^N^'^^"''^ 
 
 ^i i^t Ibw%fa/ ^ 
 
 % 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 '* 
 
 -ifc 
 
 % 
 
 Division .^rrr^.^rrTS " 
 
 31 
 
 Section 
 
OG TRINE 
 
 b F T H E 
 
 And the Manner oi out / 
 
 Saviour s Divinity ; 
 
 I As they are held in the Catholic 
 
 Church, and the Church of England. 
 
 With a Difcuffion of two (late) famous 
 • Books on thofe Subjeas ; The Judgment <ff 
 the Jewijh Church, by Dr. P. J. and Bilibra^ 
 'v') by Guil. Vorftius. 
 
 .To which vs added^ 
 An Account of the Opinions, and Books of Fbih 
 Jtidteus*^ move efpecially, concerning the AoyQ^^ 
 or WORD. 
 
 3in federal tmm to ^W^tt. 
 
 T^ 
 
 z. 
 
 By STEPHEN NTE, RG&oroi Hormead. 
 
 ,. LOMDO N, 
 
 t Printed for Jonathan minfony at the Golden Lion itt 
 W St ?^«/'sChWch-Ystf4 lyoi. 
 
F 
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 * F£B b m7 
 
 ^ oi: ff,'»i K'.if i^ 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HOLY TRINITY, 
 
 And Manner of our 
 
 Saviour s Divinity. 
 
 !r/?^ Fir/? L^fr^r. 
 
 My Lord. 
 
 I Have hecdfully, once and again, look'd 
 over the Books you fent me; The "Judg^ 
 ment of the Jeivijh Churchy by Dr. P. J. 
 and Bilibra^ by GuilVorflim, Your Lord- 
 fliip did not fay, that, you expe£led from me 
 any Remarks on (both, or either of) them; 
 ctherways than as the fending to a Man of my 
 Profeffion, and Relation to your Lordfliip, two 
 fuch extraordinary Books, may be fuppofed to 
 be a (tacit) demand of my Opinion of them : 
 J If this was your meaning, as I have alfo other 
 2f A 2 caufe 
 
4 Dr; A. guilty Letter i. 
 
 caufe to believe ; I hope, this prefent Anfwer 
 will agree with your own Sentiments, as well 
 as exprefs my readinefs to obey your Com- 
 mands. 
 
 To begin with the Former, The 'judgment of 
 the Jewijh Church. It hath too many Mif- 
 takes, in the principal Articles of K^/ig/^;?, and 
 of the Reformation ; to be all of them Noted, 
 and Refuted in a Letter : nor will my prefent 
 (bad) Circumftances permit me, to undertake 
 it. I mull content my fcif therefore, to dif- 
 cufs this (pretended) Judgment^ in the prin- 
 cipal Parts of it ; and in feveral Letters, as re- 
 turning Health, and Leifure fliall enable me. 
 And here the firft thing to be inquired into is ; 
 What Notions hath the Author concerning the 
 Holy Trinity ? It will appear that they are the 
 fame that have been cenfured as Heretical, and 
 Blafphcmous ; by the greatefl: Authorities, Ec- 
 clefiaftical and Civil, in our Nation and 
 Church ; and Anathematized by the Catholic 
 Church, in the Perfons of Fhilopnm^ "Joachin^ 
 Guilk Porretan^ and others. 
 
 He faith, the Trinity of Divine Perfons li^ a 
 Trinity of UNCREATED BEINqS, 
 and SP I R I T S ; which is imflicit Tritheifti : 
 Headds,andofCREATORSandGODi; 
 which is pxprefs Trithcifm. Let us hear hfs 
 own words ; page 144. *' Whoever they we^ 
 *' to whom GOD faid. Let us make, or let m 
 ^' do this or that ; they could be no created Be| 
 
 " ings 
 
of exprefs Trkheifm. ' V 
 
 «^ ings ; they^ mt/ft he VNCREATED BE-' 
 ^ <^ IiVQS; if there were any fuch then in be- 
 i' ing. But thac then, at the Creation, fuch 
 i^ r'lere were, even the WORD and SPI- 
 ^' R I T, hath been fhown beyond contra- 
 <' di6lion.^ 
 
 Atp. i75.hemakestheni to be SPIRITS. 
 
 He infifteth very much on it that ; Elohim in 
 the Old Teftament, is intended of the three 
 Divine Perfons ; and that it ought to be render- 
 ed GODS. He tranflates the words of Mo- 
 fes 2it Gen. i. i. The GODS created the Hea- 
 *vens mil the Earth. And |he notes hei eupon 
 that, Mofes might have faid Jehovah Bar a, or 
 Eloah Bara, GOD Created ; for E/oah and Je- 
 hovah are fmguUrs often ufed in the Old Tefta- 
 ment : but he chofe to fay Bar a Elohim in the 
 Plural, the GODS Created ; nay and this is 
 the language of Mofes no lefs than Thirty times, 
 in the Hiftory of the Creation only. Chap, 9. p. 
 J16. 
 
 In the fame Chapter he obferves that, Ralf. 
 Aharhanel pretends, Elohim is a Singular ; 
 which our Author refutes, by calling it Impu-- 
 dence. And thereupon he adds, a Plurality m 
 God is many ways exprejGTed in the Books of 
 Mofes^ and of the Prophets. 'Tis well ; but 
 what fort of Plurality ? He will tell you, in 
 thefe following Tranflations of the Scripture- 
 Text. Gen. I, I, In the beginning, theGOD S 
 Created the Heavens and the Earth. Jofl}. 24. 
 
 A3 19. 
 
6 2)r. A. guilty Letter i. 
 
 \^.Te cannot fervethe Lord^ for he is the Holy. 
 GODS. 2 Sam. 7. 2j. l^^hat one Nation in 
 the Earthy is like to this People ; whom the 
 GODS have redeemed for a People^ to himfelf ? 
 Ecclef.i 2. I. Remember thy CREATORS, 
 in the days of thy youth. Ifa. 54. 5. For thy 
 MAIMERS are thy Husbands ; the Lord of 
 Hofis is his Name, Jer. 2J. 56. Te have per^ 
 verted the iVords of the living GODS., even the . 
 Lord of Hofis our God, Gen. 35. 7. Jacob 
 called the name of the place Bethel ; becaufe the 
 GODS there appeared to him. . The fliort of 
 that whole Chapter, and of fome others, is ; 
 the Plural Elohim is G D S : we muft fay^ 
 the G D S Created the Heavens and the Earthy 
 the GODS appeared to Jacob, theGODSre* 
 deemed Ifrael, the Holj GODS; Remember thy 
 CREATORS, thjMJK^ERSarethyHuf 
 hands, • f 
 
 'Tis News, that our Author tells us; and 
 moil Readers (I fear) will incHne to Rab, Abar- 
 banel^ affirming that Elohim is of fmgular figni« 
 fication, and denotes a y?/?^/^ Perfon ; rather 
 than admit of our Author's GODS, C R E A- 
 TORS, and MAKERS. He confutes in- 
 deed Aharbanel ; by faying, He is Impudent :. 
 but the e will remain fome doubt with the 
 Reader, till the DoHor fhall account for this 
 Text ef the Prophet Samuel. Sdul faid^ , Be not 
 afraid ; what fawefi thou i The Woman faid, I 
 [m ELOHIM ajcendi^v^ uut of the Earth. 
 
 . Saul 
 
of exprefs %'itheifml 7 
 
 Saul /aid, What form is He of ? fhe [aid. An old 
 Mm comet h up^ covered with ^ Mantle, Saul 
 -perceived, it was Samuel., i Sam. 28. ij,^ 14. 
 Here, when King Saul heard the Woman fay 
 E L O H I M, he underftood it of hut one Per- 
 fon; and therefore demandeth, what form is he 
 of? And that, byEL.OHIM the Woman 
 meant but one Perfon *, fhe declares^ when fhe 
 fays, He is an old Man. That neither of 
 them miftook the true import of the word, the 
 Text witneffes; by faying, it was 5^ Ml;. 
 £ L. It /hould feem by this ; there are Peo- 
 ple in the World altogether as immodeft, 
 as Aharhanel was Impudent. 
 
 It was Plain dealing however; and com- 
 mend me to a man, that will tell the honeft 
 down-right Truth : it a Man is a Pagan^ let 
 him fairly and roundly fay fo ; as our Author 
 doth. Others before him have contended for a 
 Trinity of infinite SPIRITS, uncreated 
 BEINGS, and M I N D S ; and when they 
 were told, this implies a Trinity of GODS, 
 of MAKERS, and CREATORS ; they 
 have been always fhy of that confequence, they 
 have denied that it follows from their Opinion : 
 and if it does, they profefs to difclaim their Opi- 
 nion it felf. But our Author bravely defies the 
 imputation of Heathenifm, of which his wea- 
 ker Brethren were afraid ; he fliows 'em ia 
 virtue of his Hebrew skill, that the Scriptures 
 themfelves fay, the G D 5 created the Heavens 
 
 A 4 m^ 
 
.8 Dr] A. guilty Letter i. 
 
 a^d the Earth ; Remember thyCREJTORS; ' 
 thj/ MAKERS are thy Husbands. In fhort, 
 tho fo many others have forfaken and deferted 
 the Truth, which they once publickly defend- 
 ed ; both from the Pulpit, and Prefs : our Au- 
 thor owns it ftill, in the broadeft terms ; and 
 with the addition of thofe new ones, M A- 
 KERS,CREATORS,GOpS; which 
 he warrants by a futable Tranflation of divers 
 Texts, never fo rendred by any but himfelf. 
 
 I know not, how much it will weigh with 
 our Author, that all learned Critics have declared 
 againft him; in what he faith concerning £/<?- 
 him : but I imagine, he will find fome difficul- 
 ty ; in anfwering^^^ Reafons thty havealledg- 
 ed. 
 
 D. Petavius^ (Dogm. Theol. de Trin. 1. 2. 
 C. 7. S.J.) fays. " There is no Myftery in 
 *^ thewbrd Elohim; only the Plural number is 
 ^' put for the Singular, after the manner of the 
 ^^ Hebrew Tongue, when a Perfon of Honour 
 <' orWorth\s{^dk&nof ovto. Thus, Gen^-^c). 
 ^^ 2. Jok^h was a pro fperous Man, in the houfe 
 << of his MASTERS the Egyptian. Gen. 
 *' 40. I. The Butler of the KJng of Egypt, and 
 «^ his Baker .^ had Offended their LO RDS the 
 ^' Kjng of Egypt. There are many more fuch 
 f' Texts in the Books of the Old Teftament, 
 
 Cardinal Bellarmin^ (de Chrifto^ Lib. ?.C. 
 2.y gives it as his Opinion, that, ELOHIM 
 was not intended, to imply thePIurality of Per- 
 
of exprefs Trithe'ijnu p 
 
 fonsin God: his reafons are. i. 'Tis not un- 
 common in Holy Scripture to ufe the Plural 
 Number concerning a Perfon of Worthy or Digni- 
 ty. Gen. 24.9. The Servant puf his hand^ under 
 the thigh of Abraham his MASTE RS. 2. 
 If Elohim fignifies Plurally, then we fhould be ' 
 obliged to fay G O D S. 5. The LXX always 
 tranflates Elohimy by ©^os •, St. "Jerom and 
 the Latin Church, by Deus\ GOD, not 
 GODS, 
 
 Mr. Cdvin is fo much of this mind, that he 
 doubts not to fay ; " To infer more Divine 
 ^' Perfons from the word ELOHIM, is a 
 " {trained Glofs ; a Glofs that doth not prove 
 *^ the Trinity, but rather introduces the Herefy 
 '' of Sabellius. 
 
 The moft learned and judicious Critic, "J. 
 Brufius^ (Epifi. 66. ad J. Montanum) has put 
 an abfolute end to all farther Cor^tention, con- 
 cerning Elohim. He largely oppofes the Opinion 
 . that, Elohim is defigned to intimate the Trinity 
 of Divine Perfons : among other reafons againft 
 it, he obferves that Elohim is fo far from defign- 
 ing the three Divine Perfons, that it fignifies 
 only one of them ; fometimes the father only, 
 fometimes the Son only. Pfal. 45. 6, Thy 
 Throne^ GOD^ is for ever and ever. Here 
 ELOHIM IS moft certainly the S N only ; 
 and accordingly is Applied to him, in thofe 
 words of the Author to the Hebrews ; To the 
 SON, he faith y thy Throne, GOD, is jor 
 
 ever 
 
II o 2)r. A, guilty Letter i. 
 
 ever and ever ^ Heb. i. 8. Again, Pfal. 45. 7. 
 Godj even thy God^ hath anointed thee with the 
 Oil of Gladnefs. The whole Catholic Church 
 interprets ELOHIM^ in this Verfe, of the 
 FATHER only ; becaufe it was He only 
 who anointed (i. e. Dignified and Exalted^ the 
 Son. 
 
 I could cite many more Authorities, of thea- 
 blefl: Critics and Divines : who did not the lefs 
 believe the Doctrine of the Trinity, as 'tis held 
 in the Catholic Church ; as neither (I profefs 
 faithfully) do I; but they were not willing to 
 expofe themfelves to the contempt, of tht'^ews^ 
 and-of our own Learned Men, by advancing in- 
 competent Arguments. 
 
 I mean not however, by any thing that has 
 been faid, to deny ihzi \ Elohim is oi plural 
 Termination: but^the Hebrew Language often 
 exprefles the Superlative Degree^ by a word of 
 plural Termination. For the moft High God the 
 Scripture doth not often fay Eloah^ in the Singu- 
 lar ; becaufe Eloah may indifferently fignify any 
 God, great or little, true or falfe ; Bad^ Moloc^ 
 or "Jehovah : but (more generally) it calls the 
 mofi High God, Elohim, in the plural Termina- 
 tion ; intending the termination plural as a note 
 of the Superlative Degree ; that is, fo as to fig- 
 nify the mofi: High (or true) God. 
 
 But farther to clear this Matter, and the 
 Texts that are objefted by the Author of 
 the Judgment \ let us obferve thefe fevi^ things. 
 
 c I. ElOf* 
 
of exprefs Trkheifml \i 
 
 1, Elohim is o^ fo general fignificatlon, as to 
 denote fometimcs tiie Angels^ fometimes the 
 Magijiracy ; foaietimes the Prophets^ fometimes 
 the Gods of the Ndtions, I do not ftand to 
 prove this, by an induction of Examples ; be- 
 caufe 'tis owned among all Learned Men, arid 
 the Author of the "judgment will not think fit to 
 queftion it. 
 
 2. 'Tisvery often ufed, for the true or ^<?y? 
 High God; and (as appears from P/i/. 45, 11, 
 and I Sam, 28. 1^5 14. before quoted) for 
 any f articular Prince or Prophet, of fuperlative 
 Virtue or Dignity : becaufe (as I faid) the He- 
 brew Language exprefles the Suferlatwe Degree 
 either by a ^/^r^/ Terminations or by repeating 
 the fame word Twice, or Thrice; z^ Holy of 
 Holies^ or Holy^ ii^/y, Holy^ for mojt Ho- 
 ly. 
 
 5. That it may be known, whether the am- 
 biguous word Elohim, is to betaken in a Angu- 
 lar or pkiral fenfe ; fome word or words are 
 ufually added in the Text, or Context, that do 
 determine and afcertain the fenfe. Thus, to 
 go through the Texts that are alledged by our 
 Author ; when 'tis faid, 
 
 Gen. I. I. ELOHIM created the Heavens 
 and the Earth, 'Tis Elohim Creavit^ not Elo- 
 him Creaverunt: that we may know, not 
 GODS, but the mofi High or true GOD, is 
 meant. 
 
 When 'tis faid again, Te cannot ferve the Lord, 
 
 for 
 
12 Dr A. guilty Letter i^ 
 
 for he is the Holy Elohim, Jofh. 24. 19. The 
 Pronoun He, and the fingular word LORD, 
 fix the fenfe of Elohim ; that 'tis meant 
 of the mofi High God, of one^ not of ma- 
 ny. 
 
 Samuel faith ^What Nation is like to this People ; 
 whom ELOHIM hath redeemed for a People to 
 HIMSELF? 2 Sam. 7. 2 J. Himfelf W2is 
 added to prevent all miftake; that we might 
 not take Elohim in the plural fignification^ but 
 for a fmgle fuperlative ; for the mofl High 
 GOD, notGOpS. 
 
 Another of his Texts is, Te have perverted 
 the words of the living Elohim ; even the Lord of 
 Hofts^ our God^ Jer. 2 j. 36. It were madnefs to 
 interpret here, with our Author, the living 
 GODS; when the explanatory words, th^ 
 LORD of Hofis^ our GO D, fo plainly inti- 
 mate that Elohim \h t\\\sTt^t is oi Super lativey 
 not of plural fignification. 
 
 Jacob called the name of the place ^ Beth-el ; he- 
 caufe Elohim there Appeared to him. Gen. j 5. 7. 
 Here again Beth-el (the Houfe ofGOD) makes 
 us to be aware that, Elohim is not G O D S ; but 
 a fuperlative-, even the mofi High G O D. 
 
 By a parity of Reafon, other words alfo that 
 are put to fignify tht moft High God, may have 
 z plural Termination 'j and yet muft be Inter- 
 preted, only fuperlatively^ and pngularly. We 
 may ufe the words of the Hebrew that fignify 
 CREATOR, andMAKER, witha/'/^- 
 
' of exprefs Trkheifm. \ y 
 
 rdTermimtion ; and yet muft not render thern 
 in a flurd fignification, that is to fay C R E A- 
 T O R S, and M A K E R S ; becaufe (as hath 
 been fo often faid) the flural Termination in the 
 Hebrew^ is only a fuperUtive Singular '^ when 
 intended of God^ or other excellent Objefl: ; 
 whetiier fuch Objeft be Perfon^ or Thing. As, 
 to go on with our Author's Texts. 
 
 Ifa. 54.5. Thy MAKERS are thy Huf 
 hands J the LORD of Hofts is his Name. The 
 latter claufe fuffers us not to miftake the for- 
 mer : it proves what we have been hitherto 
 faying, that ; a fmgular Superlative is expref- 
 fed in Hebrew by the plural Termination, and is 
 not to be rendred Plurally but Singularly, not of 
 many but of one. If it had been faid, LO RDS 
 of Hofts is their Name, Makers muft have been 
 underftood plurally ; but when he faith, thy 
 MAKERS, the LORD of Hofts is HIS 
 Name ; he has left no place for doubt, that the 
 Hebrew word for Makers was intended only 
 fuperlatively.^ not plurally. As in the Texts be- 
 fore quoted, his MASTERS the Egyptian, 
 Gen. ^9. 2. Their LO RDS the Kjng of £- 
 gjpt. Gen. 40. I. The Thigh of Abraham his 
 MASTERS, Gen. 24. 9. And abundance 
 more. 
 
 Solomon faith, Remember thy CR EATORS, 
 Ecclef 12. I. 'Tis only our Author that has 
 prefumed fo to render the words of the wife 
 King. All other Interpreters, and Critics, 
 
 follow- 
 
14 ^r. A. x^ilty of Trithetfm. Letter i. 
 
 following the Rule we h?ve laid down, and the 
 Examples we have cited ; iinanimoufly tranflate 
 that Text by ; Remember thy CREATOR. 
 They have confidered it, as a Text pcirailel to 
 the Three that were laft quoted : in which the 
 plural Termination denotes only the particu- 
 lar Excellence and Dignity ot the Perfons fpoken 
 of. 
 
 My Lord ; after all this, I think no body 
 will wonder, that I have charged the Author of 
 the 3^//^^^;^/-, with an ^jc/^r^y} Tritheifm. My 
 Charge is nothing elfe but a bare recital of his 
 own words ; which he might have foftned by 
 fome fort of Explication : but he has not vouch- 
 fafed, to fay. the leaft word in abatement, tem- 
 per, or excufe; of his perverfions of fo many 
 Texts; which he hasrendred by MAKERS, 
 CREATORS, GODS. He is indeed a 
 Learned Man ; but an unjudiciom Literature is 
 fometimes worfe, than none at all. The beft 
 Apology, in my Opinion, that his Friends can 
 make for him, will be that j it hath hapned to 
 him, as to not a few others : that is to fay, while 
 they were arguing, and writing againft one Er- 
 ror and Extreme \ they have unluckily fallen in- 
 to the contrary. 
 
 Jhe 
 
Tk Faith of the Church. 
 
 BUT let us now fee, what is the Faith of 
 the Catholic Church, and Church of 
 England \ in the Articles of, three Divine Per- 
 fms^ and the manner of our Saviour'* s Divinity. 
 I think, the belief of the Church, ( as it lies 
 in the Creeds and Canons oi Councils^ in the fo- 
 lemn Condemnations of divers Heretics, and the 
 current of approved Writers; ) may be couched 
 in thefe (following) Heads or Diftinftions. 
 
 I. There is but one (Infinite Allperfefl:) un- 
 created BEING, SPIRIT, ovMIND; 
 who is fole MJf{,ERof Heaven and Earth ; 
 /ble Objeft of Divine Worfhip, properly fo cal- 
 led : and whom we ufually defign by this word, 
 
 GO a 
 
 II. The Divinity, or God, (and more efpe- 
 cially the Logos, W I S D O M, or W O R D,) 
 hath alTumed the Humanity of Chrift, into 
 fuch an intimate, perfonal, and indijfoluble Uni- 
 on with it felf; that thereby the Human Na- 
 ture is always under Divine Illumination, and 
 Conduft; and the Divinity doth always exert 
 its natural and eternal PerfeBions in^ and {as far 
 as the Humanity is capable) by the Human Na- 
 
 , ture. 
 
 When I fay, the natural and eternal Perfect- 
 msolx!m Divinity; I mean the Attributes of 
 
 Omni- 
 
1 6 Tk Faith of the Church Letter i . 
 
 Omni-fcience, and Omni-potence , and the 
 reft. For the Omnifiience of the Lord Chrift 
 was manifefted in his knowledg of the Thoughts^ 
 and of the Future : his Omnifotemey in, the pow- 
 er of Miracles 'y and of Creation^ as when he 
 twice multiplied the Loaves. 
 
 When I fay, ^far as the HumAnity is capable ; 
 it is to obviate the Eutychian Herefy, that turned 
 the Humanity into Goi ; and becaufe fome of 
 the Divine Perfeftions feem altogether incom- 
 municable, as the Omni-frefence^ and Pr^-eter- 
 nity: tho alfo Chrift as God, or with reffeEi ti) 
 the Inhabiting Divinity, is Prae-eternal, and Om- 
 niprefent. 
 
 The Catholic Church exprelTcs this Faith, 
 very juftifiably, by the terms Incarnation] fer- 
 final Union J God^ God- man. Some others, 
 more nice than is needful, keep to the words of 
 Scripture ; the Man Jefm Chrift^ in whom dwel- 
 leth the fulnefs of the Godhead: which yet is all 
 that the Church means by, thofe exceeding 
 proper terms, Incarnation, God-man^ &c.' 
 
 We fhall fee by and by very fully, what is 
 intended by the Logos, (y/\{\Q\\ the Greek Church 
 interprets WISDOM; the Latin^ not fo 
 properly, WORD; ) and which we fay 
 was Incarnate* But here we muft fo far anti- 
 cipate, as to obferve that ; whereas 'tis the ge- 
 neral (and I think, truer) Opinion, that only 
 the W I S D O M or S O N was Incarnate, not 
 the whole TRINITY; 'tis to be underftood 
 
 thus« 
 
concerning the Jrlnhyl \y 
 
 thus**^ The WISDOM (not as 'tis a mere 
 PERSONALITY, but) as 'tis under- 
 .iood with, or as it implies and comfrifeth the 
 ivhole Divine Nature, or Godhead^ with all its 
 Attributes and Perfections^ was united to the Hu- 
 manity of our Saviour^ or doth inhabit his Hu- 
 
 can Nature : Whereby he is as compleatly and 
 p'^-feftly God, as he fhould be if the whole 
 ^rinity (and not the SON only) were In- 
 carnate. And by occafion hereof^ I muft add 
 alfohere; when we fay, the Divinity (the Pul^ 
 nefs of the Godhead^ as St. Paul fpeaks,) doth 
 "iiihabit, or is united to, the Humanity of 
 Chrift :'tis not meant by the Church that,the Di- 
 vinity becomes but commenfurate to the HumtLm 
 nity^ Infinite to Finite; nor yet, as Eutyches 
 imagined, that the Humanity is Deified^ that 
 is, becomes Omniprefent, Impaffible^ and the reft 
 of that kind ; Perfedions that are plainly incom- 
 municable to the Humanity, and would deftroy 
 it. But we mean ; as God is ferfeStly and eoiuaU 
 ly God in whatfoever Portion or Space, in the 
 
 eaft imaginable Extenfion, no lefs than in the 
 Afhole\mmtn{\ty of his Effence : therefore he can 
 fully and perfectly communicate himfelf to the 
 Humanity of Chrift, tho but F/;^/>^, 
 
 But if we referve thefe Confiderations, till we 
 are got over the next Head or Particular; 
 they will be more eafily and fully apprehend- 
 ed. 
 
 B 3. God 
 
1 8 The Faith of the Church Letter i. 
 
 J. God is mod perfe6l]y O^te in refpe6t of 
 Ejfeme^ Vnderfianding^ Power of A^ton^ and 
 Will : Thefe are as truly and numerically ond 
 in God; as in an ^^^^/, or diMan. There is 
 however {uch a modal Dijlin^ ion in God ; that 
 thereupon he is called, and is three Perfons : not 
 in the ordinary and vulgar fenfe, of the term Per- 
 fons ; but in the Theological. 
 
 This modal Diftinftion hath been decIarecV 
 and explained, with fome latitude ; as to the 
 Termsy and even as to the Characters of the Per- 
 fons. 
 
 Some Divines of the Schools make the Cha- 
 rafter of the firfl: Perfon to be aciive Pomr^ or 
 Life, or VITAL ACTIVITY; of the 
 fecond, to be Vnderflanding, or Wifdom^ or 
 SELF.KNQWLEDG ; of the third, 
 Lovey^ or WILL. For God's Love is not, as 
 in us, a-Paflion; but his E/^'/^r/W WILL. In 
 fliort, the Three, S E L F-L I V I N G, S E L F- 
 KNOWING, SELF-LOVING, are 
 God's (eifential immanent) Ads on himfelf, the 
 eternal Objeft ; nor are there any more or oth'er 
 eflential (immanent) Afts of God : therefore fe- 
 veral of the Schoolwluthors go no farther, in 
 accounting for the Myftery of the Trinity* 
 They alledged that, " A Divine Perfon is a 
 *^ Mode, or Property of an individual Nature ; 
 *^ it is the individual Divine Nature^ with a dif 
 ^' cretive Property, or particular Mode, Confe- 
 *^ quently, God, or the Divine Nature, is 
 
 "THREE 
 
concerning the Trinity^. l^ 
 
 ^' THREE Perfons, on the account 6f the 
 ^' aforefaid Modes or Properties ; ^that is, as he 
 « is SELF-LIVING, SELF-KNOW- 
 '' ING, and SELF-LOVING. Nor is 
 
 ^' he more than three Perfons ; becaufe thefe are 
 ^' the only Effential, immanent (or internal) Ad^ 
 " of God. 
 
 Thefe Doftors were never Cenfured, or 
 Blamed in the Church ; as defedive in Faith, 
 or as lefs Orthodox than they ought to have 
 been : Some of the moft learned Moderns have 
 acquiefced in their Explication ; of our Englijh 
 Writers, that Subtle (Scholaftic) Head, Mr, 
 R. Baxter^ often approves it, in his Catholic The^ 
 ology. But becaufe cho this Explication ac* 
 counts for the notion of Perfons in the Divine 
 Nature ; yet it doth not, with fo obvious faci- 
 lity, fatisfy for the RELATIONS (Ki^^^r^ 
 Son^ and Sprit proceeding from both) in God : 
 therefore the more Current Expofition, among 
 Catholic Writers, is St. Au(lin\ ; as here fol- 
 loweth. 
 
 The firft Perfon in the Holy Trinity, is un- ' 
 begotten Mind, or ORIGINAL WIS- 
 DOM; the Fountain and Caufe of the other 
 two, and therefore (by analogy to things Natural, 
 and condefcenfion to the Human Under flanding^) 
 called the FAT HER. 
 
 Next is the Logos, reflex or begotten W I S* 
 DOM; even the Wifdom that is generated by, 
 or that refulteth from, God'§ contemplating anci 
 
 B 2 knowing 
 
to The Faith of the Church Letter i. 
 
 knowing his own Perfeftions ; that Ideal Re- 
 prefentation, Self-knowledg, or Exprefs Image 
 (as St.' Paul fpeaks ) that is necelTarily begotten 
 within himfelf, by God's knowing and under- 
 ftanding himfelf; and is therefore named the 
 SON. ' 
 
 V. Laftly, The Divine volition or LOVE, by 
 which God loveth or W I L L E T H HIM- 
 SELF; his Eternal Spiration (or as it were 
 Breathing) of Love, towards himfelf; on that 
 account fitly called the S fir it. 
 
