other Good God! That any Professor of Divinity should call that easie to explain which the Reason of all Mankind has hitherto bent under as a thing too great and mysterious for it to comprehend or to grapple with So that if ever we have cause to cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is here Or that he should tax all those who own themselves at a loss about it for not Contemplating God as a pure Mind But to him I confess who can conceive of such a pure Mind as is no Substance that is to say in other words No being For I am sure he will not so much as pretend it to be an Accident to Him I say I cannot wonder if nothing seem difficult or mysterious In the mean time it is shameless and insufferable in this Man to say as he does Page 100 101. That his Explication of the Trinity is not new but the same with that of the Fathers and afterwards in pursuance of this Assertion to say That the Fathers knew not how to explain it and to give this as a Reason of their not knowing how to do so viz. That they had such gross Notions of God that they could not conceive rightly of this Mystery For this he has roundly affirmed and therefore ought in all Reason either to prove this Charge upon the Fathers or to give the World and the Church of England in particular satisfaction for speaking so falsely and scandalously of such glorious Lights and principal Pillars of the Christian Church and such as I dare say never Preached nor Prayed in any Conventicle But what the Doctrine of the Fathers is concerning this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and how they understood those words of our Saviour expressed by this Term is manifest from the Testimony of two or three of them which I shall set down as in so known a
were far from being Sabellians so they very well knew both what to assert and how to express themselves without giving any ground for their being thought so From all which it follows That for this very cause that Modes of Subsistence import the least Real difference that can be they are therefore the fittest to state the Distinction of the Divine Persons upon So that our Author here relapses into a fault which he has been guilty of more than once viz. In alledging that as an Argument against a Thing which is indeed a most Effectual Reason for it And so I come to his Third and Last Objection against our making these Modes of Subsistence the ground or Formal Reason of the Distinction between the Persons of the Blessed Trinity which is That it makes the Three Divine Persons only Three Modes of the Deity or only Modally distinguished whereas according to his Doctrine there are no Modes in the Deity and much less can a Mode be God And that As all must grant that the Father is not a Mode of the Deity but Essentially God so no Man can think that the Father begot only a Modus and called it his Son whereas a Son signifies a Real Person of the same Nature but distinct from the Father Thus he discourses pag. 83. 84. And is not this close and profound reasoning But as profound as it is if it be at all to his Purpose his Argument must lie in this That all the forementioned Absurdities unavoidably follow from deriving the Distinction of the Three Divine Persons from Three distinct Modes of Subsistence belonging to one and the same Divine Nature But this consequence I utterly deny and to make out the Reason of this denial I shall consider what he has said particularly And here first of all I would fain know Whether this Man will never leave confounding things perfectly different and taking them for the very same For to affirm the Three Divine Persons to be only Three Modes of the Deity is one Thing and to affirm them to be only Modally distinguished is quite another The former we absolutely deny and as positively hold the latter And yet this wretched Fallacy would he impose upon his Reader all along viz. That the Assertors of these Modes of Subsistence in the Trinity make a Person to be only a Modus Subsistendi But that is his own Blunder For we do not say That a Person is only a Modus but that it is the Divine Nature or Godhead Subsisting under such a Modus so that the Godhead is still included in it joyned to it and distinguished by it This is what we affirm and abide by and what sufficiently overthrows his pitiful Objection And as for his Absurd Denial of all Modes in God that has been throughly confuted already so that we have nothing more to do but to admire that Invincible and Glorious Ratiocination of his in these Words p. 84. No Man says he can think that the Father begot only a Modus and called it his Son No good Sir No none that I know of is in any danger of thinking or saying so no more than that Socrates begot only the Shape and Figure of a Man and then called it his Son or to turn your own blunt Weapon upon your self no more than God the Father begot another Self-Consciousness besides his own and called that his Son Nevertheless I hope it will be granted me That Socrates might beget one of such a Shape and Figure and by Xantippe's and this Author 's good leave call that his Son and that God the Father might beget a Person endued with such a Self-Consciousness amongst other Attributes and call that his Son too But I perceive this Author and the Fallacy of the Accident are such fast Friends that it is in vain to think of parting them In the mean time as I told him what we do not hold concerning the Father's Generation of the Son so for his better