 They do not mean however that, mere 
 WISDOM, or KNOWLEDG, or 
 LO V E in God, is a Ferjon : but each'of thefe 
 Idioms, as "^tis under fiood with ^ or as it includeth 
 the Divine Nature^ or Godhead^ with all its Attri- 
 butes and Perfections^ is rightly called a Perfon ; 
 and a Divine Perfon. And hence alfo we fay, 
 each Perfon is truly and properly GOD, BE- 
 ING, SPIRIT5 but not a God, ^Being, 
 a Spirit, becaufe 'tis the fame (numerical) God^ 
 Being, Spirit^ who, as having chefe three Idioms 
 (Charafters, Afts, Modes, Perfonalities,) is 
 therefore named three Pcrfons. 
 
 The Author of the Judgment knows, or 
 ought to know that ; it was with refpefl: to 
 this Explication of the Trinity, that the Divines 
 of the Schools, the General Councils of Later an 
 and Lyons^ the Councils of Toledo^ &c. have 
 defined that, the SON is eternally Generated^ 
 and the S P I R I T eternally Proceeds. They 
 
 rightly 
 
concerning the Trinltyl 2 I 
 
 rightly make the Generation^ and Spiration (or 
 Proceflion) to be edential, permanent, and 
 eternal Acis : becaufe eternal origind Mini muft 
 needs be underftood to Kjiovp^ and Will or 
 LOVE it felf, hy a continual ferpetud Acf. 
 And from hence alfo they truly infer that, the 
 Generation and Proceflion are natural mid necef 
 fary^ not arbitrary and /rf^ A£ls. As alfo that 
 there can be no more Perfons in the Divine Na- 
 ture, but only thefe Three ; only original 
 MIND, the reflex WISDOM, and the 
 Eternal Spiration of Love, or S E L F-C O M- 
 P L A C E N C E ; for thefe compleat the No- . 
 tion, and the Perfeftion of God ; and without 
 them, he fhould neither be Happy, nor God. 
 
 LOVE naturally arifeth, or proceedeth, 
 from what is apprehended, and is it NO JV/V 
 as our great ej} and our mofi connatural Good : and 
 the greateft Good of God can be no other, but 
 that he perfedly KNOWETH himfcir- 
 for he only is a perfect Object. From whence 
 we fee, how the Spirit^ who 15 Divine LOVE, 
 proceeds /r(?w? the Father and the Son : and that, 
 this whole Difcourfe, of original MIND, 
 reflex KNOWLEDG, andLOVE, is 
 verified in the Divine Nature. 
 
 When we fay, this Trinity is a Myftery ; 'tis 
 becaufe father^ Son^ and Spirit, arc not here 
 underftood in the vulgar and ordinary fenfe ; as 
 neither is the term Perfons. Perfons^ ^ Father ^ 
 Son^ Spirit^ Generation^ Procejfion^ ^firatior^y 
 
 B J Begotten^ 
 
2% The Faith of the Church Letter !• 
 
 Begotte^^in the Divinity, are fo called ; as was 
 before faid, only by an Analogy (or remote 
 likenefs) to things natural^ 2inA by condefcenfton to 
 the Human Vnderjlanding. In all created Per- 
 fons, fo many Perfons are fo many diftinft 
 Suhflances^ Vnderfimdings^ Wills ^ and Powers 
 of A5tion ; they are fo many diftinfl: Beings^ 
 Minds, and Spirits, In like manner alfo do 
 Father and Son differ, in all the created Kinds ; 
 they are as diftinfl: and feveral (by their re- 
 fpeftive Subftances, Underftandings, Wills,) 
 as three Angels do differ (or are diftinft) from 
 three Men. How extremely unlike is this Al- 
 terity and Diverfity, to the real Unity of the 
 three Divine Perfons ; or of Father, Son, and 
 Spirit, in God ? For thefe in God, as we have 
 faid, are not, diftinguiflied, by diftinft Sub- 
 ftances, Underftandings, Wills, &c. but are 
 (numerically) one Subftance, Underftanding,, 
 Being, Spirit; they differ, as a Mind and its 
 A5is. 
 
 The great Variety of Terms ; ufed by Di- 
 vines, in treating of this Article ; perplexes and 
 confounds moft Readers; who are not aware 
 that, all thefe fo (feemingly) different Terms 
 fignify the fame things but becaufe none of 
 them exprefs it adec^uatelj^ therefore for a more 
 clear and perfeO: conception of this Article, we 
 willingly ufe all forts of Terms and Explicati- 
 ons that help to enlighten it. Thus, Mr. Hook- 
 er^ Author of the Ecclefiajlical Polity^ fays. 
 
 "The 
 
concerning the Trinkyl 2 } 
 
 « The Divine Subftance (orEffence) with this 
 ^' Property, to he of None^ maketh the Perfon 
 <^ of the F A T H E R ; the fame Divine Ef- 
 *^ fence, with this Property, to he of the Fa- 
 " ther, maketh the Perfon of the SON; the 
 " felf-fame Divine Effence or Subflance, with 
 *^ this Property y to he of Both, maketh the Per- 
 '' fon of the HOLY SPIRIT. So that, 
 *' in every Perfon there is implied the SUB- 
 '' STANCE of God; andalfothe PRO- 
 " PERTY, which caufeth the fame Perfon 
 " to differ from the other two. It is not a novel 
 Explication, devifed by Mr. Hooker ; but the 
 Explication igenerally received in the Church, 
 and only reprefented in other equivalent Terms. 
 For by the Property, to he of None, (which, he 
 faith, together with the Divine Effence, doth 
 make the Perfon of the Father',') he means 
 ORIGINAL WISDOM: Mr. Hooker 
 calls it the Property to he of None ; becaufe 'tis 
 Un-begotten and Un-originated. By the Prt?- 
 perty, to he of the Father, he means the reflex 
 or BEGOTTEN WISDOM; whichis 
 generated (in the manner before declared) by 
 Original Wifdom, or the Father, and is there- 
 fore named the SON. Laftly, he faith, to 
 proceed from hoth, maketh the third Perfon. 
 Right, for Divine LOVE proceeds from un- 
 begotten MIND and the reflex WISDOM; 
 'tis their joint and common Afl:. He concludes 
 as foundly ; " Each Divine Perfon is the Di- 
 
 B 4 *^ vine 
 
14 '^f^^ F^^^^ of the Churoi) Letter i. 
 *^ vine Subftance with one of thefe Properties, 
 ^' and confifteth of the Property and the Suh- 
 " fiance, ^Tis as much as to fay ) a Divine Per- 
 fon is either ORIGINAL WISDOM, 
 (which is of None^^ together with the Divine 
 Effence : or it is the Divine ElTence with the 
 REFLEX WISDOM, which is (?/ ^fe 
 former \ or"(Iaftly) 'tis the fame Divine Ef- 
 fence or Subftance, with the Spiration of 
 LOVE, which proceeds from both. 
 
 When others call the Divine Perfons indiffe- 
 rently by abfiraS or concrete Names; which 
 when ufed of Creatures, or their Qualities or 
 AQ:s, are readily underftood by every body; 
 but when applied to the fubjefl of this Arti- 
 cle, are underftood only by the Learned ; and 
 often mifundei;ftood even by them, unlefs they 
 have been long converfant in thefe Queftions: 
 I fay, thofe as well ahfiraB as concrete Terms 
 and Names, do all refer to that explication of 
 this Article that is before given ; they are in- 
 tended only, farther to explain it, and ^^ ex- 
 plain it. 
 
 ; Thefe Terms and Names are Aois^ V roper - 
 tieSy Modes, SubftFiences^ CharaHers^ Idioms^ 
 ■Jslotes^ Notions^ Ideas^ Relations^ Perfons^ Per- 
 fondities, Effence^ Subfidnce, Trinity. Their 
 jmeaningis, briefly, as here follows. 
 • The Divine Perfons are called ACTS; be- 
 caufe Wifdomand Love are indeed elTential J^s 
 oi God, on himfelf the eternal Objedo 'Yet it 
 
concerning the Trinity. i y 
 
 is not the mere Jci that is a Perfon, but the Di- 
 vide Ejfence a4 thus aBwg. 
 
 They are PROPERTIES, IDIOMS, 
 and C H A R A C T E R S ; as they diftwguijh, 
 and thereby v2iVio\:'{\f' denominate^ the Divine 
 Effence. For in reipeO; of one Property, Cha- 
 rafter, or Idiom, the Divine EiTence is named 
 t\\Q Father \ in refpeO: of another, the Son\ in 
 refpeft of tlie third, the Holy Spirit. But we 
 muft always remember that, thefe Appellations 
 are not ufed univocally (or in the fame fenfe and 
 refpeft) concerning God and any Creatures, or 
 their Afts. 
 
 They are NOTES, NOTIONS, IDEAS ; 
 as they ferve to notify^ or declare to us, the pro- 
 per and peculiar Diftinclions of the Divine Per- 
 fons. As namely that, the firft Perfon is the 
 Godhead (or God) under the notion of un-be- 
 gotten MIND; the fecond is the lame God, 
 Godhead, or Divine Effjince, under the Idea of 
 reflex WISDOM; the third is the fame 
 Godhead under the Note of Divine LOVE. 
 
 They are RELATIONS; as from 
 thefe Properties and Afts, there arifes in the 
 Godhead the my^ical Relation of F A T H E R, 
 SON, and SPIRIT proceeding from both. 
 Which, why they are fo called, (namely by the 
 Appellations Father^ Son, and Sprit ^ has been 
 afore often declared. 
 
 Theyare MODESand SUBSISTEN- 
 CES, or more properly and truly Modes of 
 
i6 7he Faith of the Church Letter i, 
 
 fuhfifiing'y as by occafion of them, God is con- 
 fidered as fubfifting after three Modes or Man^ 
 mrs : namely, as unhegotten MIND, reflex or 
 generated. WISDOM, and as loving or W I L- 
 LINGhim(eIf. 
 
 They are calledPERSON ALITIE S, 
 when confider'd abftraBedly ; that is, feparately^ 
 from the Divine Effence or Godhead : they are 
 PERSONS, whtncon{iAtvQA concretelj^ that 
 is, together with the Divine Effence: Each of 
 them fo confidered, is no longer a mere Perfo- 
 nality, but a Perfon ; a Ferfon livings Intel- 
 ligent^ really Exifiing^ and not fubfifting on- 
 
 The Divine ESSENCE, orSUB- 
 STANCE is the Godhead or God \ with all 
 Divine Attributes and Perfections. 
 
 TheTRINITYis the fame Divine Ef- 
 fence ; as diftinguifh'd by its three Properties j 
 that have been already fo often defcribed. 
 
 But we may note farther that, of thefe terms, 
 fome arc more generally ufed ; and are warrant- 
 ed by greater Authorities, than the reft are. 
 Such are the terms, MO DE S, PROPER- 
 TIES, and PE RSONS; therefore I will 
 fay fome what of them more particularly. 
 
 M O D E S is a term more antient than any 
 of the reft ; and alfo more proper : it is older 
 than the term TRINITY it felf; 'twas ufed 
 by "Jufiin Martyr^ within lefs than 140 Years 
 after our Saviour. His words are, M[a vwos^- 
 
concerning the Trinity] 27 
 
 01s, rpo-zro; 9 \^apfeu)s rpec's i (?/?<? Suhfisience or 
 ESSENCE, three MO DES of fuh^fting. 
 Tis ufed alFo hfJ,Ddmafce}2^ the firft of the 
 Fathers that collefted together the fcatter'd and 
 confufcd parts of Theology into a regular Sy- 
 ftem or Body ; his words are, 'tTn ^ ccyicfx rpioc- 
 
 |£6)s^ *'In the Holy Trinity, a Perfon is an 
 '' eternal MODE or manner of fubfifting. 
 'Tis alfo the moft common Term of the Di- 
 vines of the middle i\ges, called the Divines 
 of the Schools. 
 
 PROPERTIES is much ufed by the 
 Greek Fathers ; but that which makes this word 
 the more Authentic, is the Programme of the 
 Emperor Jujiin^ to which all the Churches (tho 
 not efpecially thereto required) gave their Affent ; 
 as Evagrius witneffes, Hi ft, EccL lib. 5. c. 4. In 
 this Prcgramma It is faid ; '' We adore the 
 " Trinity in Unity, and the Unity in Trinity : 
 '^ an Unity as to' ESSENCE or GOD- 
 ^'HEAD; a Trinity, as to PR OPE Pv- 
 '' TIES or Perfons. In the Greek, thus; 
 
 Mr. Calvin, after a Judicious and learned 
 DiiTertation concerning the Holy Trinity, and 
 the term P^r/^;^i-, concludes ; and fummeth up all 
 in thefe words. " But if any are fo nice, that 
 '' after all they will not allow the word P E R- 
 '^ SONS ; yet do what they can, they m.uft 
 ^' confefs that when we fay One, we mean the 
 
 "SUB- 
 
X 
 
 2 8 The Faith of the Church Letter \l 
 
 ^^ SUBSTANCE; when we fay /^w, 
 ^^ we intend that in the Divine Effence or Sub- 
 '' ftance there are three PROPERTIES. 
 '^ Which being fincerely acknowledged by any; 
 *' we will not litigate with them, hjlit. cap. 
 6.feff.2f).p.ijg,Ge^ev, 1550. 
 
 But PERSONS is mrv more commonly, 
 and aimoft only ufed. St. Auftin faith of it; 
 ^^ We ufe the term Perfons^ not becaufe we 
 " find it in Scripture : but becaufe the Scrip- 
 *^ tures do not contradift it ; and by a kind of 
 " Neceffity, as labouring under want of 
 *^ words. DeTrin. lihq. As the L^^/;?j did not 
 at firft like the term Hyfofiafis ; fo the Greeks 
 were dilTatisfied with Profopon^ ovPerfon: 
 but they came to agreement, by fixing a deter- 
 mincLte fenfe on thole very ambiguous Words ; 
 the Latins were content with HypoftafiSy and 
 the Greeks with Profopon^ as both are interpret- 
 ed by "^uftm Martyrh rpozyQ^ v^yapftfio^, a 
 MODE or manner of fubfifting. 
 
 There never was any thing fo truly faid, or 
 fo well eftablifh'd ; but one Sciolift or other 
 would be excepting to it, either out of vanitjr, 
 or on miftake and ignorance : accordingly this 
 Faith of the Catholic Church, has been attack- 
 ed by divers Objeftions; fome of them indeed 
 from (otherwife) learned Men, but the moft 
 from fuch as were ignorant. I fhall mention 
 only the Objedions that are confideraible ; and 
 from Able Perfons, or Parties. 
 
 Of 
 
concerning tJ?e Trinity. 29 
 
 Of fome Obje^ions, 
 
 Of this fort, I account the Author of the J/;- 
 teUeBud Sjjlem^ Dr. Rdfh Cudworth ; who 
 revived the Errors of Vdentinus Gentilis^ con- 
 cerning the Trinity. He makes the three Di- 
 vine Perfons to be diJlinB Subfiances in number ; 
 and only the Father to be truly and, properly 
 God^ or Almighty and Alknowing ; the other 
 two Perfons Jubordmate to the Father in Power 
 and Authority, and wholly defendent on him. 
 Therefore he could not indure the Doctrine of 
 the Schools (which is indeed the Doflrine of the 
 Catholic Church) concerning the Trinity : he 
 complements us in a very extraordinary man- 
 ner, on our Explication of that Article ; he faith, 
 The fcholaflick Trinity is a pure Jargonry ; 
 " the Philofophy of Gotham : a Trinity that 
 " falls not under Human Conception, and 
 " which cannot be in Nature. Afhantafiic 
 " Trinity of merely nominal Perfons ; Perfons 
 ^^ only in Name, not in Reality. It was invent- 
 ^' ed by P. Lombard^ Father of theSchool-Doc- 
 " tors, and Biflhop of Varis ; and was never 
 *' authorifed by any Public Authority, except 
 *^ at the Council of the Lateran in the Year 
 '' 1215. 
 
 I was furprized, Iconfefs, that Dr. Cud- 
 tvorth Ihould prefunie to fay ; the Catholic 
 Faith, or as he calls it the SchoUJlic Trinity^ is a 
 
 Novelty, 
 
 u 
 
5 o The Faith of the Church Letter i . 
 
 Novelty, devifed by the Bifhopof P^r^ : and 
 that it hath no Warrant, but the Council of L^- 
 tera». We quoted before the words of Jujlm 
 Martyr, fcarce 140 Years after our Saviour; 
 oneESSENC E.three MO DBS offubfifting : 
 and the definition of '^. Damafcen^ a Perfon in 
 the Holy Trmity is a MODE or manner of fub- 
 fijting ; which, tho in fo few words, implies 
 the whole Doftrine of the Schools concerning the 
 Trinity. The Programma alfo, received by all 
 the Greek Churches, that defcribes thd Perfons 
 to be P R O P E R T I E S, is about 600 Years 
 older than P. Lon^bardl^iiho^ oi Paris. 
 
 As for the Latin Church, St. Jufiin has writ- 
 ten 1 5 Books of the Trinity ; the fum and fub- 
 fiance of them all, is only this ; '' Mens, No- 
 '' titia, ^;f;^< (MIND, WISDOM, LOVE,) 
 ^' are the three Perfons of the Holy Trinity ; 
 '' the BlelTed Trinity is God^ confidered a^s Ori- 
 '' ginal WISDOM; and as I^NOWING 
 " and WILLING himfelf. This was fol- 
 lowed by the School-Doftors and middle Ages : 
 and 'tis referred to, in all the Qonfejjions of Faith 
 by the Coumils of thofe Ages ; in particular, by 
 the General Councils of Lateran^ and Lyonsy 
 and by the Councils of Toledo. Thofe Coun- 
 cils, as well in their Confeffions as Canons, ve- 
 ry carefully adhere to the Doftrine of St. Au- 
 ft in ; and of the Schools : concerning the Tri- 
 nlty^ and the Incarnation. 
 
 Of 
 
cortceniing the Trinity. ^ { 
 
 Of the Modern Jargomjfs^ I fhall mention 
 only Mr. Cdvin. He is a perfeft DIfciple of 
 St. Auftin ; as well in this, as many other Ar- 
 ticles of Religion : In the fixth Chapter of his 
 Injlitutions^ Gene v. 1550. he faith. Non eB 
 tamen inmis vel fupervacua ordwis Ohfervatio ; 
 dum frimm recenjetur Pater, deinde ex eo Filius, 
 fofteA ex utroque Spiritus. Num & mens tinius 
 cujufque eo jfonte incUnAt^ ut frimo D EV M 
 confideret^ deinde emergent em ex eo SAP IE N* 
 TIAM\ turn foftremo VIRTVTEM^ qu^ 
 Confilii fui decret^ exequitur : quA ratione dun- 
 taxat a Patre exijiere dicitur Eilim ; a Patre fi- 
 mul & Filio Spritus. In fliort, thus ; *' 'Tis 
 ^^ even natural to conceive, firft GOD, next 
 « his reflex WISDOM; then his POW- 
 ^' E R, by which he executes his Counfels and 
 *' Will ; on which account only^ we fay the Son is 
 ^' of the Father^ and the fioly Spirit of both. 
 But note here that, Mr. Cdvin^ in his reciting 
 the order of the Divine Perfons, calls only the 
 Father GOD: but this he did, only by way of 
 Appropriation ; as they fpeak. That is, not as 
 if the fecond and third Perfons were not alfo 
 God, and equally fo with the firft ; but on the 
 account that the Father is Fons Deitatis^ as the 
 Antients fpoke, the Fountain and Caufe of the 
 other two Ferfons^ ; as is before defcribed. And 
 this way of fpeaking of the Father, is not pe- 
 culiar to Mr. Calvin ; other Orthodox Writers, 
 and the Scriptures themfelves, fometimes ufe it ; 
 
 as 
 
^ 1 The Fakk of the Church Letter i . 
 
 as is obferved too by others, who have written 
 on thefe Queftions.,_ 
 
 The Authority of tht Later an Councilis not 
 fo light, as Dr. Cudworth would intimate; much 
 lefs was this the only Council that confirms the 
 Expofition of the Hdy Trinity^ now generally 
 received. The Council of Later an^ in the Year 
 1215. confiited of 70 Metropolitans, 400 Bi- 
 fhops, other Fathers more than 800 ; the Am- 
 bafladors of the Roman and Greek Emperors, 
 and of the Kings of England^ Spain, france^ 
 jferufa/em^ and Cyfrm, They followed the pre- 
 ceding Councils, in accounting for the Myftc- 
 ry of the Trinity ; and have been exprejly ap- 
 proved by all the fubfequent Councils. 
 
 Dr. Cudworth J in oppofition to that Council, 
 defcribes the Divine Perfons to be No'es, 
 MINDS', nveu^Toc, SPIRITS: but nei- 
 ther he, nor Dr. Painy could alledg fo much as 
 one Council or Father, that ever fo fpoke. So 
 little reafon had they, to accufe the Catholic 
 DoQrine, as Novel ; or not warranted by a 
 fufficient number of good Authorities. 
 
 In fhort, the Gothamites and Jargonijls de- 
 fend themfelves very well againft this firft Ob- 
 jeftion ; and retort it, on their Oppofers. 
 
 But others have raifed another Exception^ to 
 the Doftrine of the Church ; before defcribed. 
 They fay ; by this account, not only GOD, 
 but every other Intelligent Being, fhall be three 
 Verfons: for every Angel, and every Man, has 
 
 thefe 
 
conccrnhig the 7rhiity. ^ ^ 
 
 thefe three Modes^ Properties^ or whatever elfe 
 you will call them ; Mind or Original W I S- 
 D O M, reflex or generated K NO W LE DG, 
 and LOVE towards it felf. If thefe Internal 
 Diftinftions donot make a'Man, or an Angel, 
 to be three Perfons ; or introduce the Relations 
 of Father^ So^y and Spirit : why fhould it be 
 faid, they ^vQihr^t Perfons ^ or introduce three 
 Relations in God ? This is an Objection of the 
 Vmtarians\ much infifted on by ^ PoUnder^^ 
 that undertook to anfwer B. Ks-ckermm^ Pro* 
 feflfor at Dmntzick ; and by M. Ruarus in his 
 Letters to (the ingenious Minim) M.irinus Mer- 
 fennus. The Metaphyficians ; and particular- 
 ly, our learned Countryman Mr. J.Sarjeant^ 
 in his Appendix to his TrAnfnatural Philofophy ; 
 anfwer here with many Subtleties and Fine- 
 nefles, from the Metaphyficd School: In my 
 Judgment, the Catholic Faith hath no need of 
 them ; and the true Anfwer is this. The Ob- 
 jectors have not confidered that, PERSONS 
 and RELATIONS, when ufed of God, 
 2LVC artifcial Terms ; and therefore have a pecu- 
 liar meaning in Theology^ altogether different 
 from their Intendment in familiar Speech^ 
 There is no Art or Science ; whet.her Sacred or 
 Civil, whether Learned or Mechanical ; but 
 hath its Terms that are peculiar to it felf oiily : 
 which Terms are words, all of them borrow- 
 ed, from common and familiar Speech 5 but 
 ufed by the Art, in quite another fenfe ; a fenfe 
 
 C pecu^ 
 
5 4 T^l^^ ^^'^^^^ ^f ^^^^ Church Letter i . 
 
 peculiar to the Science or Art. Thereft)re we 
 are not to be furprized at it, that PERSON, 
 in common ffeecb and ufe, is a f articular Beings 
 difiinci from all other Beings ; and that hath fun- 
 dry Properties or Modes belonging to it : But in 
 the Science of Theology, when we fpeak of 
 God, it is onlj a Mode or Property ; as fuch 
 Mode is confidered together with the Divine Ef- 
 fence^ Godhead^ or God. The terms of Sciences 
 »and Arts are moft commonly arbitrary ; we 
 are not to demand a Reafon of them : 'tis fuf- 
 ficient that, they are explained to us ; and that 
 when we know what is intended by 'em, we 
 find our felves to be iniiructed in fome thing 
 that is either ufefu!, or curious. Notwith- 
 ftanding, in the choice of terms we fometimes 
 afFefl: fome fort of Analogy, fome degree of 
 Juikenefs, between the things : that is, the thing 
 intended by- the Word, as it is an artificial Term ; 
 and the thing intended by it, in ordinary Ufe 
 and Speech. And hence, becaufe SELF- 
 KNOWLEDG, and SELF-COMPLA- 
 CENCE, are generated by MIND; there- 
 fore in Theology^ thcfe Properties have the 
 names of Father ^ Son, and Spirit proceeding 
 from both: and for the fame reafon they are cal- 
 led RELATIONS. And. agaiir, becaufe 
 hyPerfon'm ordinary fpeech we mean a parti- 
 cular intelligent Being, diftinguiOied from all 
 other Beings by fome peculiar Mode or Proper- 
 ty J therefore the Godhead;, or God^ as confi- 
 dered 
 
concermig the Trinity 1 ^ c 
 
 dered to three different and difcretive Properties 
 or Modes, is confidered as (or is named) three 
 Per forts. And we appropriate to God this way 
 of fpeaking ; we extend it not to Creatures, 
 whether Men or Angels ; out of reverence to the 
 Divinity : And becaufe thofe Properties are fo 
 much more excellent and perfeft in God, than 
 in whatfoever Creatures ; that the fame Name 
 agreeth not to them. And it fhould feem, this 
 account muft necelTarily be admitted, by all the 
 Orthodox; who acknowledg no other but a 
 modal dijlinciion in God. For it was a Remark, 
 worthy of his Learning and Judgment, that 
 Dr. Edward Stillir^gjleet^ late Bifbop of Wor- 
 cejler^ makes in his Preface to his Vindication of 
 the Docirme of the Trinity. *^ When we confi- 
 ^' der a Divine Effence, faith the Bi/hop. there 
 *' can be no dijiinction conceived in it, but by 
 " different MODES of fuhfiHing\ or what 
 " is the fame, RELATIVE PROPER- 
 " TIES in the fame Divine Eflence. Pref. 
 p. 1 <5. ; 
 
 , There is yet this farther fcruple. It is not 
 very obvious, how reflex or generated WIS- 
 DOM can be faid to be Incarnate ; Or hoWj 
 if the Son and Spirit are only the S E L f- 
 KNOWLEDG and SELF-LOVE qi 
 God, they can be invocated in fucK a forrn as 
 this ; '' O God the SON have mercy upon us 
 i'. miferable Sinners. ^ O God the^ HOLY. 
 '^ (^HdS'T have mercy upon us miferable 
 
 C 2 ^^ Sin- 
 
5 6 T/;e Faith of the Church Letter i . 
 
 " Sinners. Nay, and the words, God the 
 F AT HER have mercy ufon us miferahle Sin- 
 ners^ will be as improper ; for the Father, in 
 this Hypothefis, is not a diJlinH Being ; the 
 Father^ as the firft Perfon of the Trinity, is no 
 more but un-begotten or Original WISDOM. 
 Farther, the Expreffions in the Nicene Creed, 
 and divers in Holy Scripture, attribute fuch 
 Properties and Afts to the Divine Perfons; as 
 plainly fuppofe them to be Beings and Sprits : 
 they can be no ways undciftood of a mere. 
 SELF-KNOWLEDG, SELF-LOVE, 
 or Original W I S D O M of God. 
 
 This is the great Objeftion of the Tritheijls ; 
 or of tliofe that hold, the Perfons of the Tri- 
 nity are fo many infinite ^S^imj, Minds, and 
 Beings : it is grounded, fo far as it hath any ap- 
 pearance of ftrength and pertinency, on a mif- 
 apprehenfion of the Churches Meaning and Do- 
 ftrine. 
 
 For firft, the Church doth not fay that, mere 
 SELF-KNOWLEDG (or generated 
 WISDOM) was Incarnate ; but this Pro-' 
 petty, " as taken with, or as it comprifes the 
 '' Divine Effence, Godhead, or God^ ,with all 
 " his Perfeftions and Attributes, was Incarnate. 
 Which is warranted by divers (clear) Texts ; 
 as, Col. 2.9. In hm [Chriil: Jefus] drpelleth the 
 Fulnefs of the Godhead, Col. 2. j. In whom^ 
 [the Lord Chrift,] are all the Treasures of 
 WISDOM and K,NOfVLEDG. i Cor. 
 
 1.24. 
 
concerning- the Trinity . j 7 
 
 I. 24. We preach Chrifl^ the Power of God^ and, 
 theW ISDO M of God. Thefe Textsamount 
 to this ; " The Fulnefs of the GODHEAD,. 
 '' in thp Perfon of the WISDOM, was 
 *^ Incarnate in the Humanity of Chrift. 
 
 It is hard indeed to apprehend, How the Di- 
 vinity (or God) fliould be incarnate in the Per- 
 fon only of the Logos or WISDOM; w^hile 
 the other two Divine Perfons w^ere not Incar- 
 nate :• and the Anfwers ufually made methinks, 
 are not very fatisfaQory. Some Learned Men 
 have faid, not the ao>©- (W O R D or W I S- 
 DOiVl) only, but the rvholeTrinitj was Incar^ 
 nate : and that, otherwife we cannot fay, God 
 was Incarnate ; for GOD implies the whole 
 Trinity. Others have anfwered, there lies the 
 fame difficulty againfl: the Tritheiflic Hjpo- 
 thefis : (or if there d.rQ three hfimte Spirits, who 
 yet are all of them but one God ; what was In- 
 carnate could not (in this Hypothefis) he perfect 
 Gody if only one of thefe Spirits was Incarnate ; 
 WQ cannot fay, GOD was Incarnate, if but 
 one Spirit of ^jhe Trinity (or God) was Incar- 
 nate. Let the Objeftors therefore clear their 
 own Explication, of this Exception ; and at the 
 fame time they will clear ours. 
 
 I fhould chufe to fay. We are not concern- 
 ed in this difficulty ; becaufe we fay only, 
 G O D was Incarnate, and the W I S D O M 
 Incarnate : we go no farther ; we affirm no- 
 thing in this matter of the Incarnation, concern- 
 C ? ing 
 
:j 8 77;e Faith of the Church Letter i . 
 
 ingthe other two Perfi rs. We fpeak of the 
 Incarnation, no farther than it is revealed ; that 
 God, ferfea GOD, in the Perfon of the WIS- 
 DOM, was incarnate : this is intelligible, it 
 hath nothing of difficulty to our apprehenfions. 
 He that is difpofed to ask hereupon ; Can God 
 be Incarnate, and not the whole Trinity, which is 
 God ; the Fulnej's of the Godhead, and not all the 
 Perfo^s of the Godhead ? Such a one is too curi- 
 ous, and importunate ; he puts Queftions that can- 
 not well (it may be) be anfwerdd, without our 
 affirming or denying beyond what hath been 
 revealed by God, or is required by the Catho- 
 lic Church to be believed. Yet tofuchaone 
 we can fay ; it is evident that, perfeff God can 
 be communicated, when the whole of God is not 
 communicated. For God being ferfe5t God^ as 
 was before obferved^ in whatfoever portion of 
 Space ; in the /f/i/ imaginable Extenfion, no lefs 
 than in the whole Immenfity of his Eflence : he 
 could therefore, tho Infimte^ communicate him- 
 felf perfedly to the fnite Humanity of Chrift, 
 as to Divine PerfetHons ; tho h» did not com- 
 municate himfelt wholly ^ as to the Omni^frefence 
 and Jnpi^dity of his Subjlance or Ejfence,' There- 
 fore, il fomething like to this hath alfohapned, 
 in the Incarnation of the WISDOM only ; 
 while the other two Perfons were not Incarnate; 
 it implies no contradiftion ; nay it feems fuffici- 
 ently illuftrated, by the other ; that is to fay, 
 fo iar illuftratedor^ cleared, that we need hot to 
 hefitate at it. The 
 
concerning the Trhilt w 1 9 
 
 The Prayer, '' O God the Father ^ O God the 
 ^' Son, O God the Holy Ghoji have mercy up- 
 ^' on us miferable Sinners ; hath been difliked 
 by divers Learned Men; in particular, by 
 Mv, Calvin: but we muft interpret the Chur- 
 ches Prayers^ by her known Doclrh^e. The 
 Church doth not intend, cannot intend, by that 
 form ; to acknowledg more Divine Obje&s df 
 Worfhip, than one: for (he profefleth the cch- 
 trary. She intends therefore here, only '' to 
 '' invocateGod by, or under, the feveral D/^ 
 '' thclions\ which fhe acknowledgeth to be in 
 '^ him : and by which flieendeavours more per- 
 " feftly to apprehend him.- But thefe Diftin- 
 ftions ; tho for good Reafons named Pcrfonsy 
 and Father, Son^ and Spirit ; are underftood 
 by her as only the different MODES o\ the Di- 
 yine Subfiftence, or Subfiftence of God : and 
 therefore as often as they occur in the Prayers, 
 they are to be taken in the Theological fenfe ; 
 not in the profane and vulgar. 
 
 As to fom.e Expreffions in the Creeds^ and 
 Holy Scriptures. Many things are faid of our 
 Saviour in the Scriptures and Creeds, which not 
 only fuppofe him to have hccn pr,€exi/le/?t to the 
 World \ but to be the Maker ^ and Gover/jour oi 
 ic. The Catholic Church underftands them, 
 as fpoken of his Perfo^ ; but of his Perfon^ only 
 in reffieff of the Inhabiting Divinity : and Jhe 
 believes that, not the generated WISDOM 
 only, but GOD in the Perfon of the W IS^ 
 C4 DOM 
 
4P The Faith of the Church Letter i. 
 
 pOMor SON, was Incarnate. Thefe two 
 Keys open all the Difficulties, of any Expref- 
 fions in the Church- Creeds and Holy Scriptures ; 
 concerning the W I S D O M, W O R D, or 
 SON; as alfo concerning our Lord Chrijl as he 
 iS'God and Man. 
 
 . Concerning the Holy Sfirit^ wherever fuch 
 4?ttributions are given to him, as imply him to 
 Han aftual diftina B E I N G, M I N D, .or 
 SPIRIT: they are fpoken of him ; as the Per- 
 JbnoithG Spirit includeth, in its complete noti- 
 on, the Divinity, Godhead, or God; and are 
 not fpoken othk.Perfona/itji ;0nly, which is no 
 more but uivine L 6 V E, or DivineSELF- 
 COMPLACENCE. And the fame is 
 to be underftood of the other two Perfons. 
 
 And now upon review of the whole, that I 
 have faid on thefe ArticJes ; 1 have but this far- 
 ther to add. Firft, Twill be very thankful to 
 Dr. J. or any Body elfe ; that fliall inform me, 
 on good grounds, wherein the Explication I have 
 here given, is mor^ ot^lefs, ovoihernufe^ than the 
 Church teaches. • 
 
 : Next, I think nothing hath been faid, but 
 what is obvious to any ordinary Capacity ; u- 
 fing fuch heed, as is required to the underftand- 
 ing and comprehending the Mjftery of any other 
 Art or Science. There is no Science or Art, 
 but muft have an intent application of the Mind 
 of the Learner ; or he fhall never comprehend 
 it ^ the Inftitution in Arts and Sciences, in the 
 ' ' ^ very 
 
concerning the Trinity. 4 1 
 
 very meaneft of them, miift be diligently and of- 
 ten confidered ; or a Man fhall never be an 
 Jdeft^ orMaflerofhis Art. Therefore, ifalfo 
 in Divinity or Religion, fome Articles muft be 
 heard or read with a clofe Obfervation, to ap- 
 prehend them rightly, fully, and diftin£lly ; if 
 they muft be read, it may be, over and over 
 again: let us be content with fome ftudy, in a 
 matter of fo high a nature, and of fo great con- 
 cernment to us. I think however, it were 
 fufEcient ; if the Articles of the Holy Trinity, and 
 the Incarnation^ were propofed to our People, in 
 Vi plainer diuAjborter manner than is ufually done; 
 for inftance, in fome fuch Form as this. 
 
 " There is one Eternal BEING, one Infinite 
 " SPIRIT; fole CREATOR of all things. 
 *•' In the Unity t)f this Godhead, we are to 
 confider this following Diflinftion. Eternal 
 MIND; Divine SELF-KNOWLEDG, ge- 
 nerated by M I N D ; Divine S E L F-C O M- 
 P L A C E N C E, necefiarily proceeding from 
 both. Of thefe, the firft is called the F A- 
 '^ THER, as being manifeftly the Origin 
 ^ and Caufe of the other two; the fecond hath 
 ^ the name of S ON, as being the Generation 
 ^^ and Off-fpring of Eternal Mind ; the third, 
 " as the. joint Acl, and as it were ffiration of 
 *^ the two former, is fitly called the S P I R I T. 
 '' They are P E R S ON S ; not as an Angel, 
 ^ or a Man, is a Perfon : but as each of them 
 '* is underftood with, or comprifeth the Di- 
 
 '* vine 
 
4 1 Tk Faith of the Church Letter i . 
 
 ^' vine Nature ; that is to fay, as it comfrehend- 
 *^ eth, and is comprehended by, this ward G D. 
 " Concerning our Saviour ; we are not to think 
 ^' of him, asa mere Man: He is GOD-MAN. 
 '^ Man, in refpeftof his Reafonahle Soul, and 
 '^ Human Body ; God, in refpeft of the In- 
 ^ dmlHng Divinitj, Which 'is not to be under* 
 '^ flood only of an occafionai (afJtsHng) Pre- 
 *' feme and Indwelling, as in the Prophets : but 
 '^ of fuch an Union of the Humanity to the Di- 
 ^' vinity, that the former is always under the 11 
 ^' lumination and Conduft of the other ; and 
 " the Divinity doth conjlantlj exert the Divine 
 ^' Attributes and PerfeQions />?, and ^/the Hu- 
 *^ man Nature. What was thus Incarnate, waj 
 '^ perfect God ; in refpeO: of Divine PerfeBions , 
 '' It was not however, if we may fo fpealc. 
 ^' the whole of God ; in.refpeO: of Perfons, For 
 '' the Divinity, or God, communicated him- 
 '' felf to the Humanity of the Lord Chrift , 
 ^* only in the Perfon of the generated W I S* 
 " D O M, or S O N ;. not in the Perfons of the 
 *^ Father^ and Spirit. Which hath more of 
 " Difficulty, and lefsof Neceffity, to compre- 
 *^ hend the manner of it ; than to be ordinarifr 
 ^^ requifire for us, to inquire into it. 
 
 But I grow fenfible, my Lord, that I have 
 already faid as much, on thefe (extreamly) 
 nice and difficult Points; as can be read atone 
 tinie, witheafe andpleafure: efpecially confi- 
 dering that, what I have advanced, has all a- 
 
 long 
 
concernhig the Trinity. ^ ^ 
 
 long required an exaft Obfervation, a fteady 
 2inA intent Application, on the part of my Rea- 
 der. Therefore, for this turn^ I take niy leave • 
 and remain, 
 
 Your Lordflfifs liioft 
 Humble Servant, 
 
 Stephen Nye. 
 
 Hormead. Parva, Com. 
 Hartf, May i. 170 1. 
 
 The Second Letter. 
 
 My Lor d. 
 
 MEthinks, enough was faid in the form^ 
 Letter ; of the Error, advanced by Dr. 
 A. that the Divine Perfons are fo many diftinft 
 BEINGS, SPIRITS, CREATORS, 
 and GODS: And I explained very clearly, 
 and fufficienCly, the Doflmne of the Catholic 
 Church, concerning the Perfonal (or Modal) 
 diftinftion in God. I corrte now. to confider 
 what is the Opinion of the Synagogue^ in the 
 Cafe. Dr. J. fays ; the 'Jervs^ til! but very 
 lately, believed a Trinity of uncreated B E- 
 INGS, and SPIRIT Si and expeded 
 
 that. 
 
44 T^l^^ P'^i^^^ of the]cws Letter 2. 
 
 that, their MeJ/ias fhould be GOD from 
 Heaven. I affirm, on the contrary that, 
 whereas Dr. J. believes a real Difiia^ion in 
 God; the Catholic Church, 2i Modal: tht Jews^ 
 acknowledg none at all. 
 
 It is but too certain that, the Synagogue ne- 
 ver had thofe great Ideas of the Meffias ; or 
 thofe diftin^i apprehenfions of God : which the 
 Chrifiian Church hath. They know only the 
 Divine Unity ; and that too, but in general: 
 not that Trinity (of un-originated MIND, 
 reflex S E L F-K N O W L E D G, and Divine 
 SELF-COMPLACENCE;) without 
 which the Unity is hut unperfeftly underftood. 
 They expeSed and ftill expeft a Meffias ; of 
 the Family of David, and that fhall fubdue alj 
 Nations : but ^ for an Empire over Hearts ; a 
 Kingdom extended over Angels^ as well as 
 Men ; large as Heaven, deep as Earth and 
 Hell; their imperfeft Syftem, their beggarly 
 'Elements ( as St. Paul calls them, Gal. 4. 9. ) 
 know not;hing of it. 
 
 The "Jews are fo far from owning any ferfonal 
 Dijlinction in God ; whether real^ or modal : 
 that they even rejefl: the diftinftion of Attri- 
 butes-^ as not fufficiently confiftent with the 
 Divine Unity. They fay ; the Chriftians have 
 imagined certain Attributes in God : which in 
 truth are not Properties, Faculties, or Attri* 
 butes in God ; but are only his rvtfe action to- 
 wards^ or merciful and juji Government of, 
 
 his 
 
concerning the Trinity, a c 
 
 his Creatures. He governs juftly, mercifully, 
 and wifely ; therefore the Chriftians have con- 
 ceited fuch real Faculties, Attributes, or Proper- 
 ties in God, as Juftice, Mercy, Wifdom : but 
 there is no diftinction in the perfeft Unity of 
 God ; 'tis not by diftinfl: Faculties, but by his 
 fingle Effence, that ht 2idizx.\\ wifely^ juftly, and 
 mercifully. In fliort, according to thenn, the 
 fuppofed Attributes of God are but the feveral 
 Names of his Works^ and Providences ; they 
 are not diftinct in God, but are God thus nEiing. 
 Of this Maimonides difcourfes largely ; More 
 Nevochim^ part. i. ch. 51. to 59. 
 
 1 have {poke with but few Perfons of Learn- 
 ing and Judgment, but have faid that Dr.^. 
 might equally have faid, the Japonois or Chl^ 
 nefe believe the Holy Trinity, as that the "^em 
 ever did. It is a notorious Truth, and which 
 Dr. J. dares nor to deny ; that the whole ^f^n;. 
 ijh Nation at this day, to a fingle Man of 'enl, 
 rejefl: the Doftrine of a Trinity of Divine Per- 
 fons ; and profefs that, they expeO: no other 
 Meffias^ but a A/^/? only. Dr. ^. faith, it is but 
 lately that they have forfaken the Orthodox 
 Faith : for, from long before our Saviour, till 
 very lately, they as univerfally believed the 
 Trinity of Divine Perfons; and Divinity of 
 the MeJJias. As I faid, all Perfons of Judgment 
 and Learning think it incredible that, a whole 
 Nation (to a fingle Man) fhould apoftatize,^ 
 and in two fuch grand Articles: without any 
 
 bodies 
 
4^ The Faith of the Jews Letter i . 
 
 bodies being able to affign the Time^ or Means j 
 of fo extraordinary a change. There never 
 was the leaft Alteration endeavoured, in the re- 
 ceived Faith of the Holy Trinity, and Divinity 
 of the Meffia^^ among Chriftians ; but the 
 whole Church took the Alarum. When Jri" 
 us^ when Neflorim^ when Eutyches^ PhilofonuSy 
 Joachim^ and Socinus^ attempted to introduce 
 Novelties; all the Holy Paftors immediately 
 appeared againft them : the Conteft was long, 
 and difficult ; the Time, the Means, the Au- 
 thors on both fides engaged, are as well known 
 to this day, as the very Rife and Progrefs of 
 Chriftianity it felf. But Dr. J. would per- 
 fwade whom he can, that the direQ: contrary 
 hath hapned in the Jewifh Church : that whole 
 Nation hath apoftatized, without any Mortal 
 knowing, or being able to guefs, wheny or by 
 whom they ha^e been feduced. Dr. A. faith, it 
 was very lately : fo much the more eafy had 
 it been for him, to inform us, about what Tear:^ 
 or Decade of Years ; as alfo who were the Liti- 
 gants, and what Books were written on both 
 fides of the Controverfy. For, ,without doubt, 
 the Apoftacy hath not hapned by Miracle ^ the 
 "^ews were turner! / rom their old Religion, after 
 fome difpute concerning it, and fome Books pub- 
 lifhed on both fides: and yet even fo, it is a 
 Miracle, that all of them are apoftatized ; that 
 there is not a Trinitarian 'Jew now left in the 
 World. I think, this Confideration were a- 
 
concerning the Trinity. 47 
 
 lene fufficient to fatisfy any Man, that certainly 
 Dr. J, hath mifreported ; or elfe hath mifta- 
 ken the Jewifh Books that he alledges : or if not, • 
 that the Books themfelves are the Writings 
 of converted Jews; not of Jews by Religion. 
 The truth is, there is much of all this in the 
 Cafe; fome of his Authors are converu'd Jqws^ 
 fome (even theAllegorical Books) he hath mif- 
 taken ; and fome (becaufe he himfeh^ has never 
 read them) he has mifreported on the credit 
 of others, particularly of Chrifiofher Sandius : 
 as I fhall clearly prov>e, in fome of thefe Let- 
 ters. 
 
 Ihavefaid already that, all the prefentjQws 
 deny there is any (whether real or modal) Di- 
 ftinftion in God ; and they expeft a Meffias 
 who is to be a Man only : 'tis as well known 
 that, they pretend to have adhered, with a per- 
 fefl: and unexampled conftancy, to the Faith of 
 their Anceftors ; who, they fay^ believed con- 
 cerning God, and the Meffias, no otherwife 
 than the "^emjh Ndiiion now doth. I take this 
 to be of great weight ; for it is much more cre- 
 dible, what a whole Nation faith of its own 
 prefent or fajl Religion; than what any Others 
 (whofoever) may fay. I am content however 
 that, this pafs only for a probable Prefumtion ; 
 for there are a great number of other Proofs, 
 that are demondrative, and concluding. 
 
 It is much to the purpofe that is noted by 
 Dr^ G. JS/y/// Author of the Defenfto Fidei Nick- 
 
 n^y 
 
48 Tk Faith of the Jews Letter 2. 
 
 ^£y and of Judicium Ecclefia. " In the firfl: 
 ^* Ages of Chriftianity, it was a great Contro- 
 *' verfy between the Chrifiians and Jews , whe^ 
 " ther the MeJJi^j according to the defcripti- 
 *^ ons given of him in the Old Teftament^ is to be 
 *^ GO Dj or a ik/^;^ only ? The Chrifiians be- 
 ^' lieved, He is reprefented in the Old Tefta- 
 *' ment, as God ; the Jews, as -vl^/Vos ''Avepa)7r(^^ 
 *' A mere Man. Judic. Eccl. p. 15, 16. He 
 adds, p. 21. '' Our Saviour puts this Queftion^ 
 " to the Pharifees ; W^/6^ 5e?;? #V C^ri/? ? They 
 *' anfwered, fays the Text, the Son of David. 
 *' But if Chrift, fays our Saviour again^ is the 
 *^ Son of David ; why then doth David call 
 ^' him LORD? The Ev&ngelifi remarks here- 
 " upon ; thej 'were not able to anfwer him a word, 
 " Mat. 22. 46. But* had they known any 
 " thing of the Divinity of the M/^^i, thefolu- 
 *^ tion of the propofed DiiEcuIty had been moft 
 *^ eafy and obvious to 'em : they would certain- 
 ^' ly and readily have faid, Chrift is David'^s 
 ** SON, according to the Flefh ; and he is 
 *' David's LORD, in refpeft of his Divinity. 
 So far Dr. BulL 
 
 It was very dextroufly obferved : and 'tis not 
 in the leaft weakned, by what Dr. A fome- 
 where objefts; namely that; the Jewijhlii^h' 
 Priefthimfelf demanded of our Saviour, Tell us ^ 
 art thou the C HR IS T, the S N of God? 
 Mat. 26. 6 J . For the High-Prieft put that que- 
 ftion, not becaufe himfelf believed the Meffias 
 
 is 
 
concerning the Trinity^. ^p 
 
 is to be the SON of God ; which (we fhall fee 
 by and by) is utterly denied by all Jews : but 
 becaufe thefe two (that he pretended to be the 
 C H R I S T, and the S O N of God) were the 
 things objefled to our Saviour ; and on confef- 
 fion of which by himfelf, they reckned there 
 was no more need of Witneffes againft him. 
 
 Another certain Argument with all Learned 
 Men hitherto, againft the Opinion of Dr. J. 
 concerning the belief of thcjews, is taken from 
 their Liturgies or Prayer-books ;>efpecially thofe 
 of 'em that are printed in Greece^ or Poland : 
 thefe have abundance of pafTages, that are di- 
 reftly defigned againft the Faith of the Trinity. 
 Dr. J, himfelf hath mentioned one of their 
 moft confiderable Forms; in thefe words, 
 *' The Learned among the Jem know that, 
 ^' the Prayer againft the M/^^^/^i", was original- 
 ^« ly defigned againft tht Chrijlians\ for being 
 ". Teachers of a Trinity^ and of the Divinity of the 
 *^ Me (lias ; and thereby deftroying the unity of 
 *' God, The Jews know this Prayer was com-^ 
 '^ pofed but 52 Years after Chrift :, and Jufitjt 
 *' Marty^ but 1^9 Years after our Saviour, 
 " fpeaks of this Prayer (or rather Curfe^ againft 
 ^' the Chriftians ; as already received in all the 
 *^ Synagogues, all the World over. Judgm. 
 Chap. 27. p. 451. The fame had been ob- 
 ferved before, by the Buxtorfs; Synag. Jud. 
 cap. 10. Where like wife they have noted di- 
 vers other Jen'ijb Prayers, that are intended 
 
 D again^ 
 
5^0 The Faith of the Jews Letter 2^ 
 
 againft the Chriftian Articles of the Trinity 
 and Divine Incarnation : which alfo they do 
 again, in Bihliotheca Rabbinica ; and Lesfkon 
 Chald, Talm. Rabbin. Dr. A, doth not offer a 
 word, in anfwer to this ; tho fufficient, if un- 
 anfwered, to overthrow the defign of his whole 
 Book. For his not anfwering, he is to be ex* 
 cufed ; for in truth it is irrefutable : but then he 
 fliould not have taken notice of it, or however 
 not acknowledged it. 
 
 ^ufiin Martyr was himfelf a Hebrew, of Sama- 
 ria; no doubt, he perfeftiy underftood the 
 Jewijh Opinions : bt us hear what paffed be- 
 tween Trjpho, a Learned 5f^n?, and this Father ^^ 
 in a Difputation which the Father hath publifh- 
 ed. In the D^ifputation, Try/^^c? contends that; 
 the MeJJias is to be a mere Mm : He adds, the 
 contrary Opinion^ which is that of the ChriJlianSy 
 is Fooltfh ', and INCREDIBLE. Jufiin 
 Martyr anfwers by faying ; So indeed the jewijh 
 Nation, ABOVE ALL OTHERS, have 
 thought : and then proceeds, to prove the 
 Chriftian Faith, of the Divinity of tht Mej^as ; 
 by Authorities of Scripture. Dial, cum Tryfh. 
 
 Great Origen was very converfant with the 
 "^ews, and their Books ; he was born and educa- 
 ted in Egypt, and lived long in Palejlin, places 
 where that Nation moft abounded : he faith 
 concerning them. "• As often as the Jews dif- 
 *^ pute with us, they greatly queftion us ; con- 
 ^^ cerning the S O N of God : they pretend 
 
 " there 
 
concerning the Trinity^ t { 
 
 '* there is no fuch Perfon, ever mentioned in 
 '' the Books of the Old feffameni ; the only 
 " Scripture by them acknowledged. Contra Celjl 
 
 1. I. 
 
 He fays again. " I havt often difputed 
 ^' with the Jewifb Rabbies ; they would none of 
 " them acknowledg that, the Ady©- (^WORD 
 " orWISDOM) istheSONofGod. Co?f^ 
 naCelf.l 2. p. 79. 
 
 In the fame Difputation againft the Philofo- 
 pher Celfu^^ he adds ; ^' the Jews do not ex- 
 *' pe£l ^Me//ias who is to be GOD. l.^.p* 
 162. 
 
 St. Jthamjius had great opportunities of 
 knowing the Opinions of the Jem ; as being 
 Bifhopand Patriarch of ^/^jc^«;?^m s-nd Egypt, 
 where were above a Million of Jewifh Families: 
 indeed in his time the Jews were more numerous 
 inEgypt^ than the Chriftians ; and were conti- 
 nually difputing with them. This Father, in 
 his Oration Contra Greg. Sabellii^ tells us. 
 " The SubellUns teach fuch a God, as the Jews 
 ** believe; who fo fay God isone^ as to make 
 *' him Son4efs ; denying his WORD and 
 '^WISDOM. 
 
 Leontius^ a Cyprian Bifhop, about the Year 
 590 wrote aTreatife concerning theSe6lSy di« 
 vided into ten Anions ; in the fecond he faith. 
 ^^ The Hebrews acknowledg but one Nature, 
 ** and one Perfon in God ; they wholly deny the 
 ** Holy Trinity^ acknowledging neither Father^ 
 D2 ['Son^ 
 
5 1 The Faith of the Jews Lettec i. 
 
 ^^ Sony novSfirit: unlefs perhaps, /i; //^f/, you 
 <^ will give the name of Father to the Perfon 
 ^' of GOD, becaufe he is the Father of all things, 
 ** That God is but one Perfon, they pretend to 
 *^ prove from thofe words of Mofes ; Hear^ 
 '^ J/rael^ the Lord our God is one Lord, Deut. 6. 
 4. Mr. Du Finn faith of this Father ; He is a 
 very fubtle Writer. Efiphaniiu and St. Aufiin, 
 who have alfo given an account of the Herefies, 
 in the Church and Synagogue, very often fay 
 the fame thing that Leontim doth; and fo too 
 dos St. ^erotn : the words of thefe Fathers arc 
 quoted by Sanditi^^ Hift. Eccl. 1. i. 
 
 Buxtorfy in his Book concerning the Faith 
 and Ceremonies of the 'Jews^ propofes the thir- 
 teen Articles o( thQ Jervi/h Creed ; concerning 
 which, the Jews fay, He that denies^ or doubts 
 of dn-y one of them^ helohgeth not to the Ifrael of 
 God, Rabbi Maimonides was the compiler of 
 thefe Articles ; which have been received by all 
 the Jews J as the dijlinguijhing Chara^ers of their 
 Religion and Nation. Buxtorf obferves upon 
 them that, " the fecond, and thifd^ and fifth^ . 
 *^ are purpofely defigned againft the Trinity \ 
 *' ^nd the Divinity^ and Adoration of the ikfe/^ 
 " fias. Synag. Jud.c. 5. 
 
 Sefher Ikkarim, or the Book of Fundamentals^ 
 is a famous Jewijh' Book; I had rather you 
 fhdiiild take it from Buxtorf than from me, 
 what are the Contents of this Book. " It is a, 
 ^^ ftrenuous Apology for the Jeivijb Faith; and, 
 
concerning the Trinity. 5 1 
 
 /' a virulent Difputation, againft Chriftianity. 
 ^' As to the Faith of the Jews^ this Book 
 ^' grounds it chiefly on three Prihciples ; the 
 ^' firft is the Unity of God, whereby the Holy 
 " Trinity^ and Divinity of our Saviour, are in- 
 " tended to be denied : for concerning thefe 
 ^' two Articles efpecially, is the whole Con- 
 ^* troverfy between the Jews and us. Sjmg. 
 Jud. cap, J. p. 24, 25,26. 
 
 Hotti/jger (ThefPhilolog. />. 445,444.) fays; 
 *' By how much the more clearly fome Jewijh 
 '' Books fpeak oi^iTrinity^ and other Chriftian 
 '^ Articles ; by fo much they more certainly dif- 
 " xo ver that, they are fpurious 2inA forged pieces ; 
 " as the 5/^y//;^ Oracles were. He quotes alfo 
 there 7. Morinus^ as of the fame mind. 'Tis 
 well known, there have been no abler Men in the 
 Jewifh Learning, nor more fincere in the Ca- 
 tholicFaith ; than the Buxtorfs^ MorinuSy mA 
 Hottinger. 
 
 And fee here what Picus (Earl of Miramo* 
 la) fays of thofe Impofl:ures. '^ I found in thefe 
 " Books, not fo much the Mofaical^ as the 
 " Chriftian Religion ; the myftery of the Ho^ 
 " ly Trinity, the Incarnation of the W R D, 
 ^' the Divinity of the Meffias ; Original Sin, 
 ^' the Expiation thereof by Chrift ; the Hea- 
 *^ venly Jerufalem, the Orders of Angels, Pur- 
 '^ gatory, the Pains of the Damned, the Sacri- 
 *' fee of the Mafs : in a word, there you have 
 -^ vy^hatfoever one reads in St. Paul, in the Re- 
 D ^ • '' velation 
 
y^ The Faith of the Jews Letter 2. 
 
 ^* velation of St. John ; in Dtonjfius Areopagita^ 
 *^ in Sc. "Jerom^ or St. Auftin. — There is no Con- 
 ^' troverfy between us and the "^ews, that may 
 ** not be fo decided out of thefe Books ; that a 
 *' Jew hy Religion (hsM have no hole, not the very 
 ^^ leaft crevice, at which to evade. JpoL p. S2. 
 It was little to the purpofe that Dr. J. has 
 quoted fome of thefe Books ; he ought to have 
 fhown the Judgment of the Jewifi Church , from 
 Books that were written by Jews hj Religion^ 
 as well as Nation : but all his Quotations out of 
 fuch Books, are either nniftaken, or mifreported ; 
 as will appear in due place. 
 