Information I shall tell him what the Assertors of these Modes of Subsistence do hold concerning it viz. We do hold and affirm That the Father Communicates his Nature under a different Mode of Subsisting from what it has in himself to another and that such a Communication of it in such a peculiar way is properly called his begetting of a Son In which we do not say That the Father begets a Modus no nor yet an Essence or Nature but that he Communicates his own Essence or Nature under such a distinct Modus to another and by so doing begets a Person which Person is properly his Son This Sir is the true Account of what the Assertors of the Personal Modes of Subsistence hold concerning the Eternal generation And if you have any thing to except against it produce your Exceptions and they shall not fail of an Answer I am now come to a close of this Chapter and indeed of the whole Argument undertook by me against this Author In which I have Asserted the commonly received Doctrine about this great Article of the Trinity both from the Ancient Writers of the Church and against this Author's particular Objections and in both fully shewn That the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are one and the same undivided Essence Nature or Godhead diversified only by Three distinct Modes of Subsistence which are sometimes called Properties and sometimes Relations So that a Divine Person is formally and properly the Divine Nature Essence or Godhead with and under such a distinct Mode Property or Relation And this I averr to be the common current generally received Doctrine of the Church concerning the Trinity For Councils and Fathers hold it the School-men teach it the Confessions of Churches where they are any thing particular upon this Subject declare it and all Divines both Papist and Protestant in the several Bodies of Divinity wrote by them do Assert it only this Author who yet forsooth owns himself a Protestant of the Church of England denies and explodes it To whom therefore if he were not too great in his own Eyes to be Counselled and Advised I would give this Charitable piece of Counsel for once viz. That for the future he would not presume at such a rate to contradict the whole World till he has learn'd not to contradict himself CHAP. IX In which this Author's Paradoxes hoth Philosophical and Theological as they occurr in this his Discourse are drawn together Examined and Confuted I Am sensible that I am now engaged in a Subject that would threaten the Reader with a very long Chapter should I follow it as far as it would carry me For I am entered into a large Field Viz. this Author 's Paradoxical Assertions In the traversing of which I shall observe no other Method but just to take them in that order in which they offer themselves throughout his Book save only that I shall give my Reader this premonition That such of them as I have particularly
it so quote this Word out of that very place of St. Basil's Hexaemeron where now it stands wrote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which surely proves that they found it not there so wrote then when they quoted it from thence But admitting that it may be so wrote viz. with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet what does or can this make for our Author 's new-coined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For till there can be found such Greek Words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to derive it from which none ever yet met with nor ever will in vain shall we seek for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any where but in this Author In the next place to pass from Greek Words to Latine or such at least as are Latinized I would gladly know who those Anti-Nicene Fathers were who are mentioned by him Pag. 24. Lin. 5. And whether they were Arians or Novatians who as I take it were the great Opposers of the Nicene Council But that I find cannot be since our Author tells us That thâ— Pâ—â—sons spoken of by him were of the same Faith with thâ— â—â—cene Fathers So that upon that Account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 think it ought to be the Ante-Nicene Fathers And 〈◊〉 so I think the Author would do well to take notice that there is a great difference between Anti-Nicene and Ante-Nicene between such as lived before the Council and such as were against it And the more particular and exact notice ought he to take of it here since tho' the difference be only in an Iota he yet knows what a Disturbance this little Letter made in the Homoousian and Homoiousian Controversie even so great as to occasion the Convening of this Famous Council Nevertheless that this word Anti-Nicene passed for good and current with this Author is evident from hence that it is as well as some others free of both Editions of this extraordinary Book Again in Page 105. Line 8. we are told of the Favourites of some Opinions As to which I had thought that Men use to favour and countenance Opinions and not to be countenanced and favoured by them And yet the Word Favourite signifies passively and so must be taken for one who receives favour and not actively for one who shews it And therefore if to represent any one as the Favourite of an Opinion be not good sence I know no way but by striking it out and putting Favourer in the room of it to make it better In Page 106. Line 16. I read Intension used in the same sence with Intention or Purpose and I must declare that I never