 ^ Vorfim has many Quotations out of the Rab- 
 bles, and other Jewiffi Books ; which are fo 
 many exprefs Declarations of the Doftrine of 
 the Jem : It is not neceffary here to repeat 
 them ; as well becaufe his Book is now pretty 
 common ; as becaufe I may hereafter give your 
 Lordfliip, in a particular Letter, or Letters, a 
 much larger Catalogue of the Jewifh Blafphe- 
 mics in the Article of the Trinity. But in the 
 mean time, becaufe our Author has divers 
 times (and with great confidence) vouched 
 Maimomdes^ as of his Opinion ; I believe you, 
 have the More Nevochim of that Rabbi, there-- 
 forepleafe (my Lord) to read C/;^/. 71. in the 
 firft Part of that Book; for you have there 
 thefe words. '^ There are fome things in 
 ^' which Jervs^ Mahometans, ^ndChrifiianSy do 
 ^^ agree ; as the Novity and Creation of the 
 
 "World: 
 
concernirig the Trinity. ^ j 
 
 " .World : on the verification of which, doth 
 ** depend the verification of Miracles. But 
 ^^ the Mahometans and Chriftians have divers 
 *^ Dodrines, that are peculiar to themfelves ; 
 ^' the Doftrine (for inftance) of the Trinity is 
 *' proper to the Chriftians ^ and to defend it they 
 ^^ have been obliged to invent fome very fingu- 
 '^ lar Principles. I fhall note a great many 
 fuch Paflages in this, and other Works of that 
 Rabbi ; in fome Letters that will follow. But 
 he hath one, fo direftly contrary to what Dr. 
 A, imputes to him ; that I cannot forbear, here 
 to infert it. Dr. A. faith, for himfelf, and his 
 (pretended) Brethren the Jervs ; that when God 
 faid, Let us Ao this ^ or that^ he fpoke to certain un- 
 created BEINGS. But Maimonides affirms on the 
 other hand, that '' as often as we meet this Ex- 
 ^' preffion (in the Hiftory of the Creation) 
 *' God faid^ let us make^ or do this^ or that ; it 
 '' is to be underftood, GOD WILLED to 
 ^' do this^ or that : for there were then no B £- 
 *' INGS to whom He might [peak. More Ne- 
 vochim, /. I. c. 65. 
 
 Dr. A, fhould have offered fomething, to 
 invalidate thefe known Truths ; if he had in- 
 tended tofecure the Paradox headvanceth ; that 
 the Trinity and Divinity of the Meffias have 
 beenalwaysconfeffedby ^^^ jf^«?j, till but very 
 lately. It hath offended divers Learned Per- 
 fons that, his Book is fuch a deformed Heap of 
 known Falfities, and Selfcontradiilionsy they 
 
 D 4 fay, 
 
5 6 77;^ Fa'i^h of the Jews Letter i. 
 
 fay^ It may be juftly fufpefted that, he writes 
 hoo^y. Becaufe his not intelligible, faj they ; 
 that, a Man fhould grant (as th s Author does) 
 fo much more than enough to overthrow his 
 Pofition ; and fliould alledg for it, only old 
 exploded Miflakes, or mere Trifles ; and yet fin- 
 cerely believe the Pofition it felf. 
 
 But let us fee what his Pretences are. Why, . 
 frfi^ 2L Tradif on (if it pleafe Heaven) from 
 Mount Sinai \ a i\,MaU delivered to Mofes 
 at Moun; Smai^ when (after the giving the 
 Commaiiuiiients) God called Mofes into the 
 Mountain ^ and there detained him forty 
 dc-ys. Then^ feveral Texts of the Old Te- 
 ftament ; efpeciaily out of the Praverbs of So- 
 lomon^ and iris Book of Wifdom : concerning 
 which, all the cnticat, _2inA all other Interpre- 
 ters of Note and Fame, are of a contrary O- 
 pinion to our Author, Next^ Fhilo Jad^us ; 
 a Co?'ieniporary to our Saviour ^.nd the Apo- 
 ft!es : of whofe Teftimony our Author makes 
 great uli, without having himfelf read one 
 Page of Fhi/o^ except in the Quotations ofChri- 
 Jlophcr Sandim-j who hath impofed on him. 
 Afttr Prji/oy the Targums -^ or Chaldee Para- 
 phrafcs on the Pentateuch^ and the Prophets : 
 for the fake of the word ME MR J; which 
 Dr. J. underftands of the S O N, and Af £ 5- 
 S US ., but the Targumifts themfelves inter- 
 pret it of the Divine SPIRIT. Laftly, 
 The Midrafh Rabba^ being an AUegoricd Com- 
 
 mentary 
 
concerning the Trinityl 5 7 
 
 mentary on Mofes, and other Writers of the Old 
 ^eftament ; Sefher Jetzira^ being a Book writ* 
 ten (youmuftwot) by the Patriarch ^^r^Z^^w^. 
 The Xp^^^i Balnr^ Tmchuma ; the Cabbalifti- 
 cal Rabbies, Menahem, Bechar^ Botrely Sahta ; 
 and fome others of that Stamp : efteemed in 
 the Synagogue, and by all Learned Jews, as 
 the Fanatics^ and PeHs of their Nation and 
 Religion. Our Author met with thefe Vifio- 
 naries, in QaUtinus^ Rittangel^ and Voi^tn\ 
 from whom he hath tranfcribed the moft of his 
 Book : 'and he did not know, it fhould feem, 
 they are juft fuch Witneffes in the ^ewi^ 
 Church, and concerning the Jeivi^j Religion ; 
 as Rabbi Bunym^ Rab. G. Fox^ Rab. G. White^ 
 heady would be for the Doctrine of ChriBiani- 
 ty^ and of the Church of England, VorHius 
 had fully accounted for the Quotations out of 
 thefe Books, by (our Author's Praeceptors) 
 Galatinusy Voifin^ and Ritt angel ; he had fliown, 
 how rnuch the Arcane Theology of thofe My^ 
 fiicks is miftaken by Voifin and the reft : In a 
 word, he fully confuted the Judgment before 
 it was printed, or even thought of; I mean, 
 he had refuted the Miftakes of the Judg- 
 ment concerning the Sephiroth^ and whatever 
 elfe is there cited out of the Allegorical Books of 
 tht jews. But this Book of Forjli us was not 
 printed, till many Years after his death ; and 
 did not pafs the Waters till fome time after the 
 publication of the Judgment j whereby it hap- 
 
 ned 
 
jS of Philo Juda^usJ Letter 2^ 
 
 ned that, Dr. A. pafled with fome, for two or 
 three Week$, as an able and profound Man. 
 
 My Lord. I would make it eafy and agree- 
 able, as well as worth your Lordfhip's while ; 
 to read thefe Letters : therefore in examining 
 the forementioned Authorities, and Books; I 
 will be very brief, when the fubjed of the En- 
 quiry is dry, or unedifying ; and ufe more li- 
 berty, when 'tis pleafant, or inftruftive. I 
 will begin, if you pleafe, with Philo \ being 
 an Author, known to very few, and underftood 
 by fewer. He is the great Evidence, cited by 
 Dr. A. for that Tritheifm, which he imputes 
 to the Jewifh Church,' and avoweth himfelf. 
 It would be very tirefome and inept, to con- 
 tend with Dr. A. only concerning the meaning 
 of fome Paflages in Philo : I intend to divert 
 your Lordfhip with a juft account of this fa- 
 mous Allegorizer ; his furprizing Opinions, and 
 extraordinary Works. 
 
 Of Philo Judaeus. 
 
 Philo was by Nation a Jewy by Birth ( pro- 
 bably ) an Egyptian. He lived at Alexandria, in 
 Egypt ^ in efteem and dignity : For he was one 
 of the AmbafTadors of the Alexandriamnd E- 
 gyptian Jews^ to the Emperor Caius, about the 
 year after our Saviour's Birth 40 , it was reck- 
 ned that there was a Million of Jews who dwelt 
 at that time in the feveral Provinces of Egypt. 
 
 'Tis 
 
of Philo Judaeus. 59 
 
 'TIs likely, his Embaffy to Caius hapned when 
 he was well advanced in Years ; for they would 
 not fend young unexperienced Men, but the 
 moft eniinent for Prudence and Eloquence in 
 their Senate : Ocfavius Auguftus had allowed 
 them a Senate at Jlexandria ; with as great or 
 greater Powers, than the Sanhedrim at Jerufa- 
 /em had, either under their Kings or the Roman 
 Procurators. Philo therefore might begin to 
 write, before our Saviotir was born ; be fure, 
 before he preached : he is the ^ir^^/>;^/^/ Author 
 extant, df the whole Jewifli Nation. 
 
 He had read all the Philofophies of the 
 Greeks ; he v/as a Grammarian, Rhetorician, 
 Mufician, Aftronomer, Geometrician ; learned 
 in the Antiquities, and Theology, of his own 
 and other Nations ; very ingenious, and very 
 judicious; but chiefly, inimitable for his Flu- 
 ency, Force, and Elegante, in exprefling his 
 Thoughts. 
 
 He generally argues very probably, on the 
 chief Points of Theology and Religion. 
 
 He' proves (for Example) the Being of God; 
 from the Imm.enfity, Order, Durablenefs, Coun- 
 fe/y and Dejigns^ fo remarkable in the Creation : 
 he obferves,' fo much Counfel neceflarily argues 
 a MIND; which is y^/4%, that istofay />- 
 finitely, wife. He faith, Matter (or Bodies) 
 were as inept from all Eternity, as any time 
 fince, to difpofe themfelves (or to appear) in an 
 ufeful and wife order ; without a prefiding go- 
 verning 
 
6o Of the Opinions Letter 2 • 
 
 verning Mind: and therefore the Atheifm of 
 thofe who hold the Eternity of the World, is 
 to the full as abfurd ; as of thofe that would 
 build it by the cafual Cbncourfeof Atoms, or 
 the undefigning unthinking Powers of other 
 Elements. Again, 
 
 He proves a Divine Providence ; from the ex- 
 cellency of the World, and of Man : for whom 
 'tis plain all other things (the Sun, Earth, Ani- 
 mals, and Vegetables) were made. For after 
 having contrived and finifiied fuch a Work; 
 theParentof it, doth not ca ft it out of his fight 
 and care ; and leaft of all, Alan^ for whom he 
 formed all the reft.. If Man and the World 
 had not been worth God's infpeSion, and pro- 
 tection ; neither would they Iiave been worthy 
 of his Wifdom, in making them. In fhort, 
 the Eternal King fliould accufe himfelf of Im- 
 prudence and Unadvifednefs ; in ereQing this 
 World, and making Man : if when they are 
 made, he neglefts them. 
 
 Thofe that cannot believe the Miracles, of 
 Holy Scripture ; he refers them to the (far'great- 
 er) Miracles of the Creation. He tells them, 
 becaufe the Wonders of the Creation, or Works 
 of God, do not affeft us ; by reafon of their 
 commonnefs, and becaufe we were familiar 
 with them before we could judg of them : 
 therefore the other Miracles, thofe in the Holy 
 Scripture, were done, and were recorded : 
 that is fa V . lo awaken or to refrefli our attention 
 
 to. 
 
of Philo JudaeinJ 6i 
 
 to, and regard of, the Divine Wifdom and 
 Power in the Works of Creation. 
 
 The Vmty of Qod, he obferves, may be in- 
 ferred, from the Unity of the World. For the 
 whole Cofmical Syftem embraced by the Pri. 
 mum Mobile, is moft plainly one work ; where- 
 of all the Parts refer to one another ^ and therefore 
 had but one Defigner and Architeft. 
 . That God mlleth Virtue ; that he approveth, 
 and expeOieth it, in Men ; Fhilo confirms by a 
 cpnfideration, that we may obferve from natu- 
 ral Parents. There is no PB.rQnt^ faith he^ but 
 notes carefully and anxioufly the manners of his 
 Children, their Words as well as Aftions ; and 
 we are exhilarated by nothing fomuch, as the 
 regular Demeanour, good Courfes, and honeft 
 Words and difcourfe of our Children : what 
 then muft we think of the common Parent ; is he 
 not pleafed, or difpleafed, as our aftions and 
 words are ? 
 
 As he well underftood the true Reafons and 
 Grounds of Religion, he was alfo very pious ;; 
 he often edifies his Readers, with his Holy Ar- 
 dors. He faith, for example. 
 
 *' If a fuccefsful Conqueror fbould fubdue the 
 ^* whole Continent^ and all the Iflands fcat- 
 '' tered in fo many Seas ; and even Heaven it 
 " felf: after all, I would reckon him, a Plebei^ 
 '' an ; if compared with the great Kings, who 
 ^' have chofe G O D for their Inheritance, De 
 Plant at. Noa, p. 2 2 j. 
 
 He 
 
^^ of the Opinions Letter 2. 
 
 He Introduces the Patriarch Abraham ; when 
 he was leaving his native Country, his Kin- 
 dred and inheritance, to obey God; as faying. 
 ^* 'Tis obvious, what they will talk of me ; that 
 <« I am a Deferter, Vagrant, Friendlefs^ beg- 
 *^ 22ii''Aj a Madman \ without Honour, defpifed. 
 *^ But thou, LORD, art to me Honours, 
 ^' Friends^ Wifdom ; Kindred, Country, Lands, 
 *' and Wealth. Rer. Divin. Hares, p. 48 5. 
 
 <' Give me, but one Virtue ; and take thou 
 *^ theTreafure, ofthe Parthian King. DeCha- 
 
 rit. p. 702. . . f 
 
 « To fin; and to be of party with the 
 *' Wicked, or toexcufethem; are equally cri- 
 <^ minal. Deffec. legthus, p. 775. 
 
 " We ought to have but one occahon, or 
 « bond of Friendfhip, with any others ; even 
 « the ftudy and endeavour to pleafe God, and 
 " to do and fay all tilings according to Godli- 
 ^' nefs. F>e ViBim. offerentihus. p. 8 5 5. 
 
 '' 6 Soul, Cut off thy right hand ; if it begins 
 ** to lay a greedy and over-earneft hold, on 
 ** human and worldly things. Somn. a Deo. p. 
 
 "if thou feeft that, God begins to deliver 
 '' thee, from the Adverfities of Life; be quiet, 
 *' and iay by thy own Endeavour : for he need- 
 '* eth no helpers. But what if heaffliftand 
 " fmice oit ? be quiet alfo ; Reverencing his 
 *^ Juftice, and Power. Ibid. 1144. 
 
 Thefc 
 
and Tiety of Philo Judxus.' 6^ 
 Thefe Counfels, and this Language of Unfti- 
 on, occur every where in the Books of Phi/o ; 
 which (probably) he was writing during the 
 whole courfe of his Life : that they feem not to 
 be, only tmnfient Warmths ; but his fettled. 
 Opinions, and perfonal Praftice. 
 
 But his inclination to Piety appears too, in 
 thepraifes he gives to certain ]Qwi{h Afcetics\ 
 that were commonly called Therafeuts. They 
 lived in MonafterieSj that were alfo properly fo 
 called ; for there was but one Perfon in a 
 Houfe ; each houfe had a se^ve^or, or Oratory,* 
 where he (or fhe) prayed and read all day ;• al- 
 ways fading till Night, and then eating Br^4^ 
 only, and never drinking any thing but Water. 
 On the Sabbaths they all affembled, in the com* 
 mon Oratory, where they prayed ; and fang 
 pfalms: andoneof the6'f;^/c?r/, that was there- 
 to qualified, preached. His Subjeft being fome 
 Paffage (or Paffages) of Holy Scripture ; on 
 which he difcourfed, in the allegorical rvay : 
 which of a long time had been affefted, and 
 much in ufe, among the "Jem ; Specially among 
 thefe Therapeuts. They had many antient 
 Books, that treated on the Scriptures in this 
 manner; but they were not (wild) Allegories, 
 fuch as the Cabhalijls and others have introduced 
 fince, to the utter deforming all Religion. I 
 believe all the allegorical Books of Philo are no- 
 thing elfe, but his Sermom\ thathefpoke, or 
 read at thefe Meetings : they are generally up- 
 
 on 
 
64 Of the VoBrim Letter iT 
 
 on the Hiftorical parrs of Scripture ; and the de- 
 fign of 'em is, to rroralize, or (if you will) 
 fpirmdize^ the Sacred Hiliory. It was judg- 
 ed to be away of difcourfing, that would af- 
 feft the common Readers and Hearers ; efpeci- 
 ally the Devout : and this account jp/'/A? himfelf ' 
 gives of them. ^' I prefent you, [ajs he^ with 
 " thefe things; as5^/^^fxrothe Holy Food, the 
 *^ Word of God: to excite, and to better my 
 ^' Readers. He meant them not, as interpret a- 
 tions of the Scripture Text, as Dr. Cave and Dr. 
 Bernard have thought ; but only.followed the 
 way of preaching by fpiritualizing (aslfaid) 
 the Scriptures, as had been the manner of the 
 Afcetical Preachers, and Writers. Whereas 
 he fometimes praifes tbefe Allegories, or Mo- 
 rals, as the very Kernel of Scripture; even 
 flighting, and quisftioning the literal fenfe, as a 
 mere Shell, nay as fcarce True. Origen,- after 
 him, hath done the like ; and in no better 
 terms: not that either Origen or Pbilo did not 
 acknowledg a literal fenfe of Scripture^ or 
 doubted whether the literal were the only genuin 
 fenfe of the Divine Word, or believed there is 
 any Falfhood delivered by the infpired Writers ; 
 but they were preaching, and would maintain 
 the reputation of this way of fermonizing, by 
 fpiritual Allegories, that had been fo long ufed. 
 They intended only, toingage the attention of 
 devout Hearers ; by reprefenting their Alfego- 
 ries, as the mjflical and more inward meaning 
 
 of 
 
(if Philo JudaeusJ 6^ 
 
 of Scripture : becaufe this was beneficial to then 
 Auditors ; and fooietimes even neceffary, on 
 dry and unfertile fubjeQs. In fhort, as to the 
 manner of exhorting, from a Text oi* Texts cf 
 Holy Scripture ; Men have very different Re- 
 Iffhes : buttheway of fpiricualizing their Text, 
 or Subjeft, was the only way in u(e among the 
 Therapeuts and Jfcetks ; and it was to them, 
 and for them, that Philo preached and wrote. 
 
 His dexterity and judgment in accounting for 
 the true fenfe of Scripture, he makes to appear 
 fufficiently ; on other occafions : as when he 
 gives the Reafons, of the Mofaich^ws^ of the 
 Priefts Veflments, of the ftrufture of the Tem- 
 ple, of Circumcifion, and of the Sacrifices ; and 
 when he expounds the Decalogue or ten Com- 
 mandments, by reducing all the Laws that con- 
 cern Mens Morals, to thofe ten general Heads : 
 in all which he hath been followed by the 
 Chriflian and Jewifh Interpreters; and they 
 have found but very little to add, to what Philo 
 had faid before them. 
 
 One may take notice, of a great many extra- 
 ordinary Opinions, in Philo'^s works. Some of 
 them fuch, as one would not expect to meet 
 them fo clearly expreffed in the Writings of a 
 Jew ; as concerning Original Sin, and DivinC 
 Grace. Others are proper to the Jewifh Church, 
 or toP/^/7(9himfelf; as concerning Angels, the 
 Heavenly Bodies, the Soul, Hell^ the Eternity 
 
 E of 
 
66 0} the Opinions Letter i. 
 
 of the World. I will fet down here the chief, 
 in his own words. 
 
 Thatthe World fhall have an eternal duratidn^ 
 he often affirms ; and fays, 'tis the Doftrine of 
 Mofes^ and of the Scriptures : but without al- 
 ledging particular Texts. His Books, Mundus 
 incorrupihilu^ and de Mundo^ are on this Sub- 
 jea. 
 
 '' That fabulous place HELL; there is no 
 " other Hell, but only the Life of a wicked, 
 *^ miferable, and execrable Man. Congrej$,qu^r\ 
 erudit. gratia,, p. 452. 
 
 Concerning the Soul, lie is very uncertain. 
 Sometimes he faith ; it isa part of God, notdir 
 vided or cut oft' from \im\.i,. deter, hfid, fotiori. 
 p. 172. Otherwile he teaches, Souls are G^;?/V, 
 or Angels that have defcended into Huidjan Bo* 
 dies, de Gigant. p. 285. d" de Profug, p. 457. & 
 [omnia a D^(?/p, 586. But in another place, 
 he tells you; Souls are of the fame fubftance 
 with the Divine Natures, that is the Stars and 
 Angels. Laftly bethinks; they may be Parti- 
 tles, or drops of the Qjitnta Effentia^ or 
 Heavenly Matter, Rer. Diyin. H-^res. p, 521. 
 
 He adds, " Souls have received from God a 
 *' power of fpontaneous m.otion ; that is, a 
 ^' power of free choice and aftion ; and therein, 
 " he faith, thty refemble God. Demimmuta^ 
 hilis, p. J 00. 
 
 Ofthe heavenly Bodies, (the Sun, Stars, and 
 
 Planets,) 
 
of Philo Judaeus.' ^7 
 
 Planets,) he believes; they are ammated^ and 
 ratioml. De Mundi opifcio. p. ? J. He douhteth 
 hot to call them, and the Angels, Dtvme N/t- 
 tures ; nay the vifihle and inuiftble Gods, Mai- 
 momdes^nd other Rabbles are in the fame Opi- 
 nion ; either becaufe they learned it of the ChaU 
 deans ^ Arabians^ or Greeks ; or becaufe tiiey 
 could not conceive how the Cde(tial Fires are fo 
 regular in their motions^ and fubfili without nou^ 
 rtfhment^ if they have not Rea/ony and a fort of ^ 
 Divine Spirit, 
 
 The diftinftion of Angels into Hierarchies, 
 was unknown to Philo: he knew but of one 
 Principal or Head of all thcAoy^^ or Angels ; 
 whom he calls thQ fr/t-begotten and moft honour a-- 
 hie Logos, Prefident of the Angels and Stars, 
 and their Director. He faith,- the Patriarchs 
 pray for their Pofterity ; and the Angels carrj our 
 Prajers to God: not that he needeth to be in- 
 formed ; but 'tis for our good, that we may 
 learn hereby to reverence fo much the more the 
 fupreme Being. But we may i!ot worfliip, 
 faith he, thefe Servants and Doorkeepers of the 
 Heavenly King ; no not the highefl^ and purefi 
 of them. He repeateth thefe things often, in 
 his Books \ I fhall need therefore, to refer only 
 to a few places. Meg^ Legis, p. 79. Migrate 
 Jbrah, p. 4 1 5 . Agricult, p. 195. Sorhn. a Deo, 
 586. De Decalogo, 75^, De Monarchia, 815. 
 
 OiQrace^ he Ipeaketh altogether as a Chrifti- 
 sn would. For tho in divers partiof hii Works,' 
 
68 Of the Opinions Letter i. 
 
 he owns the Human Will to be Free -, yet he 
 laysalfo, our Inclination at any time to n?/// or 
 to (^0 Goody is infufed l?j God, He repeats it 
 frequently ; particularly de Jgriculturay, de Con- 
 fufione Iwguarumy and de Execratione. He 
 feems to mean, the IVtll difabledby Origi- 
 nal Sin, is notwithftanding made free by- 
 Grace. 
 
 It is very plain that, he was aware of Origi- 
 nd Sin ; he fays. " Sin is connate to all Men, 
 " even to the Good ; they have it hj birth, Vtta 
 ^' Mofis, p. 675. And again, in another book ; 
 *^ all Mortals h^iStz connate 'wT^^wnVj^ and fin- 
 " fulnefs, that may indeed he lejfned^, but not 
 *^ ferfecHj cleanfed or fubdued, De. nom. Muta- 
 tione. p. 105 1. 
 
 He fpeaks otherwife very well and truly of 
 God; as that, he is Eternal, Omniprefent, In- 
 corporeal, Immutable: but he evidently difco- 
 versthat, he was ingorant of the //(?// Trinity. 
 For to the queftion, Why God fometimes 
 fpeaks in th^ flural number; as, let m make 
 Man^ and let t^s go down and confound their 
 language y and fuch like; he doth not fay, be- 
 caufe God is (in any fenfe) more Perfonsthan 
 one : but he anfwers, by fuch a fliift as fhows 
 too clearly that ; he was hard put to it^ to find 
 a folution of the difficulty. He fays ; "God 
 ''hath many POWERS, called in Scrip- 
 '' turehis ANGELS: and thefe heimploy- 
 ^^ eth in fuch matters, as it were unbecoming 
 
 *' they 
 
of Philo Judcieus. 69 
 
 <' they fhould be tranfafled or done by himfelf 
 " immediately ; but rather by the Minh1:ry of 
 '' fome other, or others. For inftance, it is by 
 " his Angels that he fometimes punifhes, or^ 
 «^ affliasIVl^n; whether good or bad : for 'tis* 
 " not decent or fir, that God himfelf fhould do 
 '' evil of any fort ; he will not be the immediate 
 " or next caufe of the Eujil pf fufering^ any 
 '' more than of the Evil of fin. When he faid, 
 '^ let t^s make Mm^ it was becaufe there is in 
 '^ Man a power to do evil, that is^ to (\n ; 
 " which power God himfelf would not make 
 '' in the Soul : he willed, it fnould be made 
 *^' by his Angels ; and therefore he faith to them, 
 " let m make Man. De Confuf Linguarum.34^, 
 346. 
 
 In his Book, Jlleg, Legls, loSj, he fays. ^' Be- 
 *' fore the World was made, there was nothing 
 " at all with God. He was moix^-, alone •, "hv, 
 " one Being ; — ix, cpt uoKhav frina^t^ not con- 
 " fifting of more. WhicH he would hardly 
 have faid, if he had known the Trinity of Di- 
 vine Perfons. But he often alfo faith, the Per^ 
 fon of God ; as, de Profug. ^"jo, Deus immutab. 
 
 Of the Spirit^ he faith. ^- The Spirit of 
 "• God, in Holy Scripture, is either the MIND; 
 '^ as in that Text, the Spirit of God moved on 
 ^^ the face of the IVaters. Or it is that immor- 
 " tal WISDOM and KNOWLEDG, 
 '' of which God imparteth to wife Men ; as to 
 E J ''Beza^ 
 
70 77;e Ojj'tnm of Philo Letter i. 
 
 " Bezdeel, of whom Mofes fays. He w<«f filled 
 ^' rvUh the Sprit of God, in all Wifdom ; for de- 
 " wjing curious works of Gold, Silver, and Brafs. 
 De Gigant. 287. 
 
 Concerning theP OWERS cff God; and 
 theAdy®-, WORD, or WISDOM; Phi- 
 la has in fo many places, and fo clearly explain- 
 ed bimfelf; that his Reader cannot miftake 
 him, without affefting it. Let us hear his own 
 words. 
 
 *' COGITATION and DELIBE- 
 " RATION, aretwoPOWERS of God. 
 Deus iMmtitah.igZ. 
 
 " The LORD GOD: thefe Names fig- 
 " nify his POWERS; he is LORD, as 
 *' he ruleth,a\] things; GOD, as he is good. 
 De Plant. Noa. 226. 
 
 " The P O W E R S of God are the aoV©-, 
 " WORD, or Wifdom; then theCREA- 
 " TING, and G O V E R N I N G Powers ; 
 « after thefe, his PROPITIOUS, COM- 
 " M.4NDING, and FORBIDDING 
 " Powers. De Profug. Afi'^. His meaning is; 
 we may confider in God thefe fix things, his 
 WISDOM, OMNIPOTENCE, and 
 PROVIDENCE; his Benignity or MER- 
 CY, his Authority to COMMAND and 
 to FORBID by his Laws, 
 
 " Confider the POWERS of God, that he 
 " is GOOD; our CREATOR, PRESERVER, 
 « and BENEFACTOR ; and himfelf moft^ 
 HAPPY. DeVimmis. 859. ''By 
 
a 
 
 concerning the hogQs. y\ 
 
 " By the Cherubim (or Cherubs) I under« 
 
 ftand, the two moft honourable and fupreme 
 '' POWERS of God ; one the Maker, the 
 " other the Ruler of all things. By the for- 
 '' mer he is GOD, and made all things ; by 
 ^' the other he is LORD, and ruleth all things. 
 Vitd Mofis, lib. J. p. 669. 
 
 In accounting for the three Men, that came 
 to Abraham at his Tent in M^mre ; he giveth 
 firft the literal fenfe, faying, '^ they were 
 '' Aoyoi^ ANGELS: but the Allegorical 
 " fenfe, faith he, is ; It was God with his two 
 ^^ POWERS, the CREATING and 
 
 " RULING Powers. They were a three- 
 
 *' fold Refrefentation of the fame BEING, 
 Vita fapientis. -^66^ 367, 368. 
 
 I know not, why Mr. Sovereign took fo much 
 needlefs pains, in his PUtonifr/i Vnveiled^ on 
 this Paffage of Philo ; which needed not his 
 help, but expounded it felf. 
 
 " With the one true God are two principal 
 " and Supreme POWERS; GOODNESS, 
 "and STRENGTH: By Goodnefs, ht 
 " made all things ; by Strength^ he ruleth 
 ^' them. There is a third, the Aoy,^, the 
 '' WORD or mfdom-, forby WISDOxM 
 *' God is Good^ and ruleth all things. De Cherub. 
 p. 112. 
 
 Thefe are all the Paffages, I think, in Philo ; 
 
 concerning the POWERS: it appeals that, 
 
 they are all of them Properties of God, or the 
 
 E 4 Divine 
 
yt The Opinion of Philo Letter i. 
 
 Divine Nature. The firft is GOODNESS, 
 by which he was difpofed to give Being to all 
 things ^ and for which he is called GOD: the 
 next is STRENGTH, or if you will Pro^ 
 vidence^ by which he rules all perfons and 
 things; and therefore he is called LORD. ^ 
 Next, the Aoy©-, or WISDOM; which 
 direfts both his Goodnefs, and Providence : that 
 is, he nmade, and governed all things rvifelj. 
 Befides thefe, there is COGITATION; 
 and Deliberation^ or rather COUNSEL. 
 The reft are OMNIPOTENCE; and 
 the right of Legiflation, or to F O R B I D and 
 C O M M A N D by Laws : and laftly BEA- 
 TITUDE. Philo did not in the leaft in- 
 tend that, they are BEINGS, or PERSONS : 
 no more than he meant, JUSTICE is a Per- 
 fon, when he faith : Shall we not, reverence J V- 
 STIC E^ that fitteth with God^ and heholdeth all 
 things ? de Jofepho. 534. But we may marvel 
 that, Juftice was not made one of the POW- 
 ERS 
 
 As to the Logos, WORD, or WISDOM ; 
 Dr. A, fpeaks of it, as if it had one conftant 
 fignification in Philo: even a Divine Perfon, 
 the eternal natural Son of God ; the Me^as, or 
 Chrift that is to be ; the uncreated Jngel, who 
 directed the Patriarchs, gave the Decalogue, and 
 led the Ifraelites from Egypt into Canaan, But 
 there is not a word of all this, in Philo \ I fliall 
 lay together, in one view, what he hath deli- 
 vered in fo many feveral Books. Logos 
 
concerning the Logos. 7 ^ 
 
 Logos (and its plural Logoi) may fignify, as 
 I have often intimated before, either WIS- 
 D O M, or WORD. Philo ufes it very fre- 
 quently in both thefe fenfes^ which of them 
 he intends in particular places, muft be judged 
 by the Subject of which he is fpcaking. He 
 means it in the fenfe of WORD, when he 
 calleth a Prophet, or Angel, LOGOS: for 
 when he calleth Angels, or Prophets, Logoi^ 
 WORDS; 'tis becaufe he confiders them as 
 • MefTengers, or as Executors of the Divine Will, 
 Command, or Word, He meant it in the kn^Q 
 of WISDOM, and REASON, when he 
 applys it to Conceptions ; or to the feminal, or 
 flajlic Powers of Vegetables, and Animals ; or 
 to an Afl: or Acts of the rational Mind, or any 
 fuch like. It may be alfo he intends it in this 
 . fenfe, when he ufeth it of Angels ; calling 
 them Logoi^ WISDOMS, to fignify tliat they 
 are MINDS, and their EiTence is REASON, 
 Having premifed this ; let us hear what he faith 
 of the feveral Logoi^ chiefly of the Divine ef" 
 fential Logos. We'mufl: fo fpeak ; for he fome- 
 times calls tht creMed WORDS (or WIS- 
 DOMS) Divine J and Words of God ; becaufe 
 they are ccelefiid Spirits, and Melfengers from 
 God : But the Divine ejfential Logos he di- 
 ftinguifhes from all the created Wands ; both 
 by particular Names, and by what he fo often 
 fays of it. 
 
 And firft, the Plaftic or formative Powers in 
 
 Seeds^ 
 
74 The Ophiion of Philo Letter 2. 
 
 Seeds, whether of Animals or Vegetables, are 
 called by Phl/o, LogoL '' In the Seeds, (faith 
 *' he, Mundi Optfic. p. 9.) are the REASONS 
 '" of things. Here I render Logoi by Reafons ; 
 becaufe 'tis plain he means either the formative 
 Powers, by which Seeds are perfefted into Ve- 
 getables and Animals ; or elfe ffje Forms, ac- 
 cording to which' the (future) Animals and 
 Vegetables are made: both which are ele- 
 gantly called REASONS of thofe things, by 
 , the Philofophers. 
 
 " If the World, as the Stoics pretend, is to 
 '' be confumed by Fire, there will remain no 
 '^ fpermatic Lcgd?/, [no femiml R E J S N -,'] 
 ^' by which it may be again revived. De Man- 
 do.ii66. Here again I render Spermatic L^?- 
 gos, by Semiml REASON-, becaufe 'tis 
 fuppofed to contain the Power, Reafon, or 
 Manner, by and according to which the World 
 is to be regenerated. 
 
 He calleth Mofes, and the Prophets, Logoi ; 
 WOR DS of God. Deus immut. p. JiJ. M- 
 grat.Ahr ah, ^01, * 
 
 The High Prieft, according to Phi/o, is a 
 Logos, or WORD of God. Migrat, Ahrah. 
 404. 
 
 Good Aftions, and pious Thoughts, he cal- 
 lethWORDS, and ANGELS of God: 
 becaufe in the Opinion oiPhilo, they come from 
 God ; and not from our felves. Confuf Ling, 
 
 324. 
 
 \ The 
 
 '■^- 
 
concerning the Logos, 75 
 
 The Providence of God, as alfo the Wifdom 
 that God infpireth into noble Minds, have each 
 the name of Logos. De Cherub. 114. de Profug. 
 
 470. 
 
 He calleth the Angels, Logoi-^ in very ma. 
 ny places. LegU Allegor. 79. & 10 1. Ncm. 
 mutatio. 1058. 
 
 It appears, the 'Jews were generally wont, fo 
 to call the Angels ; for Philo Caith. " He that 
 ^' follows God, fliall have for his Companions 
 " the Angels; vulgarly called L(?g(?/, ^y^]^pS. 
 ■J^igrat. Abrah, 41 5. ''^'^ 
 
 He celebrates very much, and very often; 
 that I may ufe his own words,'' That moft ho- 
 ^' nourable Li^^^i-, the Archangel -^ Prince of the 
 " Angels, and Stars ; High Prieft in this Tem- 
 " pie of God, the World ; and who (fianding 
 *' in the Limits^ between the Creator and Cred- 
 " turej doth humbly mediate for us Mortals 
 '* with him that is immortal. As the Jews, 
 and Scriptures, call all Angels, Sons of God\ 
 this Logos, the Archangel, (according to Phi'lo) 
 is his frft'born Son. He faith thefe things, ve- 
 ry often ; I fhall refer only to fome of the places. 
 Rerum Divin, H^res, .509. Sown, a Deo. 597. ^ 
 Cherub. 129. Agricult. 195. When he faith, 
 this great Logos fiands in the Limits, between 
 the Creature and Creator-^ he doth not mean 
 it, in refpeft of his Nature ; but in refpeft of his 
 Office^ namely as High Prieft, and Mediator be- 
 tween God and Men. For he fays the very 
 
 fame 
 
y6 7he Opinion of Philo Letter 2. 
 
 fame thing, of the Jewifli High Prieft. '^ He 
 ^^ ^znAtth in the Limits^ of the Divine and Hu- 
 ^^ man Natures ; to reconcile God to us, by his 
 ^^ Mediation. De Monanhia. S2S, 
 . But concerning this Logos^ Philo hsith ano- 
 ther extraordinary Paffage. " In truth, there 
 ^y is but one God ; but there are many^ that are 
 ^f improperly named Gods. The Holy Scripture 
 ^' is not fuperflitiovis concerning words, there- 
 " fore it calls the true God, GOD with an Jr- 
 " tide prefixed, that is to fay, etos, the God. 
 " And him who is improperly God, GOD 
 <' without an Article prefixed; that is to fay, 
 <•' Gees, God, or a God, Somnia a Deo. 599. 
 And for this, he quotes fome Texts of the ^^^- 
 tuagint Bible : which fpeak of God, with the 
 Article prefixed ; but of the great Lvgos.^ or 
 Angel, who on fome occafions reprefented God, 
 without the Article, calling him bare ©'^os, Ciod^ 
 or A God. .It is of this Archangel, that Maime- 
 nides fays ; " The Angel, the Prince of this 
 :"• World, of whom the wife Majlers fo often 
 ^' fpeak. More Nenjochim. Part id. Chap, 6. 
 I omit that Vhilo calleth the Mannah^ and the 
 Rock m the Wildernefs, Logoi, WORDS; 
 becaufe in thofe places, it is evident he fpeak- 
 eth only Metonymicatly : calling them Words^ be- 
 caufe they were created by the Divine Com« 
 'mand, or Word-^ for the ufe and fupport of the 
 Ifraelites in the Wildernefs. 'Tis a Metonymy 
 6( the Caufe- for the EffeSi -^ very ufual with 
 
 Philo^ 
 
concerning the Logos. 77 
 
 Philoy and all Allegorifts. 
 
 Of the great effenttd Logos (or WISDOM) 
 Philo declareth plainly, that ; he meaneth 
 thereby, the Divine Sapience, or Kjiowledg : by 
 which God projeffed^ and maie the World^ and 
 all things in tt. Sometimes he calls it Aoy©-^ 
 WISDOM; fometimes ^ocpi^, SJPIENCE-^ 
 fometimes't-THP^/xf, SCIENCE. And becaufe he 
 difcourfes wholly in tht Allegorical rvaj^^nd there- 
 fore hath many Profopopeias ; he fometimes re- 
 prefents this WISDOM (SAPIENCE, or 
 SCIENCE) as the Wife of God, and Mo^ 
 ther of all things ; fometimes as the Daughter 
 of God, a pure and holy Virgin ; anon as the Spi- 
 rit of God. To my remembrance, he never calls 
 it the S O N of God. Nor doth he ever fay, 
 or intimate that, either thQ ejfential Logos ,' ov 
 the other great created Logos^ the Archangel, 
 that prefideth over the Stars and Angels, and 
 the whole Creation ; is, or is to he the Meffias. 
 The cliief Paffages in Philoj concerning the ef- 
 fential Logos ^ are thefe. ' ; 
 
 *' Goodnefs pr6ceeds, ex Dei ^ocplix^ from the 
 " SAPIENCE of God ; which is the Loaos (or 
 " WORD) of God. Le^.J/%r.lib.i?p.52. 
 
 '' We may defervedly call the Maker of all 
 *' things, the Father of the Creature ; and his 
 *^ K N O W L E DG ( 'H^np^/x^i) their Mother. 
 *' God knew this Mother of all things ; who 
 " conceiving by him, brought forth the beloved^ 
 *' and only vifible SO Ny the World. And 
 
 " hence 
 
y% The Oftnion of Philo Letter 2. 
 
 *' hence a certain Divine Man ( Kiiig Solomon ) 
 ^'^^ introduces WISDOM (^ocpi^v) as fay- 
 ^' ing; God created me the firft of his Works ^ 
 ^* he .founded me before the World, De Temul. 
 
 ^« IfthoHlearnefttheFATHER, theCre- 
 *^*ator of all things; & ejus^ocpiav^ and his 
 " SAPIENCE, theMOTHER of all 
 ^' things, that Mother by which they were 
 " made : thou fhalt benefit thy felf nnuch, 
 " thereby. Deter, In fU, pot tori. 161^, Two or 
 three lines after, he calls the fame ^ocpia^ (or 
 SAPIENCE) by the name of 'H^np^y^, that 
 isKNOWLEDG. 
 
 " The Logos (or WISDOM) is more an- 
 " tient than any Creature ; by it God govern- 
 *-' ethall thirigs, and made the World. Migrat, 
 Jhrah,p, ^gS. 
 
 " SAPIENCE (socpia) the Daughter oi 
 ^' God. de Profug. 457. 
 
 '' The Sfirit of God is, either the W I N D 
 *^ or Air ; • or that immortal \insy[j^,^ (or 
 " KNOWLEDG) of which he imparteth 
 " to all wife Men. de Gigant, 287. 
 
 '^ If we will fpeak properly^ we muft fay ; 
 *' the Intelleftual or Ideal World is no other 
 " thing but the Logos (or WISDOM) of 
 *' God, when about to make the fenjible and vi^ 
 '^ fihle World '^ even as an intelle£tual 01: mental 
 '' City is only the W IS D O M of the Archi- 
 " tea, defigning a material City. De Mundi 
 opificio. p. 5. Theft 
 
concerning the Logos. 79 
 
 Tliefe Citations clearly exprefs the Author's 
 Mind; it appears he intends A6y(^ WIS- 
 DOM, ^ccpioc Sx^PIENCE, 'ETns^fA^ 
 K N O W L E D G, as equivalent terms ; or that 
 import the fame thing. He faith, by this 
 WISDOM did God make all things ; and 
 that this is the W I S D O M, which according to 
 Solomon was with God before the World. As 'tis 
 fometimes a Gift of God to Men, 'tis called the 
 DAUGHTER of God ; as his Inftrument in 
 bringing forth all things, the M O T H E R of 
 the Creation, and WIFE of God; as 'tis an 
 aftive property, the S P I R I T of God. All 
 which however are fomewhart firmned Allego- 
 ries ; and in which he will be imitated by Few. 
 But 'tis evident at the fame time that, he did not 
 apprehend this Logos ^ as a Beings or a difiinB 
 Spirit \ but ''tis that inGod^ he (aith, thatWif 
 dom and Art are in the ArchiteBor Builder, Mun- 
 diOpific. p. 5. 
 
 I wonder, Dr. A. or Sandim fhould claim this 
 Author ; his Doftrine is rnuch rnore like to that 
 of the Church, The Church believes, theX^- 
 gos is the ejfential W I S D M oi God ; fo 
 doth Fhilo : but Philo confiders it, as a mere 
 Property, the Church, as it alfo include th the Di- 
 vine EJfence^ Attributes^ and Ferfeclions, In 
 • which fenfe or refpefl:, he venerates him as a 
 Divine Perfon ; and God (not by Adoption, or 
 Exaltation, but) by Nature. 
 
 'Tis a ftrange account that Dr. A. gives, of 
 
 Philo's 
 
8o T>K As Mfjlahs Letter 2 . 
 
 Fhilo^s notions concerning the Logos ; he hath 
 heapt together indifterencly all, that Philo fay^ 
 pi To many feveral Logoi. He is not aware that^ 
 the eternal Ejfential Logos ^ by which God made 
 the World, is very different from thegreat crea-- 
 ted Logos or Archangel, who prefides over the 
 Angels and Stars ; and indeed (according to 
 Fhtld) over the whole rational Creation. And 
 again, this Archangel, the eldeft and mod ho- 
 nourable of the Angels, or Sons of God • from 
 the inferior Logoi or Angels who are under his 
 Directions. Or that, the Patriarchs, Prophets, 
 and High Priefts, are fuch Logoi^ as mufl: be 
 carefully diftinguifhed from the manimate Logoi ; 
 namely the feminal Forms, or Powers : and 
 from the Manmhy the Rock, and fuch like. Dr. 
 A. has confounded ajl thefe ; he knows of but 
 one Logos, and attributes to him, whatfoever 
 Fhilo faith of all, or any of the Logoi : (o his 
 Mafter Sandia^^s had taught him ; and he took it 
 all for certain, and granted. 
 
 It falls out fomewhat unluckily that, Dr. A. 
 (arxl Sandiui) quote an Edition of Fhilo^ that 
 I never faw ; the Books of Philo^ in their Edi- 
 tion, are not placed in the order or under the 
 fame Titles, as in mine (the Frankford Edition) 
 of 169 1. Therefore when they refer to a parti- 
 cular Fage^ in Fhilo ; I find not what they 
 alledg, without reading a whole Book. 
 
 Dr. A, in his i()th Chapter, fays ; Fhilo af-' 
 firms, " The World was made by the Logos^ 
 
 " the 
 
concerning Philo'5 Opinions. 81 
 
 '^ the WORD or WISDOM. TbcLogos 
 ^' governs the World^ is the Firft-born of the 
 '' Sons o( God ; he guided the Ifraelitps in the 
 '' defert, was the Manna and the Rock. The 
 ^' Logos is the High Prieft of the World, the 
 *^ Mediator between God and Men. Now it 
 is truth, Philo hath faid all thefe things ; but 
 not of one and the fame Logos. The LOGO S 
 that made the World is the ejferjttal Logos ; the 
 fame with SOPHIA and EPISTEME, that is 
 Sapience and Kjiowledg ; a Property of God, ac^ 
 cording to Phtlo) not a dirtinfl Beings or par- 
 ticular Sfirit^ as in the Theology of Dr. A, 
 The LOGOS that (under* God) governs the 
 World ; and is our High Prieft and Mediator^ 
 and the Firfi-begot^ of the Sons of God, is (ac- 
 cording to Ph'tld) ^ created Logos; the Archan- 
 gel fo often already mentioned. The other Lo^ 
 got are, either Angels ; or Gifts of God, fuch as 
 the Rock and Manna. But it is not true, 
 what the Doctor adds, that ; Philo teaches, 
 *^ The eternal ejfential L^^(?j appeared to ^^r4- 
 '^ ham ; and that the fame is the eternal SON of 
 '^ God. I do not find any fuch thing in Philo : 
 I defire the Doftor to cite the jr^^r^j, with their 
 Context ; and the Edition. 
 
 It remains only that, I mention the feveral 
 Books written by this illuftrious Author; Prince 
 of Grecian Eloquence, and Hebrew Literature : 
 their Titles, and Contents. 
 
 I. Of the Creation of the World. Retreats 
 F here 
 
$1 An Account of the Letter i. 
 
 here of the Hexameron^ or fix- days Work ; 
 more particularly, of the Creation oi Man. 
 
 2. The Allegories of the Larv. In three Books. 
 In thefe, he allegorizes, that is moralizes and 
 fpiritualizes fome Hiftorical parts of the Books 
 of Mofes ; and more largely, what Mofes fays of 
 Paradife, and its four Rivers. 
 
 J. Of the Cherubim^ or Cherubs*^ and flaming 
 Sword, He means, that was waved before the 
 entrance of Paradife ; when the Protoplafls 
 Q^dam and Eve) were expelled from thence. 
 
 4. Of the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel. 
 
 5. The Worfe lies in tvaitj to dejlroy the Better, 
 It is on the murder of Jbel^ by his Brother Cain ; 
 and the Judgment of God thereupon. 
 
 6. Of Husbandry. On tljf occafion oiNoahh 
 becoming k Husbandman ; a Tiller of the 
 Ground, Breeder of Cattel, and Nourifher of 
 Trees. 
 
 7. Of Noah's plantation. On his planting 
 Vines, and making Wine. 
 
 8. Of Drunkennefs. Becaufe it is faid in Scrip- 
 ture, Noah was drunk. 
 
 9. Of Sobriety. Becaufe 'tis alfo faid, No- 
 ah amke (or recovered ) /r(9^ his Drunken- 
 nefs, 
 
 10. Of Giants. Becaufe Mofes fays, inthofe 
 days there were Giants, 
 
 11. God is immutable. On occafion of the 
 Words of God, Itrefenteth me that I have made 
 Man. Gen. 6. 7. He faith here, it is with regard 
 
 to 
 
!Books of Philo Jud^us.' 8| 
 
 to the Vulgar^ who are beft awed by fuch appre- 
 henfions of God ; that Mofes reprefents God 
 fometimes, as angry, nay as enraged, and re- 
 penting of the good that he hath done to the 
 Ungrateful and Wicked, and even as taking up 
 Arms agaiiift them to deftroy them : for in 
 truth God is not like to Man, either in Parts or 
 Paflions; he chaftifes, without being angry with 
 us ; he refumes our Comforts and Life, after 
 we have abufed them, without repenting of his 
 firfl: Goodnefs to us. 
 
 12. Of the€onfufion of the Ldngudges at Ba- 
 bel. 
 
 I J. The Life of a Wife Man. Or, of Abra- 
 ham : or, of the unwritten Laws. He faith herey 
 the Patriarchs were virtuous and holy, without 
 any other Laws, but the Didlates of natural 
 Confcience, and Reafon : but Nature muft be 
 perfefted by Learning and Study ; as m Abraham^ 
 who therefore was the wifeft of the Patri- 
 archs. 
 
 14. Of the Pilgrimage e?/ Abraham. Onoc- 
 cafion of his leaving Chaldea^ and fojourning irt 
 Canaan and Egypt . 
 
 15. TheCongrefs for acquiring Learning. By 
 occafion of Ahraham^s tarking to him Hagar^ i6 
 get Children on her ; becaufe he had none by 
 iiarah. For Philo here wholly forfakes the//>f» 
 rd fenfe ; and interprets that Hiftoiy, of a cori- 
 grefsofMirids, uot of Bodies; arid for obtain- 
 
 F 2 iiiH 
 
Jn Account of the Letter 2. 
 
 ing thejiberal Arts and Sciences, not for propa- 
 ;gatiGh of bodily Offfpring. 
 
 16. OftheWanderers, On occafion o^Hagar^s 
 Bardufage, by Sarah', and her flight into the 
 Wildernefs thereupon. 
 
 17. The Heir of. the Divine Promifes. On 
 the words of God ; " To thy Seed I have given 
 *' this Land, from the River of Egyfty to the 
 " KiV^vEufhrates, 
 
 18. The Life of the Politician. Or, of Jo- 
 feph. 
 
 ig. Of Dreams. That they come from 
 God. 
 
 Thefe Books (or rather Sermons) are written 
 in the allegaj'ical jvay : the Author gives, not the 
 literal knfSy which he thinks is obvious enough 
 to every body ; but a myfiical and moral. To 
 take a fpecimen of this way. On thofe words of 
 God, " It is not good for Man to be alone, I 
 " will make him an help meet for him ; Philo 
 faith. Man here is the SOUL, the meet 
 /^^//^isthe SENSITIVE FACULTY; 
 for the Soul doth not perceive the things that are 
 without it, but bj help of the fenfes. As name- 
 ly Sounds^ by" the fenfe of Hearing ; and other 
 ObjeGs, and their Qualities, by other fenfes. 
 Leg. Alleg. lib. 5. p. 10S8. 
 
 Again. On that PalTage; Jacob called the 
 Name of his youngefl: Son, Benjamin ; that is 
 '^.Sonof Days - But RJCHE L, becaufe fhe 
 
 died 
 
' ^ooh of ?hi\o ]uSx\is. Sj 
 
 died in bringing him forth, named him, Be/fo- 
 m, or the Son of my Sorrow, Philo faith here- 
 on ; ^' The Day is illuftrated by the Sari's Lighty 
 '' unto which we are wont to refemble 'ryorUl) 
 *< Glory : A Perfon therefore that hunts after 
 " the Glories of the World, may fitly be <:a!- 
 ^^ led Bef!Jamm, a Son of D^y';; that isj.of that 
 '' Brightnefs which belongs to vain Glory. But 
 " RACHEL, ii\m\stheSoul, willcallfuch 
 *' a Son Berwnij ibQ Son of my Sorrow; as 
 *^ knowing that fuch a Son, tho vulgarly e- 
 " fteemed Glorious and Happy, is ind'eed con- 
 " temptible and miferable.. De Nom., mutA- 
 tione.. p. 1059. And after having advanced 
 fuch a Moral, he dilates (or ferT^onizes) up- 
 on it. Cuftom, it fliould feem, had made this, 
 way agreeable; and it was thought the only 
 way, proper for holy Harangues .; It is liow« 
 ever but dry, even when managed by a .Philo ;^ 
 who could adorn it with many noble (inciden- 
 tal ) Thoughts, and all the colours of Rhe- 
 toric, '^^^rr*. 
 
 The other Books of Fhilo are partly Hifto- 
 rily, partly Political ; others again Tlieologi- 
 cal, and fome Philofophical. Thefe are not Al- 
 legorical ; and in thefe he fliows himfelf to have 
 been a confummate Philofopher, Divine, Hi- 
 ftorian, and Statefman. They are thefe that 
 
 20. The Life of Mofes. In three l^bQl^s;^ 
 but they feem to be firft Draughts, that had 
 
 F J not 
 
86 'Jn Account of the Letter il 
 
 not received the Author's laft Hand and Era- 
 bellifhments. 
 
 21. Qf PhiUnthropy\ or Charity to Men. 
 Here he propofes, and recommends the Heroic 
 Adion of Mofes ; in appointing for his Succef- 
 for, neither his own nor Brother^s Son, tho de-^ 
 ferving Perfons ; but Jofhudj not at all related 
 to him, not fo much as by Tribe, and com- 
 mended only by his extraordinary Abilities and 
 Sufficiency. 
 
 22. Of a Judg, He defcribes here the Qua^ 
 lities, requifite in a Judg ; and reckon^ up the 
 ufual Corruptions of fuch Perfons. 
 
 2 J. Of the Election of a Prime. He giveth 
 here fome proper Advices, concerning the 
 Choice of a Prince ; and to the Prince, when 
 chofen. He diverts however to the confidera- 
 tion of fome Laws of Mofes ; the Reafons of 
 which Laws are not fo obvious, but that com- 
 mon and unlearned Readers may lack to be in- 
 formed concerning them. 
 
 24. Of Fortitude. Not that Temerity, ju- 
 venile Rafhnefs, or mercenary Defperation, of 
 which Souldiers (vainly) boaft; but the Pa- 
 tience, Prudence, and ^Equanimity, of a vir* 
 tuous and good Man, in Adverfities and Mif- 
 haps of whatfoever kind. 
 
 25. 0/ the Ten Commandments. He reduces 
 all, or the mioft part of Piety and Morality, 
 Vndpr thofe Ten general Heads. The Fathers 
 and Modern^ havq taken what they fay on the 
 
 Com- 
 
^ooks of Philo Jud^us. 87 
 
 Commandments, from this fiiort Book of Fhi- 
 lo ; without adding almoft any thing that is 
 material. For Example, on the j^;/? Com- 
 mandment, Honour thy father and thy Mother ; 
 he faith. " 'Tis to beunderftood, not only of 
 " natural Parents, but of Fofter-farents ; that is, 
 ^' of our Benefaftors : and of politkal Parents^ 
 *' the Prince and Magiftracy. In like manner, 
 on the other Commandments; that refpeft ei- 
 ther God, or Man : he fuppofes, they include, 
 not only the thing directly and expredy com- 
 manded, or forbidden ; but whatfoever is a 
 degree of, or has a tendency unto,the fubjeQ: Mat- 
 ter of the Commandment. 
 
 26. Of particular Laws, In two Books. Tliey 
 are a continuation of the Explication of the 
 Decalogue^ or Ten Commandments : but he 
 giveth them this Title, becaufe he enumerates 
 here the particular Laws^ that belong to each 
 of the Ten Commandments; which he had 
 begun to do in the foregoing Book. As, to the 
 Commandment, Thou (halt not fieal^ belong 
 (he faith) the particular Laws in Holy Scrip- 
 ture, that oblige us either to juft and fquare 
 Dealing, or to Charity ; as alfo the Laws that 
 forbid Calumny and Detraftion, and. all fuch 
 like Wrongs, becaufe they are a kind of rob- 
 bing our Neighbour. 
 
 27. Of Circumcifton. He faith ; Circumcifi- 
 on is in ufe among other Nations, efpecially the 
 Egyptians J as well as among the Hebrews. He 
 
 F 4 thinks 
 
8 8 An Account of the Letter 2. 
 
 thinks It was appointed, to prev^ent the Carbun^ 
 cle on that part, very frequent in the hot Coun- 
 tries among fuch as are not circumcifed. And 
 as a means to facilitate Generation ; for the 
 Foreskin being cut off, the Seed is direftly and 
 wholly eje£ted, and no part of it retained in 
 the Sinuofities for folds) of the Skin and Flefh 
 which naturally covers that part, if it be not 
 cut off, It is alfo a Memorandum to the holy 
 Nation, of the fpiritual Circumcifion ; it is to 
 teach them the excifion of all fuperfluous and 
 brutal Pleafures. 
 
 28. Of Monarchy, In two Books. In the 
 firft, he treats of the Unity of God'; or that 
 there is but one God, and one King, over all 
 Kings and Gods. In the fecond Book, he fpeaks 
 of the particular and immediate Servitors of the 
 Univerfal Monarch ; that is to fay, the Friefl:s: 
 and of the Laws, that particularly relate to 
 them. He was not himfelf of the Sacerdotal 
 Tribe ; but he fpeaks with a mofl profound Re- 
 fpeft, of their Perfons, and Miniflry. Which 
 thing one may obferve in all good Men; who 
 never fail, to honour God in the Perfons of his 
 immediate Attendants. 
 
 29, Of the Revenues^ and Honours belonging 
 to Priejls, He faith here ; the Jewifh Nation, 
 befides what they poffefs in Palejlme, have, 
 great Colonies over all the World ; in Egj/pt 
 only, there are above a Million of Jews, Every 
 Pneft, he faith, would be a very rich Man ; if 
 
 the 
 
^ooks of Philo Judaeus. 89 
 
 the Oblations, due by the Divine Law, ^)t/ere 
 confcientioudy paid : But fome avaritious and 
 facrilegious Perfons fupprefs a great part of the 
 Tenths, and other Obventions. He fears, 
 there are too niany fuch ; and their Unjuftice 
 isthecaufe, that divers Perfons of the Sacerdo- 
 tal Familes, forfake their Holy Funftion ; and 
 apply thennfelves to fecular Bufinefs, as Mer- 
 chandife and Trades. 
 