found it so used before And in Page 108. Line 31. I am told of the Council of Lateran and I wondered a good while what Council it should be for though I had heard of several Lateran Councils yet I never heard of the Council of Lateran till I met with it here Likewise I find an Extraordinary Person in Page 43. Line 1. named Lucifer Carolitanus and was thereupon in some thoughts with my self whether there might have been any place called in former times Carolina or by some Name like it But then out comes the Second Edition and alters it into Caralitanus which in my poor Opiniou looks very suspiciously as if some Body had a mind to Correct it but knew not how As for Lucifer Calaritanus so called from Calaris now Cagliari the Metropolis of Sardinia I have heard much of him but I will suppose our Author had some Body else in his Eye And upon this occasion I cannot but take notice of some other Writers quoted by him whom the World seems as much unacquainted with as with this Carolitanus As for instance St. Hillary in his Apol. P. 15. at the latter end And Albaspinus in his Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet Pag. 165. Line 22. And Nonnâ—s in his Knowledge of Christ Page 218. Now St. Hilary indeed a Famous Father of the Church and Bishop of Poictiers and Albaspinaeus Archbishop of Orleans Eminent for his Learned Works and Nonnus who Wrote a Paraphrase upon St. Iohn's Gospel in Greek Verse are every one of them known and celebrated by all But as for St. Hillary Albaspinus and Nonnas I never heard of them till this Author was pleased to bless the World with these New Names As for Erronious instead of Erroneous and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are small things and ought to make no difference amongst Friends though I have known many a poor School-boy forced to Water his Plants for a less Mistake But there is a Word of singular note which I have met with at least six or seven times in this Book and four times in one Page viz. 227. and it is Prosopopaea which also as well as its Companions has given the Catalogue of Errata the slip and so weathered it out in Two Editions But what to make of it I cannot tell There is indeed a certain Figure in Rhetorick called Prosopopoeia which I know well enough but Prosopopaea I am wholly a Stranger to And surely this Author could not mean the Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as the strict Literal signification of that is fictio Personae And I cannot imagine how this Author should mistake about this Word of all others having had so Excellent an Hand at the Thing signified by it as having I dare say made more Persons than ever God thought fit to furnish the World with And to shew the Reader that our Author's store extends much further than one Book I will present him with some more of the like Rarities out of some of his other Pieces As first in Page 65. of his Answer to the Protestant Reconciler he makes mention of Exorcisme Chrysom Unction Dipping Trine Immersion c. as rejected by the Church of England And here I was extremely at a loss to learn what Chrysom was and after all my search no Lexicon could inform me till at last I hit upon a certain little Lexicon called The Bill of Mortality and there I found a Word very near it as differing from it but by one Letter which was Chrisom signifying a Child that dies presently after it is born But then considering again that the Church of England did not declare her self to reject such I was as much at a loss as ever till at length setting my Guessing Faculty on work I concluded that certainly it should be Chrisme which is a Greek Word for Unction as Immersion is a Latine one for Dipping And this our Author should have taken notice of for though he quotes it out of the Reconciler yet since he neither rectifies it nor reflects upon him for it we may very reasonably suppose that he took it for good Payment and really thought that it ought to be Chrysom as he found it Otherwise he who had been so quick and sharp upon him at other turns would
than the difference of a Noun from an Adverb which we know is below a Person Paramount to all rule to take notice of Though by his good leave the Church of England both Writes and Teaches better Latine to such as are disposed to learn it Again in Page 139. in the Quotation on the side we have these Words cited out of the third Book of Optatus Milevitanus Recordamini quomodò à vobis jamdudum Matris Ecclesiae membra distracta sunt non enim Unumquamque demum semel seducere potuistis Of which Passage I must confess I could make neither Sence nor Grammar till consulting the Author himself of Albaspinaeus's Edition instead of Unumquamque demum I found it Unamquamque Domum which no doubt is an admirable Various Lection of which this Author ought to have the Glory upon the Text of such a Father But this is not all the Blunders which this fruitful Sentence affords us there being yet another viz. recedit for resedit and that such an one as utterly perverts the sence of the Author who speaks here of some who left and some who remained in the Communion of the Church opposing them in this respect to one another as Aut ivit uxor aut resedit maritus aut Parentes seducti sunt filii sequi noluerunt aut stetit frater migrante sorore c. Thus the Father here speaks but pray what opposition could there be between aut ivit uxor aut recedit maritus any more than there is between going away and departing Besides that all