 JO. Of the Sacrifices, He difputes learnedly, 
 of the feverai forts of Sacrifices ; and what 
 parts of them belong to God, what to the 
 Prieft, and what to the Offerer; and of the 
 Reafofjs of thofe Laws. What the Chriftian 
 or Jewifh Interpreters have faid ; in their Gom- 
 ments on the Books or Chapters of the Mofaic 
 Law, that fpeak of thefe things ; they learned 
 almoft all of it from Fhilo. 
 
 ^ I. Of the Ferfons that offer Sacrifice, He 
 obferves here that, the Laws which require 
 that the Sacrifice fliould be without all blemifli, 
 intend thereby principally, to admoniCh the Of- 
 ferer of the internal Perfeftion and Purity, that, 
 is neceffary to make him acceptable to God; 
 and without which, his very Sacrifice is odious 
 to God. He adds divers things very pertinent- 
 ly and judicioufly, concerning the Temple and 
 Ornaments of it ; and concerning the Appen- 
 dices and Circumftances of all forts of Sacrifi- 
 ces. 
 
 J2. r^e 
 
po Jn Account of the Letter il 
 
 52. The Hire or Reward of a Harlot^ is not to 
 be received, into the Temfle, If a Perfon become 
 a Proftitute, the Gain by fuch impure courfe of 
 living is forbid by the Mofaic Law to be offerM, 
 whether in whole or part, to the Treafure of 
 the Temple ; or converted into a Sacrifice. And 
 the cafe is the fame, faith Philo^ if the Mind be 
 (as it were) conftufrated^ or vitiated by Volup- 
 tuoufnefs, Drunkennefs, Avarice, Ambition, 
 or any fuch like : The Oblations of all fuch 
 Perfons are profane, and unhallowed ; no lefs 
 than the Offerings of Whores. 
 
 J J. Every virtuom Perfon is a Freeman, He 
 faith, A virtuous Perfon, tho under bodily Ser- 
 vitude, is free from the worft fort of Matters; 
 Vices, vain Pleafures, and unnecefTary Defires : 
 and his bodily Servitude is much more eafy to 
 him, and more acceptable to the Mailer of his 
 Body ; than is the Service of vicious People, 
 whether to their Mafters or felves. 
 
 J4. Of the Contemplative Life. He had faid 
 fomething in the foregoing Book, of the Ef 
 Jens or Effaans who follow the aBive Life ; that 
 is, profefs indeed a high Morality, and parti- 
 cular Aufterity, but withal praGife fome honeft 
 Vocation or Trade : in this, he proceeds to the 
 Effaans that ehofe the contemplative Life. He 
 faith, they were Men and Women, young and 
 old; whereof fome wholly abftain from Mar- 
 riage, all their lives long : they have relinquifh'd 
 their Lands and Houfes,to their next Heirs ; and 
 
 are 
 
Sooks of Philo Jud^eus. 9 1 
 
 are retired to a Life of Prayer, and Contempla- 
 tion. They live not in Cities, but Villages ; 
 each in a particular little Houfe, called a Mo- 
 najieryy becaufe but one Perfon dwelleth in it : 
 and each Houfe hath a, Semneion or Oratory, 
 where the Holy Afcetic imploys his whole time 
 (from morningto night) in Prayer, Study, and 
 Reading ; the Reading is either in the Books 
 of Holy Scripture, or other Books of Piety and 
 Devotion. Except on the Sabbaths, they ne- 
 ver eat or drink till night ; and then only Bread 
 and Water : they avoid Wine, as Poifon. On 
 the Sabbaths, they all aflemble in the common 
 Semneion or place of Prayer; when one of the 
 Seniors preaches to them, with a moderate 
 Voice, and in the allegorical way. At noon of 
 the fame day, they have a Feaft of Bread and 
 Water ; and for the Antient, and more Delicate, 
 a Sallad. After this Repaft, they fing Pfalms 
 and Hymns ; not all together, but one Perfon 
 fingeth the Hymn or Pfalm, and the reft join 
 ^ith him at the laft Words or Claufe. This 
 holds till fupper^time ; when they regale again 
 on 3read, and a Sallad. After Supper they fing 
 again ; not fitting, but in a modeft Dance : and 
 this lafts till Sun-rife, the fign of their fepa rat- 
 ing, and departing to their particular Mona- 
 ftries. Thefe Sodalities, he faith, are to be 
 found in all Countries ; efpecialjy in £^;'/^^, and 
 about Alexandria. 
 
 Dr. 
 
pi ^ Jccount of the Letter i. 
 
 Dr. CavCf and Dr. Bernard^ have rightly 6b- 
 ferved that, thefe Afcetics and Therafeuts were 
 DOt Chriftians ; as Eufehiiis and St. y^rf?;» 
 thought: In truth P/;//^ fodefcribes them, that 
 it appears with certainry^ they were "^ews by 
 Religion ; and he exprefly calls them E^ens^ or 
 EJfaa^iSy which is the name of a Jewifh Sefl. 
 Ihofe Learned Gentlemen (Dr. Bernard and 
 Dr. Cave) zA^ ; thefe Contemplatives began- 
 about 150 Years before our Saviour ; and pro- 
 bably (fay they) in imitation of tlie auftere 
 retired Lire of the Egyptian Hierophanta, de- 
 fcribed by Herodotm^ Diodorus^ and Porpby- 
 ry. 
 
 55. Uj Nobility, He proves largely that, 
 Virtue is the only Nobility. 
 
 ^6. Of Rewards and Pumfhments, He fer- 
 monizes on the Recompences and Encourage- 
 ments, beftowed on Enoch^ Noah, Abraham^ 
 Ifaacy Jacob, Mofes ; and the Punifhments of 
 Cain, and Corah, . 
 
 ^ 7. Of the Curfe, That is, of Famine, Wan, 
 Captivity, Difeafes, bad Succefs; and the o- 
 ther Evils, denounced in Holy Scripture to fla- 
 gitious Perfons, and Times. 
 
 38. The World {hall mver be diffolved. It is 
 alfo the Opinion of Maimonides ; who argues 
 largely for it, from Scripture. But Vhilo in this 
 Book makes ufe, only of the Reafons of PUto^ 
 and A ijiotle-^ of Theofhrajlus^ and Ocellus Lu- 
 emus. Neither thofe Philofophers nor Vhilo 
 
 could 
 
Books of Philo JucJa^iis. p j 
 
 could find any reafon, why God fhould ever 
 dilToIve the \A/'orId ; efpecially having fo con- 
 trived it, that of it felf it will continue for ever, 
 unlefs a fupernatural and divine Power defl:roys 
 it : We are not to fear that, fay thefe Philofo- 
 phers; for Infinite Wifdom did not make, to 
 unmake again. 
 
 ^9. Agxinfi FLucii^s. . This elegant Book in- 
 forms us of the illegal Ufage, and Barbarities, 
 committed on the Jen^s in Egypt i by F/accus 
 Avilius^ Governour at that time of Egypt. 
 VUcctis^ hoping thereby to ingratiate himfelf 
 with his Mafter the Emperor Cdm^ would 
 needs put the Image of that Emperor into all 
 the Profeucha (or Synagogues) of the jT^jpj 
 in Egypt. The Jews could not fubmit to it, as 
 contrary to the Jecond CommAndment : therefore 
 FUccm encouraged the Rabble, to rifle their 
 Houfes ; to feize, and: even fell their Perfons ; to 
 hangfome^ and burn others. In fBort, they 
 were treated as Outlaws. In the heat of thefe 
 Perfecutions, Cairn recalled FUccus ; condemn- 
 ed him of Male-adminiftration, confifcated his 
 Eftate, and banifh'd him to the Ifle of Andros. 
 But he had not been long in that Ifland, e're 
 Cains fent an Officer and Souldiers to put him to 
 death; which was performed in a very harfh 
 manner, by the Minifters of cruelty. The 
 Remarks oi Philo on this Hiflory, are very pro- 
 per, and very judicious ; and the whole is 
 told, in a very affeQing, and inftruding man- 
 ner, 40. The 
 
p4 ^^i Account of the Letter 2. 
 
 40. The EwbaJJy to Caius. You have here 
 the Charafl:er, of the Emperor Calus ; better 
 drawn, than by any of the Roman Hiftorians : 
 and an account, how he came to imagine that 
 he was a God. His Flatterers had told him ; as 
 the Neatherd, Goatherd, and Shepherd, are not 
 of the fame KJr^d with the Cows, GoatSj and 
 Sheep under their care ; but of a higher and no- 
 bler Nature: and otherwife they were not ca^ 
 pable of their refpe&ive Charges. In like man- 
 ner, the Head and Governour of Mankind, is 
 not to be thought or deemed of the fame Nature 
 and Kind ; with thofe over whom he prefides : 
 he muft be a Divine Perfon, a God^ whom Hea- 
 ven hath placed on fuch an eminence ; and hath 
 committed to him fovafta Charge, as Man- 
 kind. Cairn \^illingly heard thefe things, and 
 forthwith declared himfelf a God ; affuming 
 alfo (fucceffively) the Habits of the principal 
 Gods, that were worfhipped either nt Romeot 
 elfewhere. He introduced his Image into all 
 Temples ; and even fo placed it, that it preced- 
 ed the Image of the God there worfhipped. The 
 Jews oiEgyft^ and of the Holy Land, fent Em- 
 baflies to this Prince ; to deprecate the violation 
 of their Religion, by Images fet up (or to be fet 
 up) in their Synagogues,or the Temple at Jeru-^ 
 faUm. P/?/7(? wasoneofthe AmbafTadors, of the 
 Egyftian Jews ; and relates ill this Book the ridi- 
 culous Audience, given to'emby Caius, But 
 all their Fears were fuddenly diffipated, by the 
 
 aiTailida* 
 
*Books o/^Philo Judaeus. py 
 
 aflaflination of Caif^ ; by fome of his own Do- 
 meftics. The Letter of King ^^r/p/^, to Caius-^ 
 to difTuade him from making the Jews defpe- 
 rate, by profaning their Temple with an Image; 
 is one of the fineft pieces of all Antiquity. Phil 
 lo hath inferted it, into this Hiftory of his Em- 
 baifage. 
 
 41. Of the change of Names, He difcourfes 
 here, concerning the change of the Names of 
 Abraham^ Sarah^ Jofefh^ Benjamin^ and fome 
 others. 
 
 42. Of Dreams^ that they come from God. 
 He treateth here (fomwhat jejunely) €f Dreams 
 in general ; and of the particular Dreams oijo- 
 feph^ and of the Butler and Baker of the King of 
 
 Egjpt. 
 
 4j. Of the World. That the World fliall 
 have an eternal Duration : he repeateth here 
 fome of the Arguments, that he had ufed in a 
 former Book, for the incorruptibility of the 
 World. This Book feemeth to beunperfeO:; 
 and one may doubt, whether indeed it were 
 Vhilo's. 
 
 44. Of the number Seven j and the holy Times 
 ohferveA by the Jews. That is, of the weekly 
 Sabbath^ New-moon^ Pajfover ; the Feafts of 
 Firftfruits^ of unlevened Bread, of Weeks, of 
 Trumpets ; Day of Expiation or yearly Faft, Feaji 
 of Tabernacles. 
 
 45. Befides thefe, Philo wrote a Book coH" 
 cerning Providence ; whereof there is ftill a Frag* 
 
 ment 
 
9,6 An Account of the Letter t . 
 
 ment extant, in Michael Jpojloltf^. 
 
 46. Himfelf faith, he wrote two Books co^- 
 cermrfg Faffs or Covenants De Norn mutat, 
 1052. Eujebim hath much miftaken thefe 
 Books. 
 
 47. The Antiquities of the Bible, 'Tis a very 
 fabulous and foolifli Book, falfly imputed to 
 Philo Jud^u^ ; and as falfly to Philo Bibli-^ 
 us. 
 
 48. A Chronicle, or Breviarf of Time -, frotii 
 Jdam to the 7 8 r^ Year after Chrifl: : and the 
 Genealogy of Jefus Chrifi, They are Forgeries 
 ofJ.JnniusofFiterhium, about the Year 1498. 
 Jnnius publiilied them under the name of Phi- 
 lo Judaus^ but the Impofl:ure after fome time 
 was detefted by Learned Men. 
 
 49. I have feen a Latin Book, of Quejlions 
 and Solutions t^pon Genefis ; written in the myfti* 
 cal and allegorical w^ay ; I have not obferved 
 any thing in it, why it may not be (as the Title 
 bears) Phild^s ; that is, a Tranflation from Phi- 
 to. On looking into Eufehius^ I fee, he reckons 
 this Book to Philo ; he calls it, Queftions and 
 Jnfjvers on Genefis, and Exodus : I have only 
 thofe on G^;?f/^ ; I believe, thofe on Ejct^^;//// are 
 not extant. 
 
 50. Another Latin Book, being an Interpre- 
 tation of all Hebrew Names (of Perfons or Places) 
 in the Old Tefiament : it was done out of the 
 Greek ^ into Latin^ by St. Jerom\ who faith, 
 Or/^^/^Jnentioi^eth this Book as written by Phi- 
 
!Books of Philo JuSxus^. 97 
 
 lo. 'Tis extant, and ufually publifhed with the 
 Works of St. Jerom, Befidcs thefe,- Eufehius 
 tells of a Book of Philo^ entituled Alexander', 
 he faith, 'tis defigned to prove that, the brute 
 Creatures (fo called) have Reafo/i : and of a 
 Book concerning Virtues^ ironically fo intituled ; 
 for 'tis a kind of Satyr on the Vices of Caius. 
 The Komxn Senate took notice of this Book ; 
 and ordered that it Oiould be copied, and put in- 
 to all the public Libraries: but it is not now ex- 
 tant. 
 
 This enumeration of the Books of Vhilo^ hath 
 been a Digreflion ; I promife my felf hovi^ever, 
 your Lordfhip will like well enough of it : be- 
 caufe by the AbflraQ: I have given of their Con^ 
 tents, as well as Titles, I have recalled to your 
 memory whatfoever is very confiderable in fo 
 many fmall Trads, which .together make a 
 very large Volume. I believe,,you would be 
 well content, if fome qualified Perfon under- 
 took a Summary of other JewijJj Books that are 
 valuable ; of which (in good truth) there are a 
 very great number. It would be very ufeful, 
 even to themoft Learned, ifwe had fome fuch 
 Abridgment of the Learning of the Synagogue ; 
 as Mr. Du Finn hath made of the Chriftian Fa^ 
 thers, and Councils. What the Buxtorfs have 
 done in this kind, tho we are much in their debt 
 for it : yet one may fay that, befides that it is 
 too brief, it is alfo too partial ; they have not 
 done right to the Jews • they have too often 
 
 G en- 
 
p8 An Account^ 6cc. Letter i. 
 
 endeavor'd to ridicule this People, and without 
 caufe. I do not add, at prefent ; having al- 
 ready fbmewhat exceeded the bounds of a Let- 
 ter or Differtation that is to be read all at 
 once. 
 
 / 
 
 I am. 
 
 Your Lordjbifs moft 
 Humble Servant, 
 
 Stephen Nye. 
 
 Hormead Farva, Com. 
 Hanf, June 2. 1701. 
 
 Tbi 
 
99 
 
 The Third Letter, 
 
 My Lord. 
 
 TH E Book we are examining, is very po* 
 pular in this refpeft, that it pretends to 
 find the Doftrines of the Trinity, and Divini- 
 ty of the Mejjtas^ even among the Jews : The 
 Author however ought to have been aware that, 
 a deceitful Title would not cover the pefti- 
 lent defign of the Book ; that is, when the 
 Reader comes to fee what fort of Trinity is 
 there propofed to his belief. A Trinity, faith 
 he, of ufjcreated Beings^ Chap. lo. p, 144. a 
 Trinity of Eternal SfiritSy Chap. 11. p. 175. 
 Three Elohimy who alfo arc fo many C R E A* 
 T O R S, and G O D S, Chap.c). /^. 1 1 6, 1 1 8, 1 1 9. 
 He faith, this was the Faith of the Patriarchs ; 
 and of the 'Jem^ till very lately : and that, 
 there is no ejfentid difference between our Religion 
 and theirs \ Preface, fag, i. 'Tis as much as 
 to fay, the Jews are in as falvablg condition as 
 the Chriftians : for if we diflFer in nothing that 
 
 G 2 is 
 
I CO An Account of the Letter 5* 
 
 is ejfenttAl to faving Religion ; but only in fome 
 Circumjlmces ; it follows that, a Jew is under 
 no necellicy to turn Chriftian ; in order to his 
 Salvation. 
 
 To fupport his Errors ; he appeals, firjl^ to 
 Fhilo : whom he had read in the Quotations of 
 Chr, Sandim ; who hath filled fome Sheets with 
 Citations, out ofPhilo. I haveoppofedtoour 
 -Authors Philo-Sandim^ the genuine Philo ; who 
 appears clearly to be of a very different mind, 
 both from Sandius^ and Dr. A. His next effort 
 is from Tradition ; or the Oral Law, and Kjih* 
 haU: Which according to him, is as antient as 
 Adam^ Enoch ^ and Noah ; but was renewed by 
 God to the Prophet Mofes, when (after giving 
 of the Ten Commandments) he called that 
 Prophet into the Mountain, and there kept 
 him 40 days. 
 
 Of the Oral Law and Kabbala. 
 
 It feems very extravagant in a Proteftant Di*- 
 vine, to own any otlier Tradition from God, 
 befides the written Tradition in the Books of 
 the Old and New Teftament : for it is one of 
 the Fundamental Articles of the Reformation, 
 that ; we have no fort of Revelation from God, 
 but only thofe facred Books. Dr. A. believes 
 on the contrary, that ; there w^as a Tradition, 
 even from Ada7n\ that exfrejfed not only all 
 the Articles of true Religion^ but the verj leafi 
 
 Cir- 
 
Oral Law and Kabbala.' i o l 
 Circumfiances of Antient Hijlory, Chap. 2. p. i j. 
 and 25. He fays, for example, ^' It was from 
 '' Tradition that the Jews filled up that Text, 
 ^' G^n. 4. 8. where 'tis faid, And Cain talked 
 *' rvith Abel his Brother-^ by adding (in the 
 ^^ LXX Bible, and th^ Samaritan Copy) theve- 
 ^^ ry words he fpoke, even thefe, Let m go in- 
 ^' to the Field. Chap. 2. p. 21,22. As for £- 
 noch^ he faith ; it is certain^ the Piece quoted by 
 St. "Jude was truly the Prophecy of Enoch. Chap, 
 2. p. 19. It was from this Tradition alfo he' 
 faith; that, ^' St.PWunderftood thatfomeof 
 ^' the Prophets were fawn in funder, Heb. 11. 
 ^' ^ 7. Tho St. Paul fpoke it in the plural num- 
 ^' her, he meant it only of one ; even the Pro- 
 " phet Ifaiah : who was fawn in funder, by 
 '' command of King Manajfes. Our Author is 
 not plea fed to fet down the Tradition ; there- 
 fore I will do it for him : it is this. *' When 
 '^ the Prophet Ifaiah was running away from 
 '' the Executioners, fent againfb him by King 
 ^' Manajfes ; a very large Oak opened it felf, to 
 '' receive, and hide him : but this kindnefs of 
 " the Oak was not performed fo nimbly, but 
 '' that the Executioners faw when the Prophet 
 *' entred the Oak ; and the Oak clofed upon 
 " him. What do me they, cunning Varlets, 
 ^' but clap their Saw to the Oak; and fofawed 
 *^ Prophet and Oak afunder, at the fame time. 
 If our Author had fpit in the Face of St. Paul; 
 hefliouldnot (in my opinion) have fo much' 
 
 G J af- 
 
I or Jn Account of the Letter ^ J 
 
 aflPronted him thereby, as by imputing to him 
 the belief of fuch a Flam : and 'tis well known, 
 St. Paul could not ground what he fays, of fome 
 Prophets being fawn intwo^ on that Tale of M^- 
 nafles and tf'aiab\ for Ifaiah was dead before 
 Mamffes began to reign ; or rather, as the 
 moft Learned Chronologers think, before he 
 was born. 
 
 Dr. A. thinks, and perfues his Conceit in 
 divers Chapters, that ; the 'Jews had a traditio- 
 nal Kjiowledg^ concerning the Trinity, the Di- 
 vinity of the Mtffias^ and how to interpret di* 
 vers places of Scripture. Another would have 
 thought that, Matters of fo great confequence, 
 if intended for the Jewifh Church, would not 
 have been left to Hear-fay^ and fljing Reports ; 
 which our Author and fome others, to palliate 
 the Abfurdity, gravely call Tradition. He 
 greatly miftakes, in fuppofing ; his Opinion in 
 this matter is fupported by St. PauPs mention- 
 ing Jannes and Jambres^ who rvithfiood Mofes. 
 2 Tim. J. 8. Or St. Jude the Prophecy of Enoch, 
 and the contention about the Body of Mofes. 'Jude 
 V. 9. and 14. What P4«/ fays of Jannes ^nd 
 Jambres^ and their refifting Mofes ; he took not 
 from the IQtbbalifis^ but from Numenius the 
 Pythagorean-^ who fays. ^^ When Mofes af- 
 " fliaed Egypt \ Jannes and Jambres^ Priefts, 
 ^' that excelled in Magical Knowledg,were chofe 
 ^' by the Egyptians too^pofe him; and to re- 
 '* medy the Calamities, that Mofes caufed to 
 
 " them. 
 
Oral Law and Kabbala.^ i o ? 
 
 *' them. Numen. I. j. ie Jud. apud Eufek prap. /. 
 8, c. 8. As St. Paul had this from NumeniuSj 
 fo had the Tdmud and Targums, 
 
 When St. 'jfr/^^ quotes Enoch ; and a paffage 
 concerning the Body oiMofes^ out of the Affump^ 
 tion of Mofes ; he argues with the Kjihhdt^s 
 only adhominem as they fpeak: as our own 
 Learned Lightfoot has it, he feeks to perfwade 
 them from Tejiimonies and Witnejfes that were re^ 
 ceived amongft themfelves ; without intending to 
 affirm the truth of thofe Books or Witnejfes. 
 Lightfoot in I. And fo alfo it is that all judici* 
 ous Interpreters underftand other Writers of 
 the new Teftament, when they feem to refer 
 to the Traditions of the Kjihhalifts : they are 
 well aware that, the Pr^^/^^-^t?/ Enoch, the Jf 
 fumption ^ Mofes, with other written and oral 
 Traditions of the Kjhhalites^ are pious frauds ; 
 but altogether Spurious. Which is a full and 
 mod true Anfwer to the 2d and T^d Chapters of 
 the judgment. 
 
 Our Author endeavours fome where, to elude 
 the Imputation of aflerting Traditions ; he was 
 aware, I fuppofe, 'tis contrary to the Funda- 
 mental Principles of the Reformation : therefore 
 he fays that he fpeaks of Traditions that have 
 fome grounds in Scripture. But this was a mere 
 piece of Mockery ; for he doth not ground the 
 Traditions he alledges, on the Scriptures; but 
 the Text of Scripture, and the true Interpreta- 
 tion thereof, on thofe Traditions : as is evident 
 G 4 through^ 
 
104 Jn Account of the Letter 5. 
 
 throi3,7liout his whole fecond Chapter. And 
 Kovv eafy a matter is it, to dap fome ridiculous 
 Ba^per to a Text of Scripture ; as the Legend of 
 Ifalah and the Oak that received him, to the 
 words of St. Paul, fome of the Prophets were fawn 
 in funder ; and then excufe ones felf, by faying, 
 Iffeak of no Traditions hut what are grounded on 
 Scripture ? But the Queftion again will be, But 
 by what Authority' do you graft fuch Traditi- 
 ons on Scripture ? Infhort, fuch Pretenders con- 
 travene the Principles of the Reformation ; and 
 confound the written Revelation, by arbitrary 
 Additions to it. 
 
 'Tis indeed a common Miftake among fome 
 otlier Learned Men alfo, that the Jews pretend 
 to an Oral Law, or Tradition ; diftinft from the . 
 Books oiMofes and the Prophets, and fuperad- 
 ded to them : but this is a pretence of only the 
 Kjhbalifis^ or jFanatics of the Jews ; the Learned 
 and Sober fort of the Jews^ not only do not pre- 
 tend to any fuch thing, but utterly and expref- 
 ly difclaim it. I commended hereto/ore to 
 your Lordfhip's reading, the Jmica Collatio cum 
 erudito Judao ; printed at Gouda in Holland j 
 Anno 1688. I believe, you Lordfhip hath the 
 Book ; if fo, you know what the moft learn- 
 ed Rahhi^ the other Collocutor in th^t Collatio^ 
 fays of the Oral Law, at p. 140, 141. *^ The 
 *^ Chrijiian Doftors have commonly miftaken 
 *^ our Opinion, concerning the Oral Law ; I 
 '' ftiall inform you, what we believe concern- 
 
 "' ing 
 
u 
 
 a 
 
 Oral LcHi) and Kabbalah i o y 
 
 ing it. We don't pretend to any Tradition, 
 or Oral Law, comermng GOD; or the m- 
 ternd Worfhif, due to him ; or the Duties 
 a^d Offices to be performed towards our Bro- 
 ther 01' Neighbour. Our Tradition is only 
 " concerning the performance, or execution, of 
 " the Ritual or Ceremonial part of the Mofaic 
 " Law. As, how the Circumcifion is to be 
 " made; for divers other Nations circumcife as 
 " well as we, but not in the mmneY that we do, 
 '^ And again, what Exceptions are to be allow- 
 " ed in the general Precepts, of circumcifing 
 " precifely on the eighth Day, the Sabbatical 
 ^' Reft, Fafting on the day of Expiation ; and 
 '^ fuch like. The Exceptions are, that ; Cir- 
 " cumcifionis to be deferred, if the Child be fick, 
 *' or be infirm ; that^ the Sabbatical Reft may be 
 '' broken on behalf of fick Perfons ; that^ the Faft 
 " of the Expiation is not tobe exafted, if a Phy- 
 *' fician certifies that this Perfon is not capable (in 
 " regard of bodily Infirmity) of obferving the 
 '^ Faft. Other Matters received and praftifed 
 ^' among us, are obeyed; not as an Or/?/ L^rr, 
 ^' but as the Hedg or Fence that the Wife Ma^ 
 '^ Jiers have fet, for the more efteftual preven- 
 " tion of the breach of the Divine Law. As 
 '' whereas tlie Law fays, Thou jhah not liemith 
 " a Menfiruous Women ; the Mafiers have forbid 
 '^ tokifs her, or be otherwife familiar with her : 
 ^' left from fuch: familiarity, or falutation, 
 " there arife an unrefiftible provocation, to vio- 
 
 ^'late 
 
io6 ^n Account of the Letter f. 
 
 " late the Divine Law afliually. Tho it muft 
 ^' be owned alfo, that ; fome Superftitiom (fuch 
 *' is human Frailty) have been impofed, prac- 
 " tifed, and even magnified ; on the occafion, 
 *^ and by pretence of the Fence or Hedg of the 
 *' Law. But none of thefe Hedges are account- 
 ^^ ed among us, Traditions^ or an Ord Law ; 
 ' • but only as Ordinances or Decifions of the 
 *' Wife Mafiers; and as laudable means and 
 " waysofexprefling our Piety, and ourtender- 
 " nefs id the matter of obeying God. Your 
 Lordfhip having read this Collation^ knOM/s 
 well that ; this Rabbi, befides his perfeft 
 Knowledgof the Jewifh Doftrines, and that he 
 hath made the moft judicious defence of the 
 Jewifh Religion that was ever publifhed, is al- 
 fo otherways one of the moft confiderable Lite- 
 rati of the prefent Age, I believe too, you are 
 aware that, other great Matters in the Hebrew 
 Learning have faid the fame thing ; particularly 
 the Buxtorfs^ Synag. Jud, cap. 2. p. 6. 
 
 But if the Jews did notconfefs that, in very 
 deed they have no Traditions concerning GOD, 
 or their Duty towards their Neighbour; but 
 only thofe in their written Law, and the Pro- 
 phets : it would be certain on a great many o- 
 ther accounts. 
 
 For who will believe that, the Doftrinesof 
 the Trinity, of the Divinity of the Mejjias^ and 
 fuch like; if intended for thofe firft Ages, and 
 thpjewifll Nation; fliould not be written by 
 
 Mofei 
 
Oral Law and Kabbala.^ 1 07 
 
 Mofes or the Prophets, as the very leaft Ceremo- 
 nies and Rites concerning the External Purity, 
 were; but be left to Rumour^ and Hear-fay : 
 which (as all know) focn corrupt whatfoever 
 DoSrine ; and after no long time, utterly lofe it? 
 When Mofes fays fo often, Tejhallnot add un^ 
 to the ivords which I command you ; neither jhalt 
 thou dimimfh ought ^ from them. Deut. 4. 2. and 
 1 2, ?2. When God himfelf, after the death of 
 Mofes^ recommends to JoJJjua the Book of the 
 Law ; written by Mofes : with this charge, to 
 adhere to this Book, not turning from it^ to the 
 right-hand^ or to the left ; that is, not varying in 
 the leaft from it, either by additions or fubftraQ:i- 
 ons. Jojh. I. 7, 8. A Caution that you find re- 
 newed alfo by K. Solomon ; Prov. 30, 6. I fay, 
 when we have thefe Warnings in the written 
 Word : how can we imagine there was a Tradi- 
 tional Law, to be obfer ved with it, and befides it ; 
 a Law that contained great Duties, and high 
 Points of Faith, in abetter and more exprefs 
 manner, than the written Law did ? 
 