the rest of the Verbs running in the Preterperfect Tense this must needs do so too or make a very gross fault in the Construction So that this is an Illiterate Perversion of the sence of this Father Upon which as well as upon other occasions I look upon this as the only sure Rule of dealing with this Author's Quotations viz. To trust them no further than one can see them in their Originals In like manner Page 178. in the place there quoted in the Margin out of St. Cyprian's 55. Epist. and not the 52d as this Author there mistakes it we meet with these words à Coepiscoporum suorum Corpore ab Ecclesiae Unitate discisserit But the word in St. Cyprian is as it ought to be descisceret from descisco to fall off between which and the other word used by this Author there is a wide difference descisceret being a most proper Latine Word but discisserit so far from Proper that it is not so much as Latine And in Page 187. Line the last we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes the whole Period neither Sence nor Greek Again Page 188. Line the last but one we have this Passage Videte annon dicantur martyres sed aliquid Alium dici mereantur which being there put for Aliud is a downright Solecism And lastly in Page 198. in the Quotation in the Margin we have those remarkable words Simiarum more qui cùm homines non sint homines tamen imitantur Which is another Solecism every whit as bad and scandalous as the former Now all these Words and Passages I assure the Reader as they stand in the Authors from whence they are quoted carry a very different face from what this Writer has given them which shews that whensoever the words of the Fathers are transcribed into any of his Books they are quite out of their Element For amongst them as they stand here there are some such vile faults or rather such clamorous sins in Grammar that should a School-Boy tender an Exercise to his Master with but Two or Three such in it he would soon find himself very roundly and severely took up for them and that perhaps more ways than one But Hands that can restore dispossessed Princes may Write any Thing and Authorize what they have Wrote by their very Writing it For otherwise the Truth is the Latine which the forecited Passages are dressed up in seems a sort of Providential Latine as being above all Rules and Laws of Speaking and Writing whatsoever As for faults about Accents such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Vind. P. 102. Line 3. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Page 113. Line 2. of the Quotation in the Margin and the like they are too numerous for me to trouble the Reader with But this I desire him to take notice of upon the whole that has been produced by me That as none of the forementioned Faults are in the Table of the Errata so some of them in the first Edition of his Vind. Trin. stand Corrected in the second as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Page 115. Line 1. of the Quotation in the Margin of the first is Corrected into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Page 121. Line 21. in the former is changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the latter And therefore according to the old Maxime That Exceptio firmat Regulam in non Exceptis it is to me a sufficient proof That since this Author Corrected some Passages and not others which yet need correcting as much if not more it was because His Acuteness did not see that these last needed any Correction at all And in such a case some are of Opinion that where the Words escape it the Author himself ought to have it But because some perhaps will hardly be satisfied with so General a Charge without an Allegation of more Particulars I shall here give the Reader a Catalogue of this Author's Greek Errata in the 2d Edition of his Vindication of the Trinity which should in Reason be thought the most correct together with their Correction confronting them Greek Errata Correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Punctum interrogationis post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro Semicol  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Punctum interrogationis post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro Semicol  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Haughtiness for the future to forbear calling his Antagonists Little Writers till by his Answers he has made them so A further discovery of his rude undecent way of treating such as he writes against is the Language he has bestow'd upon a certain Writer a Nonconformist indeed but yet a Man of Learning as a much greater Man than this Author has found by experience whom he calls a Trifling Scribler who understands little more than Quibbles and Iests Charging him withal with Pertness and Folly to complete his Character p. 15. of his Preface to his Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet And in the 12. page of the Book it self and the five first lines He represents him under the name of the Inquirer as one who cannot understand plain and familiar sense nor carry the Connexion of three or four Sentences together Very civil Language indeed becoming a Scholar a Divine and a well-bred Man to a Person who had not in the least provok'd Him For my own part I have no knowledge of the Man but from his Writings and upon the Stock of that knowledge have often wondred that one so able to humble this Reviler would take such gross Reproaches at his hands But the Truth is when I consider as I noted first in my Preface how patiently our whole Clergy has hitherto suffered him to call them Fools and Hereticks by charging all those as such who concur not with him in holding the Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits which I dare say not one of them held at the time of his uttering this Lewd Reproach I say when I consider this I have cause to surcease all wonder that any Private Man should indure this Insolent Huff to insult over him in such a manner But I shall insist no further upon this master-piece of his Scurrility having in some measure accounted with him for it already Only I shall add this That as it is beyond Example marvellous that any one single Member of a Church should presume to load all the rest with such a charge so it is yet a greater marvel that all should bear it It would be endless to set down all the dirty stuff that has flowed from his Billingsgate Pen. But to repeat and bring together so much as we have taken notice of the Reader may be pleased to bear away in his Memory such Expressions and Appellations as these viz. Epicurean and Ridiculer of Providence Popishly inclined and looking towards an Infallible Interpreter Disaffected to and a slanderer of the Government Little Writers Fools and Hereticks Errant Fopp Trifling Scribler shamefully Ignorant and Impudent Fit to be sent to School again One that understands little else but Iests and Quibbles One that cannot understand plain and familiar sense One that understands neither Greek nor Latine and the like These are the choice Embellishments of his Style But above all that beloved word Nonsense is always ready at hand with him and out it flies at all Persons and upon all Occasions And hardly can he write three or four Pages together but right or wrong he throws it in his Adversary's Face One would think that he was Born with the Word in his Mouth and that it grew up with him from his Infancy and that in his very Cradle he Cryed Nonsense before he could Speak it But to check this ungovern'd Humour of his in thus using this word at all Adventure Let me tell him that it is both a very rude unmannerly Word and most commonly as applyed by him a very false Charge As for the rudeness of it since he owns himself a Son of the Church of England I think he would be much his own Friend if he would remember the Reprimand given him by his old Acquaintance and Antagonist Dr. Owen who in his Vindication c. p. 72. having upon occasion of some of his profane Scoffs called him Goodly Son of the Church of England Immediately subjoyns That he intended it not as a Reflexion upon the Church it self but only to remind this Man of his Relation to that Church Which he there says to his Knowledge taught better Learning and better Manners In the next place as for the falseness of the Charge in his usual application of this Word I would have him know That the Charge of Nonsense does not properly lie against every one who asserts a false Proposition or is guilty of a mistake For Nonsense is not properly opposed to strict Truth but to such plain and manifest Truth as is obvious to Common sense For Truth oftentimes lies deep and abstruse and requires a more than ordinary sagacity to reach and fetch it out which that low Pitch of Reason which we call Common sense cannot always do For in Discourse a Man may be sometimes mistaken in laying his Foundation or Principle and yet be very Clear and Rational in the Consequences he draws from it and sometimes he may fail in drawing Consequences from a True and well-laid Principle in both which cases the whole Discourse is certainly False and Inconsistent Nevertheless according to the common acception of the Word this cannot be called Nonsense It may indeed be called Error or Mistake which is a weakness cleaving too close to Humane Nature for any one of the same Nature to reproach another for it But on the contrary if every Thing that is not strict Demonstration and certain Truth must pass for Nonsense I fear it would overlay whole Volumes and not only prevent the 2d 3d. and 4th Editions of many Books but shrewdly also endanger the Sale of the First Especially if 2d and 3d. by the unlucky escape of some scattering Copies should chance all to appear in the space of Three or Four Days As in the first Publication of a certain Book Entituled The Case of Allegiance c. it fell out But great no doubt is the Art of Bestowing several Title-Pages importing divers Editions upon Books of one and the same Impression And may serve to teach the World what a fruitful Thing the Press is when impregnated by the Prolifick Genius of some Writers and that when it is for the credit of any extraordinary Book and it's Author it can bring forth four five or six Editions of it at the same time Which certainly is a most Ingenious Contrivance but whether it were the Author 's or the Bookseller's is a Question though some think it uses to be done by a kind of Mutual-Consciousness between both But to return to the Point in hand According to the common use of the Word Nonsense He who Discourses of Things obvious to the ordinary Apprehensions of Men with gross and palpable Contradictions of one thing to another or with a plain manifest Incoherence of one part of his Discourse with the other that Man is properly and justly chargeable with Nonsense And let those in the Name of Sense and Reason take it to themselves who have most claim to it But because the