 A"nd admitting that, there was fome time a 
 Tradition or Oral Law, left to the Jews ; by 
 Mofes, by Jojhua, and the Elders : yet would 
 it not have been certainly loft, in fomany Sub- 
 jugations, Captivities, and Revolts to Paganifm, 
 immediately upon one another ; under their 
 Judges, Kings, and High-priefts, in the long 
 courfe of Fifteen hundred Years ? No queftion, 
 fuch a current of Time would have fo darkned 
 
 the 
 
'lo8 Jn Account of the Letter ;. 
 
 iliQmo^ clear, and confounded the moHJiflm^ 
 Matters ; that there would be no relying on any 
 (pretended) Tradition, ^r^/// only delivered to 
 them. 
 
 To add no more; what Judgment doth St. 
 PWmake of the TC^^^^/^j Tradition, or Oral 
 Law : which fome F^;?^//V^ among the Jews had 
 advanced; and which their more modern Kab- 
 baliftical Enthufiafts, (and from them^ our Au- 
 thor,) magnify as of Divine Origind and Autho- 
 titj^ 
 
 I muft firft give fome account of this KjhhaUy 
 or Tradition ; and then proceed to the judg- 
 ment of the Learned Apoftle concerning it. 
 
 To the Kjihbda they reckon, in the firft place, 
 the Narratives or Hiftcries that they have ad- 
 ded (in the Talmuds^ and Targums^ and other 
 Jewifli Books) to the Text of Scripture; there 
 will be occafion hereafter to mention fome of 
 them. Next, their Conceits about thtSephi^ 
 mh; that is, the G E N E A L O G I E S, or as 
 others call them the N UM E R A T I O N S, 
 or Degrees^ or Attributes in God. Another fpe- 
 cies of the KjibbaU^ is the cure of Difeafes ; by the 
 Seal di Solomon y the Rod of Mofes^ tho Cha- 
 raflers called Jl Mandel^ the name Jehovah^ 
 Words and Sentences of Scripture ; and other 
 fuch like Amulets. But the chief Kjhhala is the 
 ffeculative Kjibhala ; that is, the way of inter- 
 preting Holy Scripture, by the numbers con- 
 tained in the letters of fome words j and by the 
 
 tranf- 
 
Oral Law and Kabbala; 1 09 
 
 tranfpofing the words of fentences, and the let- 
 ters of words ; and again by the fame letters 
 found in divers words ; as alfo by the elevation 
 depreffion, claufure, and bignefs of the Letters 
 in feme words, as they are conftantly written 
 in the Hebrew M. S. Copies. For example, 
 the Hebrew words (at G^^^. 49. 10.) for Shilo 
 jhallcomey contain the number ^58; fodo's the 
 word MeJJias in the Hebrew : therefore that 
 Text is as much as to fay, the Meffiasjh all come. 
 The names Efau and Jefusha.vQ the fame Let- 
 ters in the Hebrew ; therefore Jefu^s is Efau reviv- 
 ed. 'Tis confeffed now that, fome "Jews fell 
 early into this fort of whimfies : for St.PW very 
 often cautions his Readers, againfi: thefe Follies ; 
 which the Enthufiafts of that Nation were wont 
 to call ri'S^ns Science^ and ^(>'^^ Dephs. i Tim, 
 6.20, 21. Rev. 2. 24. 
 
 Firft, for the Sephiroth^ Divine GENEA- 
 LOGIES, or NUMERATIONS; 
 according to (the generality of) thefe Dreamers, 
 they are Ten. 
 
 The Crown. 
 Intelligence. Wifdom. 
 
 Power. Mercy, 
 
 Glory. 
 
 Majefty. Victory. 
 
 The Foundation. 
 
 The Kingdom, 
 
 But 
 
1 1 o Jn Jccount of the Letter 5, 
 
 But fome of them are alfo otherways named ; 
 as for Power^ fome put FEAR; for Mercy^ 
 GREATNESS; iov the Fos^^datio;^, ALL 
 THINGS; for the Kjngdom, the S H E- 
 K I N A H, or Divine appearance : and over 
 all is fet En Soph^ Infinitude. 
 
 Our Author imagines that, by the three firft 
 Sephiroth (the Crown^ Intelligence^ and Wifdom) 
 the Kjihhalifts mean the three Perfons of the 
 Holy Trinity. But the Buxtorfs^ Hottinger, 
 Cafar Evolus^ Grotius^ and VorftiuSy have pro- 
 ved that the Sephiroth are intended only as the 
 Names and Attributes, by which God is made 
 known to Men ; and to this the Je wifh Books, 
 Scefha Tal^ Pifche jah^ and as Forfiius faith, 
 Schaare Ora ; and many more, written on 
 purpofe to explain thefe things, do agree. 
 The Quotations out of Rittangel^ in the ele- 
 venth Chapter of the Judgment ^ are accounted 
 for, by Vorftius ; and thofe KjibhaliJUcal Books 
 are partly fo unfincerely reprefented, and part- 
 ly fo fhamelefly forced and ftrained, that Vor- 
 Jiius (a ferious and fevere Man) loft all his pa- 
 tience upon 'em. In truth, the Names of the 
 Sefhiroth plainly fhow that, they are (as was 
 but now faid") the Attributions and Appellati- 
 ons, by which the Divinity is intended to be 
 explained to Nien. The fupreme Crown^ that 
 is (according to Rah. Ben. Nachman) Eternity ; 
 Power^ Mercy ; and the reft, feem capable of 
 no other Interpretation : but by fuch as have a 
 
 turn 
 
Oral LiiP and Kabbala. 1 1 1 
 
 turn or intereft to ferve, at the expence of their 
 Reputation. 
 
 3ut be they what they will ; as *tis very 
 needlefs to (land conjefturing, or gueffing, 
 what affefted Fools mean ; St. Paul has called 
 foolifh GENEALOGIES, SCIENCE 
 faljlj fo called, frofane BAB LING, Jewijb 
 FABLES, old Wives TALES. It may 
 be proper, to fubjoin the words of the Apoftle 
 at length ; with a fhort Comment on them. 
 
 I Tim. I. 4. Neither give heed to FABLES ^y 
 and endlefs GENEALOGIES : which minifier 
 Quefiions^ rather than Godly edifying. Firft, 
 The FABLES here meant are the Kabba- 
 liftical Tales, that fome "Jews had either in- 
 vented ; or had borrowed from the Books of the 
 Chaldeans^ and Arabians ; concerning things 
 made by God, before the World : among 
 which, they reckned all Souls ; efpecially the 
 Soul of the Mefjias, of whom therefore they 
 fpeak as prae-exiftent to the World. Alfo con- 
 cerning the firft Man : who, according to them, 
 was an Hermaphrodite, and lay with Beafts; 
 but chiefly with Lilith^ on whom he begat the 
 Devils. Concerning Behemoth, Sind Leviathan; 
 about which they tell ascoarfe Romances, as 
 did the famous Knight after having gone down 
 into the Cave of Montefmos, Secondly, The 
 GENEALOGIES in this Text, are (by 
 confeflion of Dr. A. himlelf ) the Sephiroth be- 
 fore mentioned. Thefe the Kjbbalifis vended, 
 
 as 
 
112 An Account of the Letter 3 . 
 
 as an Jrcam Theology ; th^t had been whifpered 
 from Jdam, Mofes^ and Ezra^ down to their 
 Times ; but only to a very Few, capable Per- 
 fons you muft know, and v/orthy of fuch fub- 
 lime Inftru£tion. And hence, as was noted, 
 thefe Myfteries were called rv^ois Science^ and 
 ^6t^ Depths ; and thofe that profefs them Gno- 
 Jlics. He calls them endlefs Genealogies ; be- 
 caute tho generally they are reckned hutTe^^ 
 yet others could tell of Thirty, and others of no 
 fewer than Three hundred ; for they are the fame 
 with the Eons of the VdentinUns, and other 
 antient Gnojlics, Laflly, He blames them, as 
 rather occafionwg Qu.eftions and Difputations^ 
 than mimfiring a Godly edifying, Becaufe, tho 
 in the main they are intended as Attributions 
 and Defer iptions of God, yet they have been 
 miferably abufed by the antient and later /C^6. 
 halijis; who fetch as many abfurd MjBeries 
 from them, and comment upon them in a Cant 
 altogether as fenfelefs, as the Followers of J^- 
 cob Behmen do from, and on the Text of his 
 (vain) Books. 
 
 It was, methinks, no fmall obreption in our 
 Author, to fay that the three firft Sephiroth are 
 th^ three Per fons of the Trinity \ and yet to 
 grant, as he does, that in very deed St. Paul 
 meant the Sephiroth in this Text, in which he 
 warns Timothy^ Give no heed to thofe fabulous 
 Genealogies. Doth he think the Trinity is a 
 Fable ? Be fare, that is the unavoidable Con- 
 
 fequence 
 
Oral Law and Kabbala; 1 1 y 
 
 fequence of his words ; tho it was not his In-^ 
 tendon. But of all the Books chat have been 
 written, fince the revival of thefe Quellions a^ 
 mongus; I remember but one (written by a* 
 learned Hand,) wliere the Reafonings are fo in- 
 accurate, or the incidental Propofitions and 
 Points fo often incautelous. 'Tis very evident, 
 he wrote in hafte ; 'tis likely, he had fome De- 
 fign for his own perfonal Advantage : I fhall ad- 
 vile him for the time to come, not to be fo 
 over earneft in pufhing forward a Defign ; as to 
 overlook, or be heedlefs of the fuificiency and 
 propernefs of the MeanSo 
 
 I Tim. 6. 20,21. Avoid -profane^ and vain 
 B ABLINGS] and Oppofmam ( or Contra- 
 diftions) of SCIENCE, fdflj ft) called: whi.\ 
 fome profefjing^ have erred concerning the Faitho 
 Doftor, Ware Heads, For undoiibtedly th^ 
 Bahlings here are the impious and ridiculous 
 Stories, of your Mafters the Kjibbalifls ; thofe 
 (I mean) concerning Adam^ Lilith, the De- 
 vils, Leviathan^ Behemoth^ and the refto He 
 calls them profane, and vain B ABLINGS: 
 Profane^ as having no ground in Revelatiorr; 
 but only in a falfly pretended Tradition ; Vainl 
 as being very foolifh, and contrary to commoa 
 fenfe. He moft truly adds, And Contradi6fiom 
 of SCIENCE, faljlj [0 called ; that is, hMij 
 called Science. 'Tis intended, againft our Au- 
 'thor's Af//?///i' ; .the tiabbaliftic DEPTHS, 
 the rvfiaBs or icience- oi^t\iQ2ini\^tit^nA modern 
 
 H Gnojlics I 
 
M 1 4 Ai Account of the Letter 5 . 
 
 Gnoftics : but chiefly of the Sefhiroth. He calls 
 it ContraiiBions of Science ; for the Kjhhdt^s 
 greatly differ, both as to the iV/fw^j, iht Mea/i^ 
 mgy and number of the Sefhiroth, Thefe Bah- 
 lingSy and this Science, faith the moft Learned 
 Apoftle, do thou avoid ; they are fuch Additi- 
 ons to the Faith, as do indeed corrupt it. 
 
 Titus I. 14. Not giving heed to Jeivi/h F J' 
 B L ES ; and Commandments of Men, that turn 
 one jrom the Truth. FABLES, that is, the 
 Legends about Lilith^ Behemoth, &-c. Command^ 
 ments of Men ; that is, certain fuperftitious 
 Hedges of the Law, which they called Traditi- 
 ons ; meaning, of the wife Majlers. 
 
 Titus 3. 9. Avoid fooltflj J^ES TIO NS, 
 and GENEALOGIES; Contentions and 
 Strivings about the Law : for they are unprofitable 
 andvatn. Of; the G EN E ALO GIES we 
 have fpoke before : The Queliions^ Strivings^ 
 and Contentions about the Law^ are ( it may be) 
 fuch Queftions as i\\(t Scribe put to our Saviour ; 
 Which is the great Commandment of all .<* For a- 
 bout this, and fome fuch like Queftions, they 
 had warm Difputes in their Schools and Syna- 
 gogues. 
 
 In other Texts, he falls upon their fpeculative 
 Kjihhala ; or way of interpreting, by the Num- 
 hers contained in the Letters of fome words ; 
 and by tranfpofing either Words^ or Letters ; and 
 by the fame Letters found in words of dijferent' 
 fignif cation ; as alfo by the Elevation, the De- 
 
 preflion, 
 
Oral Law and Kabbala* i i j 
 
 prefllon, Claufure^ &c, of fome words, as 
 they are wont to be written in the Synagogue- 
 Bibles. This may be called the KjibhaU of 
 WORDS', but what faith St. Paul of it, for 
 he had learned it of Rab. Gamaliel^ in the Uni- 
 verfity of Tarfus. i Tinfi. 6. 4. Doting x- 
 bout QuefiionSy and fir if es of WORDS,, where- 
 ofcometh En%>y^ Contentions^ and Railing. They 
 difputed, it fhould feem, and wrote againft one 
 another, on thefe worthy Subjefts ; with great 
 Acrimony, and mutual xMalevolence. 2 Tim. 
 2. 14. Charging them before the Lord^ that they 
 firive not about WORDS', to no furfofe but 
 the fubverfion of the Hearers. He defires that, 
 the converted Jews would leave off their former 
 Difputes, concerning thefe Kjibbalifitcal ways 
 of interpreting the Sacred Text. 
 
 Thefe are our Author's Matters ; thefe ard 
 they, and only thefe, that^called their Follies, 
 Traditions : Having no other way, to commend 
 them, to the regard of their Difciples. I won- 
 dred, I confefs, to fee a Chrifiian Doftor, and 
 a learned Man, fo taken with the Impertinences 
 of crazM Impoftors. He has ftudied their 
 Books, very earneftly ; and alledges th^ir Fol- 
 lies, as Authorities for the Myfterys of the Chri- 
 ftian Faith : He would have it thought that, 
 thefe are the glorious Confervators of our Chri^ 
 ftian Articles ; from whom they are come down 
 to us, in a more clear and tor^r manner, than 
 from th^ Apoftles ; who fpake not half fo well 
 
 H 2 of 
 
1 1 6 An Account of the Letter 3. 
 
 of them. I think, we may difmifs 'em ; if they 
 ean farther the Truth with any body, I fhall be 
 glad of it: but for my own part, I fcorn their 
 Evidepxe, when 'tis never fo exprefs and home ; 
 much more in a Matter, of which they never 
 thought. 
 
 Of the Targums, Memra ; Some Texts of the 
 Old Tefiament ; the Rabboth, Zoar, and 0- 
 ther ]Q\Viih Books. 
 
 In earnefl:, the Targums are very valuable 
 Books ; the Grains of Gold in thofe Streams, are 
 very numerous: xhQ Interpreters and Covimenta-- 
 tors on H. Scripture, ought ofcner to have con- 
 fuked thefe Paraphrafts ; who aiToil abundance 
 of Difficulties that are no where elfe fo well re- 
 . folved. Whereas they have a!fo abundance of 
 mean things, and very filly Fables ; Dw A, 
 hath (prob'ably) eonjeGur'd that, they have beep 
 added by the J\jhhdifls^''m^ came not from the 
 firft Authors of the fata phrafes. It v/ere well, 
 if feme judicious Perfon would abridg thefe 
 Books ; becaufe what is valuable in them, 
 would come into a little room, ahd be (for fo 
 much) our befl Ui^imihtPentateuch and Pro- 
 phets. 
 
 They are Paraphrafes or Explanations, writ- 
 ten ih the Chaldce Tongue, on th^ Pentateuch^ 
 or five Books of Mofes ; and on the Prophets, 
 andforiie other Books of the Old Tefement. 
 
 'Tis 
 
Targum^, Memra, ^c. i 17 
 
 'Tis now more generally thought that^ they 
 were written betbre tliQ Ge??;ara', becaufe they 
 are a much purer Chaldee : the Chaldeew^Ls not 
 thenfo much degenerated, as when the Gemara 
 was compofed. But they are believed to be af- 
 ter the Mifrah^ or Text of the Talmud : on which 
 the Gemara is a continual Commentary or Ex- 
 plication, and is the other part of the Talmud.; 
 fubjoined all along to the Mifmh. This Mifnah 
 was publifhed about the Year of Chrift 190 ; 
 and becaufe it maketh no mention of the Tar- 
 gums^ is therefore fuppofed to b^ prior to them. 
 The whole Talmud (the Mifna and Gemara) is 
 an Explanation, or fuller Declaration of the ce- 
 remonial part of the Mofaic Law ; the Jervs fome* 
 times pretend that this Explication of the writ- 
 ten Law came down to the Talmudic Doftors in 
 the way of Tradition, and therefore call it the 
 Oral Law. But any one may perceive that, it is 
 with regard to the Mofaic Law, much the fame 
 that the Books entituled Reports are to the Lav/ 
 of England ; that is to fay, 'tis a Collection of 
 the Decifions of the great Mailers in Law, that 
 have been made in Cafes that were difputabie 
 and doubtful. That they are called the OrWL^m^ 
 does not contradict what I faid before ; that 
 the feivs do not pretend to any Tradition con- 
 cerning God^ the internal Worfl:iip, or the Of- 
 fices and Duties towards their Brother and Neigh- 
 hour : becaufe the Talmud is not in any re- 
 fpeft different from the Law of Mofes^ or any 
 H J Additim 
 
^ 1 8 ^Jn Account of the Letter ^ T 
 
 addition to that Law; but only 4;; Explication 
 of the Ritud (and of fome few things in the jT^- 
 dicid) part of it; and the RMies know very 
 well that, this Exposition is pretended to be a 
 Tradition from Mofes^ only to give to it the 
 greater Authority. But to return to the T^r- 
 gutns^ and to our Author. 
 
 He alledgesthefe Paraphrafes, on the account 
 of the phrafe Memr/t Domini, or the W O R D 
 of the Lord; by them often ufed. Hefuppo- 
 fes, the Evangelift St. ^ohn has called our Sn- 
 'viour^ the W O R D ; in imitation of the Chd^ 
 dee Memra^ which fignifies WORD: and 
 which, he faith farther, in the Targums denotes 
 d Perfon^ and a Divine Perfon ; and particularly 
 the SON, and the Meffias. Hike his Opini- 
 on, much better than his Arguments ; but all 
 the great Men in the Hebrew Learning, are a- 
 gainft him, in both ; and for unanfwerable 
 Reafons. 
 
 There is no doubt that, the Targumijls are all 
 much later than St. ^ohn ; therefore if either 
 borrowed from other, not he from them, but 
 they from him. That by Memra they did not 
 mean tlie Meffi^^ is but too certain ; becaufe in 
 divers places they diftinguifh them from one 
 another, nay oppofe them to one another. 
 For example, on Exod, 12. 42. the Targums 
 reckon four memorable Nights ; whereof the 
 laftls the Night when the World fhall be 
 diflblved : and hereiipon they fay-, '' Then 
 
 '' fhall 
 
Targums, Memra, <src\ Tip 
 ^^ fiiall Mofes come from the Wildernefs, and 
 '^tbe Meffias from Rome, mounted on two 
 '^ Clouds; mi the WORD of the Lord 
 " (ME MR A Domini) in the midft between 
 '^ them. Therefore whatfoever, or whofo- 
 ever is meani: by the WORD, in the Tur^ 
 gums ; neither the Meffias nor Mofes are thereby 
 intended : the Targumifls have plainly dif- 
 charged the Mediators of the two Teftaments, 
 from b2kig fignified by Memra\ which is nei- 
 ther of them, but (at the diffolution of all 
 things) fhall come with them. 
 
 The truth is, Learned Men have found it ve- 
 ry hard, to determine the certain meaning of the 
 word Memra in the Targums.- Bilibra has cited 
 all the Texts in the Books of Mofes, where 
 Memrx Domini is found ; he concludes, 'tis very 
 varioufly ufed. Sometimes it denotes the De- 
 cree of God, or his imvard WO RD\ fometimes 
 his Command^ or his outward WO RD:m fhort, 
 the W O R D (whether inward or outward) 
 by which God Decreeth, Declareth, Threat- 
 neth, Rewardeth, Puniflieth ; and fuch like. 
 Alfo A Prophetic Revelation^ very often called the 
 WORD of the Lord : and an Jngel^thQ Mef- 
 fenger of God, who fpeaks or afts in the Name, 
 or as fuftaining (or reprefenting) the Perfon of 
 God. The Author of the Judgment is content to 
 admit feveral of thefe fignifications of Memra\ in 
 fome places of the Targums ; and of another 
 fuggefted by Hackfpan in his Notes on ?/." no. 
 H 4 Me- 
 
1 20 An Account of the Letter 5. 
 
 Methinks, 'tis obvious enough that, Memra 
 has but one fignification in the Targums ; it al- 
 ways fignifies the Sptru of God. Bilibra has 
 quoted above 1 50 Texts of tne Targums on the 
 Fentateuch'^ Hackfpan^ and the Author of the 
 "Judgment^ have added fome out of the Targums 
 on the Prophets, and other Books of the Old 
 Teftament : they might have obferved that, 
 Memrd Domini can import nothing but the 
 S P I R I T of the Lord in fome of thefe Texts, 
 as Ifa. JO. 28. andX^r^* 4- ^' and that 'tis not 
 lb properly and appofitly rendered in the other 
 Texts, by any other Interpretation, as by this 
 theSPIRlToftheLord, 
 
 'Tisas plain tha;, with the Targumifs Memra. 
 Domini^ the Spirit (or WORD) of the Lord, 
 is only a Phrafe by which they intend GOD 
 HIMSELF : The "Jews being wont to add 
 the word Sprit to almoft all, whether Perfons 
 or Things ; as the Spirit of 'Jealoufy^ of Counfel'^ 
 of the Fear of the Lord ; the Spirit of Man^ of 
 Beafi^ of the Lord. They did not intend that, 
 the Spirit was fome particular Being, dillincl 
 from the Thing or Perfon of whom it was pre- 
 dicated, or ffoken ; or that the Perfon or Thing 
 was diver fe from its Spirit: but as every Lan- 
 guage and Nation has its Phrafeologies, or par- 
 ticular ways of fpeaking, taken either from 
 their Cuftoms, or Opinions, or fome matters of 
 FaQ: that have happened among them ; fo it 
 was the manner of the Jervs ia fpeaking of God, 
 
 ..■ " ^ or 
 
Targutns, Memra, ^c. 1 1 1 
 
 or Men, or Things,^ to add very commonly the 
 'wovd Spirit. This is To frequent in the Books 
 of Scripture, that it needs not to be confirmed 
 by particular Citations : but left it fhould be 
 doubted, whether the word Memra (tho equi- 
 pollent with all the Targumijls to Ruach ov Spi- 
 rit) be fo ufed ; we may fee the Targum oq 
 Numbers 15. 32. where the Paraphraft renders 
 the Text, thus. '' -A certain Man faid in his 
 *' WORD, I will go forth, and gather Sticks 
 " on the Sabbath Day. Where, to hyinhis 
 WO R D, is moft plainly nothing elfe but this; 
 he faid, or he refolved in his Spirit, in his Mindy 
 or within Himfelf. Again, on iLCclef, i. 12, 
 <' Solomon faid in hts WO RD^ Inanity of vani- 
 *^ ties is this whole World. Here aifo his 
 W O R D (or Spirit j is put for Solomon himfelf, 
 fpeaking this within himfelf. And at 2 Sam. j. 
 15, 16. " Phaltiel put a Sword, between his 
 '' W O R D and Michol, Daughter of Sar^L 
 Between hisWO RD^ that is, between HI M- 
 SELF and Michol^ Daughter of Sxul. Memra, 
 therefore is neither a Perfon, nor a particular di- 
 ftinft thi^g : 'tis added to perfons, and things, 
 as Ruach or Spirit is ; to fignity their agency ^ ei- 
 ther prefent or paft. 
 
 In fhort, we fee Memra is attributed to Meny 
 as well as to God ; and therefore can have no re- 
 ference to the Article of the Holy Trinity : the 
 Memra or WORD of Phaltiel, oi SolomJ^fznA 
 fo many others, was not (in any fenfe)adi' 
 
 ftina 
 
i li Jn Account of Letter -^l 
 
 ftinft Perfon from PhalM^ Solomon, and the 
 reft ; but only a Periphrafis or Circumlocution 
 of the Chaldak Language, to fignify the prefent 
 or part aSion of thofe Perfons ; or rather, thofe 
 Perfons fo and fo afting. As in E^fgliJIJ, we add 
 felf^ to the Pronouns hm, her^ thy, and fome o- 
 thers • fo the Chaldak Jews added Memra or 
 WORD, only as a Fronoun^ or as an emphatic 
 cal Expletive ; yet fo, that they more often o- 
 mit, thanufeit. 
 
 And it is thus, as I faid, that the Targumifis 
 themfelves interpret Memra ; that is to fay, by 
 the SPIRIT of God. Exod. j. 14. " God 
 " anfwered MofeSy My Name is, He that is^ 
 *^ [ or. He that will he ; ] and he faid more- 
 ^' over, fay to the Children of 7/?/^^/, He that 
 ^' is hath fent me to you. The Jerufalem Tar- 
 gum, thus ; Tl^e WORD of the Lord anfwer- 
 ed to Mofes ; namely the WORD which faid 
 to the Worlds Be Thou, and it was ; my Name 
 is He that fhall be : And he faid moreover^ Say 
 to the Children of Ifrael, He that fhall be hath 
 fent me to you. The WORD then that 
 appeared to Mofes in the Bufli, is the very 
 fame WORD, according to the Targum^ that 
 faid to the World rG^;^.Chap.i.) Bethou^ and 
 it was : But the W O R D in the Bufl), accord- 
 ing alfo to the fame Targum, is the SPIRIT 
 of God; for fo he faith on Exod. 14. 21. 
 *^ The Sea heard the Voice of the Holy SPL 
 " RIT\ ivhich had fpoke to lAoksout of the 
 
 ^^ Fire^ 
 
fme Texts hi the Old Jeflament. 115 
 
 " Fire, in the midji of the Bufh ; and the Sea 
 <* ran back and the /^^^//V^J went through the 
 " mid ft thereof. In codice Vemto furvo^ adji- 
 mm Pentateuchi, 
 
 To prove that the "Jews believe the Holy Tri- 
 nity, and the Divinity of their (expefted) 
 Mefjta^ ; our Author has alfo recourfe to fome 
 Texts of the Old Tafiament^ efpecially of Solo- 
 mon in his Proverbs^ and Book oiWifdom^ which 
 he will have to be King Solomon^ I do not 
 know that, any Divine of efteem and note a- 
 mong the Moderns, is of our Author's mind : 
 What they fay of the matter, is this. The Do- 
 ftrine, of the Holy Trinity is propofed to our 
 Belief, only in the Books of the New Tefta- 
 ment ; the Jews were ignorant of it ; notwith- 
 ftanding, that this Article might not fhock the 
 Faithful, by its abfolute Novelty ; tho it is not 
 direftly taught in the Books of the OldTeJla- 
 ment^ it is fo hinted under feveral Congruities, 
 that we may fay, it is not altogether New. 
 Thofe Texts of the Old Teftament, where it is 
 couched, are not explicit enough to prove this 
 Article; nor could it be inferred from them, till 
 we had the Writings of the New Teftament : 
 But now that 'tis diftindly revealed, in the A- 
 poftolic Writings ; one may alfo perceive fuch 
 Strictures of it, in the Books of Mofes and the 
 Prophets, as to be able to fay, it doth not dif- 
 agree to thofe Books ; nay, is confonant to them, 
 and in fome degree implied in them. This is 
 
 the 
 
124 ^^ Account of Letter ^, 
 
 the general fenfe of the Moderns : they do not 
 pretend t04)rove the Holy Trinity, out of the 
 Writings of the Old Teftament ; they fay only, 
 now that 'tis revealed in the New^ we may dif- 
 cover fome Lines of it in the Books alfo of the 
 Old Covenant. But they (almoft univerfally) 
 rejeQ: the particular Proofs out of the Old Te- 
 ftament, of which Dr. J. hath made choice, 
 and thought fit to infift on them. Namely, the 
 Doxology in the Prophet, ^ Holj^ Holj^ Holy 
 Lord God : the appearance of fome Angels, who 
 have the name Jehovah^ becaufe they reprefent- 
 ed God, and fpake in his Perfon and Name; 
 and what is faid by Solomon, concerning 
 WISDOM. I will fay buc a word to each 
 of thefe. 
 
 Firft, As to the Doxology, Holj, holy, holy 
 LordGod^K^.d:-}. The ^/?re^ Holies, our Author 
 thinks, denote the three Divine Perfons : God 
 is thrice called Holy^ becaufe he is three Per- 
 fons, each of which is Holy. We may eafily 
 excufe the DoQor ; for others before him have 
 trifled, as weakly, on this Text. For inftance, 
 ^mchi (a Jewifh RMi) fays; God is called 
 Holy^ Holy^ Holy, in refpefl: of the three Worlds : 
 namely the ^//'/^r World, or World of Angels 
 and Souls ; the middle World, or the World of 
 Stars and Orbs ; and the lower World, this our 
 Earth ; in all thefe three he is Holy, and there- 
 fpre is the Holy, Holy, Holy Lord. But Rab. 
 Jbarbanely Maimomdesj and all after them, have 
 
 ac- 
 
fome Texts of the Old Teflament* \i^ 
 
 acknowledged that ; the trine repetition is only 
 to fignify the Superlative Degree ; that is, to de- 
 note the ferfeci Holiuefs of God : and they ob- 
 ferve 'tis the manner of the Hebrew Language 
 to exprefs the Superlative Degree, either by the 
 plural Number ; or by repeating the fame word 
 Twice, or Thrice. Thus, the Scriptures fay, 
 Holy of Holies, Kjng of Kjngs^ Somof Songs y 
 Vanity of Vanities^ good good FigsJDirt Dirt. 
 Or Thrice, as, I will overturn^ overturn^ over- 
 turn it ^ Ezek. 21.27. that is, v^'^^ utterly^ and 
 in the extremefi manner overturn it. The Tem^ 
 fie of the Lordy the Temple of the Lord^ the Tem^ 
 pie of the Lord, are thefe, Jer. 7. 4, that is, they 
 gloried in thofe Buildings, called the Temple of 
 the Lord, in the higheft manner. Holy^ Holy^ 
 Holy Lordy Ifa.6.4. that is, moft holy Lord: 
 And divers fuch Hke. How hapned it that our 
 Author, who would feem to have read all the 
 Hebrew Books ; as well manufcript, as printed; 
 fhould overfee what, every Schoolboy meets 
 now in his Elements of Grammar ? But when 
 a particular Conceit is to be maintained, right 
 or wrong; Men often overlook both common 
 Senfe and Re;afon, and the firfl: Principles of 
 Learning and Erudition. 
 
 Three Angels appeared toJbraham^ and:then 
 to Lot J in their way to Sodom -^ which City 
 they were to overthrow by Fire, from Heaven: 
 one of thefe is called 'Jehovah^ which is the 
 Name of God. Other Angels -gave the La\ff ts, 
 
 Mount 
 
%i6 Jn Account of Letter 3.' 
 
 Mount Shal ; one of them, principal in the 
 Commiflion, hath alfo the Name of Jehovah. 
 Gen. 18. 1 J. and 19. 16,24. From hence our 
 Author infers that, one of thefe Angels was re- 
 ally GOD, even God the SON; afterwards 
 incarnate. He confefTes however that, the Mo- 
 dems more generally fuppofe that, the Angels 
 have fometimes the name Jehovah^ becaufe they 
 are fent to fpeak in God's Name, and there- 
 fore fuftain (or reprefent) his Perfon; He 
 quotes for it, SanBi^y and Lorinm^ learned Je- 
 fuits ; he might have quoted above forty of the 
 ableft Proteftant Divines. 
 
 To his Objeftion, of the Angels that bore the 
 name Jehovah^ when they fpoke in his Name ; 
 learned Men have long fince obferved, that; 
 when St.PW would fay a great thing of the Larv^ 
 he fays ; It wasffoken hj ANG ELS^ Heb. 2. 
 2. And again, It was commanded by AN GE LSy 
 in the hand of a Mediator^ Gal. j. 9. that is, 
 this Law of God was enafted (and promulged) 
 at mount Sinai, by Angels ; in the name, and 
 by command of God : but fome part of it, not 
 immediately to the People, by thofe heavenly 
 Meffengers ; but to them by a Mediator, or 
 third Perfon, even Mofes. And St. Stephen 
 fays; This is that Mofes, that was with the 
 (Jhurch in the Wildernefs ; and with the A N- 
 GEL^ who ffake to him^ and to our Fathers, in 
 Mount ?ivc\2d. Acfsj. 58. Farthermore, when 
 St. Paul would commend Hofpitality, he faith ; 
 
 Be 
 
fome Texts of Scripture . i 27 
 
 Bemir forgetful to enter tain Strangers^- for fome 
 thereby have entertained J N G ELS, Heb. i ?• 
 2. meaning, Abraham and Lot, From tiiefe 
 Texts, they argue thus. On the fuppofition 
 that, the Law was given by G O D the SON, 
 and that Abraham and Lot entertained GOD 
 the SON; the Apoftle has argued but weakly, 
 when he might have reafoned ftrongly: for 
 whereas he might have commended the Lm^ 
 and recommended Hoffltalitj^ by faying the 
 Law was given by God the SON, and Lot 
 and Abraham entertained God the SON; he fo 
 far forgot himfelf as to praife them from a much 
 lower and lefs effedual confideration, namely 
 th^t Abraham entertained Angels, and the Law 
 was given by Angels. 
 
 But St. Paul, not only fays. The Law was 
 given hj Angels ; but he faith it was not given 
 bj the Son ; Heb. 2. 2. " If the Word that was 
 *' fpoken by Angels, is ftedfaft ; and every 
 '^ Tranfgreffion againft it, fhall receive ajuft 
 ^' Recompence : How flial] we efcape, if we 
 " negleft that great Salvation, which the Lord 
 '' Jefus firft began to fpeaJk ? The unqueftiona- 
 ble meaning is ; if the Breach of the Law that 
 was fpoke only by Angels, fliall have a juft pu- 
 nifhment : much more lliall we Chrijlians be 
 punifh'd, if we difobey the Gofpel; that great 
 Offer and Means of Salvation, that was fpoke 
 to us by Gc?^ the SON, 
 
 But 
 
1 28 An Account of Letter 5. 
 
 But farther; Our Author finds the word 
 WISDOM, in the Proverbs ot King Solomon: 
 And tho the word there ufed, is not ao"')/©-, 
 the term ufed by St. '^ohn ; but ^ocplc^ : he will 
 needs have it that, Solomon intended, as St.Joh;^ 
 dos, the fepnd Perfon in the Bleffed Trinity, 
 the SON, ^nd Meffias, And again, the Afocry- 
 fhal Solomon^ in the Book entitled Wifdom^ 
 fpeaks of ^locpfot, or W I S D O M : therefore 
 he alfo knew, and believed the Holy Trinity, 
 and fpoke of the S O N, the future Meffias. I 
 do not fee that, it would prejudice the Doftrine 
 of the Catholic Church ; if we granted that, 
 the Books of Proverbs and Wifdom fpeak of the 
 Divine or prfond WIS DO M, the fecond 
 Perfon in the Trinity : but 'tis too plain, from 
 the context in thofe Books, that the M-oderm 
 have rightly interpreted socplof, to be nothing 
 elfe in thofe places but the ?nere property of Wif 
 dom-^ as it belongeth indifferent Ij either to God or 
 Mm. For. 
 
 The. true Solomon^ in his Proverbs^ ufes 
 WISDOM, Knowledg, Difcretion, as 
 equivalent terms ; fo* that, if one be a Perfon, 
 the reft muft be Perfons alfo : if WISDOM is a 
 Perfon, fo are Kj^owledg and Difcretion. Prov. 
 5. 15. " Happy is the Man that findeth W J S- 
 " DOM, thatgettethUNDERSTANDf* 
 ^^ ING; fheis more precious than Rubies.-^— 
 " The Lord by WISDOM hath founded 
 ^' theEarth,byUNDERSTANDING 
 
fome Texts of the Old Tejiamenf. 1 2p 
 
 " he eftablifhed the Heavens; byKNO W- 
 " L E D G the Depths are broken up, and the 
 ** Clouds drop Dew : my Son, let them notde- 
 " part from thy Eyes ; keep WISDOM, 
 ^^ and DISCRETION. I wonder, I con^ 
 fefs, any body can find myfleries, in words and 
 expreffions that are fo obvious ; or can fuppofe 
 that, WISDOM here is any thing different 
 from Vnderfiandwg and Difcretion ; or that all, 
 or any of them are Perfom. 
 
 He fpeaketh again of W I S D O M, in the 
 eighth Chapter; and in thefame manner : he calls 
 her Vi^derjiafyding^ InflruBion^ Kjiowledg^ an 
 underftmding He^rt^ the difcoverer of witty In^ 
 vent ions, Verfe 5, 10, 12, 14, jj. Heconfi- 
 ders her, fomecimes as Human ; and as fuch he 
 faith of her, Riches and Honour are with her^ and 
 fhe teaches her Lovers to fill their Treafures, and 
 to inherit Subfiance. Chap. 8. Ver. 18". Then 
 he fpeaks of her, as Divine ; or as the Wifdom 
 of God : as fuch, he faith concerning her. 
 '' The Lord pofTeiTed her in the beginning: 
 ^' when he prepared the Heavens, when he gave 
 '^ the Sea his Decree, when he appointed the 
 ^' Foundations of the Earth, I was there ; 
 *^ I was with him, I was his Delight. Ver. 22. 
 How this fhould be perverted, or mifunder- 
 ftood, is not eafy to fay. 
 
 What fome Triflers infift on, is this ; W I S- 
 D M is here reprefented as a Perfon ; namely, 
 as one that fpeaketh, and teacheth, and fucti 
 
 I like J 
 
1^0 Jn Account of Letter 5. 
 
 like; which zxQ2\\oh\itmferfoml Anions. I 
 did not know that, before : I thought^ Teach- 
 ing and Speaking bad been very often imputed^ 
 not only to Perfons, but to mere T/^/^^j, and* the 
 ^dities.Mo of things ; by the common (and 
 elegant) Figure Profopopeia. Yet always fo, that 
 the Hearer or Reader (who has not a great 
 mind to fignalize his inadverfion) maydifcern, 
 whether a Figure ^ or Reality^ be intended. 
 And thus, of WISDOM Solomon faith ; 
 ^' She hath built her Houfe, killed her Beafts, 
 ^' furniflied her Table, fent forth her Maidens : 
 " nay her felf crieth, Whofo is fimple let him 
 *^ turn in hither; let him eat of my Bread, and 
 ^' drink of my Wine ; let him forfake the 
 '' FOOLISH, and go in the way of U N- 
 "DERSTANDING. Prov.g.i. Should 
 a great Divine have miftaken what is fo clearly 
 faid ? is not the meaning very ol?vwu fly this? 
 W I S D O M is free for ALL that feek her, 
 nay flie inviteth ALL toher : and that^ to go 
 to W I S D O M is no other thing, but a for- 
 faking FOOLISHNESS, that is Vice ; and 
 choofing the way of U N D E R S T A N D- 
 I N G, that is. Sobriety and Knowledg. In 
 fliort, that ; the Wifdom here meant, is the op- 
 pofite quality to Foolijhnefs ; and the fame with 
 Vnderfianding^ or good Difcretion ; not an uncre- 
 ated Being, an eternal Spirit, the fecond God j 
 as Dr. J. has imagined. 
 
 The other Solomon ^ Author of the Book of 
 
 Wifdom^ 
 
fome Texts cf the Apocrypha.' 131 
 
 Wifdom^ hath too much impofed on Dr. Ji 
 He boallech Q'\yd. 9. 8.) that, he is King of 
 God's People l[rAel\ and was commanded to 
 build a Temple^ on the Holy Mountain ^^e?;?: 
 that is, he is Solomon Son of David. Our Au- 
 thor, as a civil Gentleman, and no Proteftant, 
 feems altogether inclined to believe him. He 
 cites GrotiHs^ as faying that ; this Book was 
 originally written in Hebrew: and Kambm^ 
 and R.Jzarias de Rubeis^ as affirming that; 
 this Book o^yi^ifdem is worthy of Solomon^ and 
 is probably his Work. Cha^. 5. p. 69. (He 
 could not mean this, of Eccleji.ijlkii^^ which he 
 there alfo mentions ; becaufe all^ as well Jews 
 as others, grant that the Author of £^^/^y/^/?/V/*j 
 was JejmSon of 6lrach,') ']*hus he hath given 
 up, to the Church of Rome, the two Argu- 
 ments ; which we are wont to oppofeto their 
 Canon, and to this Book in particular : name- 
 ly that^ it was not written in the HebreiP 
 Tongue ; and tha^ the Jews rejefted it from 
 fheir Canon. Neither hath Grotu^^ nor can 
 he, makeany proof of what they fay, that, the 
 Book of Wifdom is originally Hebrew. The Ca- 
 tholic Church believes St. Jerom^ who faith ; 
 It was never in Hebrew^ hut in Greek only ; and 
 that the Jntients report^ it is the IVork of Philo 
 JudaeuSo Praf, in libros Solomonis, He proves 
 this, by 2i critical Reafon; it is too elegant for 
 a mere Tra'nflation, it exprefles the purity and 
 beauty of the Greek TpnguCo In fliort, it refem» 
 I t bles 
 
1^2 An Account of Letter 5. 
 
 bles in that refpeQ-, as well as in the likenefs of 
 the Thoughts, the Works of Phi/o, 
 
 It is worthy^ our Author faith, oi Solomon^ and 
 probably hu Work Had SoLomon then read the 
 Philofophy of Ariftotle ; who Uved not til] 
 about 6co years after Solomon'^. For no body 
 will queftion that, it was from that Philofopher, 
 that he fays ; '' She teacheth T E M P E- 
 *' R A N C E, and P R U D E N C E ; J U- 
 " STICE and FORTITUDE. WifL 
 8.7. That dijlmciion of the Virtues was in- 
 vented by Arifioile^ and is proper to him and 
 (his followers) the Peripatetics. Dr. A, hath 
 read much ; therefore will he tell us, from 
 which of the Greeks^ before or after Arijlotle^ 
 his Solonion had that Bacchan^ian ; Wifd. 2. 8. 
 Let ffs crown our felves with Rofe-buds before 
 they are withered ; and let no flower of the Spring 
 efcape us. Was it from Anacreon^ Pindar^ or 
 whoelfe? 
 
 He quotes Ramban^ and Imre Binah^ as faying 
 that ; this Book of Wifdom is SolomorPs, Imre 
 Binah is a late Book^ or rather part of a Book, 
 pubUflied in the Year 1574; Ramban f^iys, no 
 fuch ihmg as our Author imputes to him : nei- 
 ther of them were of any Authority againft all 
 the Jews^ both antient and modern ; in a mat- 
 ter too, of which they could know nothing. 
 
 But the Book fhall bQ Solomon's^ or whofe etfe 
 our Author pleafes ; what thqn? Why he 
 Ipeaketh of W I S D O M much after the man- 
 
 ner, 
 
fome 7e:<ts of the Apocryphal i ^ ; 
 
 ner, as he had difcourfed of it in his Froverhs. 
 He dos fo ; and thereby, tho fomewhat more 
 dearly, difcovers that ; he meant by Wifdom^ 
 "not a Beip7g^ a Spirit^ or a God ; but the Qu^ality 
 that-is oppofite to FooHfhnefs. For he calls this 
 WISDOM, fomecimes na//da , I N- 
 STRUCTION, Wtjd. I. 5. and 6. 7; 
 foretimes <^^^^m<;^ SCIENCE, Wifd, 6. 
 1 5 ; fometimes the contrary of 'AcppotruvH, that is, 
 of 'Poll) : and this good Solomon learned her di- 
 ligentlj^ a fid communicated her readily^ Wifd. 7. 
 I J. Are thefe the Charafters of the SON of 
 God? 
 
 The Doftor objects farther that> the Writer 
 of this Book fays ; God of my Father s^ and 
 Lord of mercy ; who hafl made all things by thy 
 WO R D. Wifd. 9. I. Right; and he adds in 
 the next words, and haft formed Man by thy 
 WIS DO M. If this was the Work oiPhilo, 
 'tis very like he meant, as in the Books for 
 which I accounted in the foregoing Letter ; 
 namely that, the great effential Aoy©- and 
 xo^'a, or W I S D M, is the property by which 
 chiefly God made all things : and I fee not, 
 what caufe there is to fuppofe that, he either 
 meant, or knew more. 
 
 But again, when this Book fpeaks of the 
 Slaughter, of the Firft-born in Egypt) it faith. 
 *^ Thy Almighty WORD leapM down from 
 ^^ Heaven ; and brought thy Commandment^ as 
 ^* a fharp Sword ; he touched the Heaven, tho 
 
 I J ^^ he 
 
t^4 -^^ Account of Letter 3. 
 
 *' he flood upon the Earth ; he filled all places 
 ^' with Death. IVifd. \S. 15, 16. I confefs-j 
 this is very like to Philo. But if Phi/o had 
 thought that, this WORD had been God the 
 SON; he would never have faid, he brought 
 with him a Co?nmandment of God^ as his Com- 
 iniflion and Warrant : he would have remem- 
 bred, God hath no need of any Warrant or 
 Comnmiffion ; his only Holy Will is his War- 
 rant. 'Tis plain therefore that, he meant one 
 of the Angels: whom he fo often calleth 
 WORDS; and not only he, but the whole 
 Jewifh Nation. " He that followeth God, 
 *' fhall have for his Companions, the WORDS; 
 *^ commonly called the Angels. De Migrat, 
 Abrah. f, 415. Whereas he called this Angel, 
 K6y(Q- imvTr^hjmt^k^ an all-powerful WORD 
 or Jyjgel: 'tis one oi Philo\ Flights; but he 
 faith it with refpeO:, not to the Angels natural 
 Power ; but to the Divine concurrence, with 
 which he was armed. 
 
 I marvel, our Author fhould alledg the Apo- 
 cryphal Baruch, who faith ; Jftertvards^ God 
 appeared upon Earthy and {hewed himfelf to Men. 
 Baruch 5. jy. He fuppofes, this was written 
 by a Jew ; and that it proves, the Mffi^ (or 
 Chrift) fhould be GO D. Now either he 
 thinks, this pretended Book of Baruch was 
 written before Chrift came ; or he believes, 'tis 
 after our Saviour. If after our Saviour, it 
 muft be wrote by a converted Jen^; that is, a 
 
 ChriftL 
 
fom^ Texts of the Apocryplia. 155 
 Chrifiian : for a "jew not converted, would ne« 
 ver fay, God hath fjjeived bimfelf^ and appeared a* 
 mong MeUy in the Perfon ^of the Meffias. He 
 that fpeaks thus, after our Saviour, was moft 
 certainly a Chriftian ; and is a Witnefs thereby, 
 not what the Jem^ but what Chrijlians believe 
 of the Mtffias. But if the Book, in his Opini- 
 on, came forth before our Saviour's Time ; the 
 cited words were meant by the Author,of God's 
 appearances to the Patriarchs and Prophets. The 
 Jews hovfever believe that, all the Appearances 
 of God were bji his Angels or WORDS', 
 none of them immediately by himfelf. 
 
 He hath but one Text more, I think, out of 
 the Apocryphal Books ; Evcluf^^i. 10. / caL 
 led upon my Lord, the Father of my Lord, That 
 is, faith our Author ; On God, the Father of my 
 Lord the Meffias. To prevent longfquabling, I 
 will admit both the Interpretation, and the 
 Confequence drawn from it. But I would not 
 have the Doftor to forget that, the Queftion is 
 concerning a natural Son of God ; not concern- 
 ing an adopted, or a political Son : in which laft 
 fenfe the Jews^ and the Scriptures alfo, call the 
 Magiftracy and Kings, efpecially fuch as are 
 immediately raifed up by God, (as David and 
 ihQ Meffias) SONS of GOD. Pfal. 2. j, 12. 
 8c 82. 6. Princes and Magiftrates are called 
 SO N S of God ; becaufe they reprefent the 
 Perfon, and execute the Authority of God, to 
 and among the People : As a Son doth his Fa- 
 
 I 4 ther's 
 
3^6 An Account of the Letter \. 
 
 ther's Authority and Perfon, in the Family, and 
 to the Servants. There is no Jew that ever ac- 
 knowledged any SON of God, but only in 
 this fenfe : as I have abundantly proved in the 
 izd Letter ; from their own Books, and from 
 the Chriftian Fathers who lived among them, 
 and had continual difputes with tliem. 
 
 I go on to the Rahbot, and other Jewifh 
 Books, 
 
 Of the Midrafh Rabbah, and otier Jewish 
 Books. 
 
 One would think that, the Hehrew and Chd-^ 
 dm Books, alledged by Dri A. were very fna- 
 7^y ; for he giveth a long Catalogue of Names : 
 and that, they are no lefs confiderable and va- 
 luable ; for" they are quoted by him, as fuffici- 
 ent ( nay abundant ) Evidence of the Faith and 
 Religion of the Synagogue; in a word, as the 
 Church Refrefentathe of the Jews. 
 
 1 fhall fay what is requifite, to both thefe ; 
 namely the Number^ and Quality ^ of thefe Au- 
 thors and Books : and then fpeak more particu- 
 larly concerning the chief of them. 
 
 As to their Number, they are Forty ^ or Fifty ; 
 as Dr. X hath quoted them: but in truth, a- 
 bout Nine or Ten. And what is cited out of 
 them, may be found in Three or Four Latin 
 Books ; in a certain Library to which Dr. A, is 
 a near Neighbour. He quotes, for Example, 
 
 RabboL; 
 
Midrafh Rabba, i(crc] 157 
 
 Rahhot ; Midrafljim^ Midraflj rabba^ Schemot 
 rabbay Brefbit rabbah^ Bemidbar rabbah^ Midra- 
 jhim rabboth ; with divers other Rabs and Mi- 
 drafes, Blefs me, thinks the poor Reader ! are 
 they the Names of his Books, or of his Fami- 
 liars? Why this (profound) Man is acquaint- 
 ed with Authors, of whom other learned Men 
 have fcarce ever heard. And what kind 
 of Books ? Midrafes^ Rabs^ and other fuch like 
 Names, as are able to fcareaway L^^/(?;; him- 
 felf. Without doubt, they are lofi Men that 
 fliall venture to oppofe him. Pray God, his 
 Grace the Anh-Bijljop be well able to deal with 
 him. Little do ordinary Readers expeft that, 
 this clatter of /^/^^j- and iVf/<^r'/?/?i-, is juft fuch a 
 flourifli, as if another Man fhould fall to quot- 
 ing C/V^r^, Tulljy tht Roman Orator, the Tufcu- 
 Un QueftionSy the Academical SuefiionSj the £• 
 fifile to Atticui^ the Dream of Scipo ; fmall 
 Books of one Author, collefted into one Vo- 
 lume in flender Quarto. But fo it is that, the 
 DoGor^s feven or eight Midrafes and Rabsy arc 
 but <?;^^ Book ; and that too a very fprry one. 
 'Tis an Allegorical Comment ary^ on the ^e Books 
 0^ Mofes ; and there are other Midrafes on other 
 Books of the Old Teftament. They are a fort 
 of Annotations, that forfake the Grammatical 
 and frofer fenfe ; for whimfical and arbitrary 
 Speculations, that have no real Foundation in 
 the Text, but only in a roving Fancy, or hypo- 
 chondriacal Imagination. They are like Mar- 
 
 lorate^ 
 
1^8 Jn Account of the Letter f. 
 
 /i^r^^^'s Interpretations of the New Teftament : 
 but with this difference, Mar lor ate prefents you 
 with valuable Authors, and judicious Com- 
 ments ; but the Midras has only Windmils, and 
 Dotards. 
 
 In like manner, Rambam^ Rabbi Mofes M- 
 gyptiu^j More Nevochimy Maimonides^ are fo 
 many Names that our Author ; to magnify him- 
 felf, and to humble and mortify his Reader; 
 has thought fit to give to one honeft Rabbi and 
 his Book. 
 
 Rabbi Botrelj Rabbi Saadias Gaony Rabbi ben 
 Dior, Rabbi bar Nachman^ Rabbi Eliezer^ Se- 
 fher Jetzira, are cited in the Judgme/tt ; at 
 good diftancesfrom one another : But the Do- 
 ftor means only the Mantuan Edition of ( the 
 little Book) Jetzira^ with the Notes of thofe 
 Rabbles on it. In fhort, he Ihews us his He^ 
 brew Learning, through a Telefcope ; that re- 
 prefents a Flea, to be as big as a Lobfier. 
 
 For the Quality, Authority, and Merit of 
 the Books ; they have indeed, after the manner 
 of the Jtp.f, glittering Names and Titles ; 
 {{uch wSf^^dra/h rMa, the grand Explication; 
 Jetzira , Creation ; Sohar , Light ; Bahir, 
 Splendid, or Illuftrating ; Imre binah^ the 
 Words of Wifdom ; Mekor Cochma, the Foun- 
 tain of Knowledg :) but crack the Nutfhel be- 
 tween your Teeth, and you find nothing in it 
 but A Worm. For they are^/^of themKabba- 
 liftical Books and Authors : of whom the Learn- 
 ed 
 
Midrafh Rabba, <src. 1 59 
 
 ed Bf^xforf has moft truly (and ingenioufly) 
 fa id ; Thej are fuch Divines ^ as the Alchjmijis 
 and Adepts are Philofophers. Abhrev. Hebr. p,gS. 
 The true RahbieSy that go the literal way ; that 
 is, interpret the Scriptures Grammatically, and 
 by Rules of Criticifm ; deteft thefe Viftonaries^ 
 as equally inept and dangerous. There is fcarce 
 a learned Jew, but takes occafion fomewhere in 
 his Books, to exprefs his diflike of the KjMa- 
 lijis and Allegorifls ; and to caution the younger 
 Students againft them. Ahen Ezra^ whom the 
 Jews call the Wife ; in his Preface, concerning 
 the Methods and Ways of interpreting Holy 
 Scripture; difputes largely and effcaually, a- 
 gainft the Allegorifis and Isjibbalifis : among 
 other things, he faith, They have turned the Sa- 
 cred Books^ into, mere Kiddles. 
 
 I will aifirm that, it was altogether unwor- 
 thy of Dr. A, to have recourfe to fuch Autho- 
 rities; that are remarkable among Learned 
 men, only for their Volly ; and an ambiguous Ob- 
 fcurityy on which you may graft what Senfcs, or 
 Conceits, you fhall pleafe. Dr. A. w/efts them, 
 to a Trinity of UNCREATED BEINGS ; 
 three ETERNAL SPIRITS, three CREA- 
 TORS, three GODS: the Jefuit F^//?/^ bends 
 'em, to a Trinity of MODES, the very Tri- 
 nity (faith he) of St. ^/^y?/;; and the Schools ; 
 Intellectus^ Intelligens^ res IntehBa & Volita. 
 But Vorfiiu^^ another Hebrew Brother, protefl:s ; 
 fhey do not at all intend a Trinity, but Qua^ 
 
 ternary : 
 
140 An ^4ccount of the Letter ^. 
 
 ternary ; add that too, under other Names and 
 Senfes^ than we give to the Divine Perfons. 
 The Name Tr^T)"* ('Jehovah) hath thefe four 
 Letters ; ^od which fignifies the Father, He the 
 Mother, Vau the Son, and He the Daughter ; 
 this Quaternary Dr. A and Voifm would re- 
 duce to A Ternary^ or Trinity. And whereas 
 they are intended by the Kjihbalijls, as the Sym- 
 bolted FrincifleSy and Ejfecls of things ; Votfm 
 turns them into MODES, Dr. A. into B E- 
 INGS, and SPIRITS. 
 
 It is not neceffary to enlarge on all the Books, 
 (the Repofitories of Dreams;) of which our 
 Author has made fo ill ufe : it will be fufficient, 
 if I touch only on fomeof them ; that are the 
 Ground, and as it were Text^ of the reft. 
 
 Of the RMotj or Midrafes, I have faid fome 
 thing before; therefore here I (hall only add 
 the Charafter, that Jben Ezra gives of the hu- 
 mour of thefe Allegories. Some of them, fays 
 this Rabbi,are Riddles as high as the Clouds^ and 
 Heavens: Some are fo lubtle and thin, that you 
 may call them Tiffany, or Cobweb ; others fo 
 coarfe, you may fay they are Sailcloth, or 
 Sacking. Thren. i. 
 
 Next to thefe, in fillinefs and extravagance, 
 is Sefher Jefzirah^ the Book of the Creation. Of 
 this Book they tqil you, it is the Work of the 
 Patriarch Abraham ; Progenitor of the Jewifli 
 Nation. He wrote it by occafion of his Dif- 
 putes with the Sages of Chaldea : The Chaldees 
 
 be* 
 
Midrafii Rabba, &c. 141 
 
 believed, the Sun is thefirft Principle and Caufe 
 of all Things ; which Error moved Abraham 
 to write this Book of the Creation. The little 
 Niceties of the K^MaU there, and other Fol- 
 lies, make it unqueftionable that ; it is the Work 
 of an Impoftor, under the Name of Abraham. 
 Ben Dior^ in his Preface to his Commentaries 
 on this Book, bleffes us with an Information ; 
 how, and by whom, the Kjbbala has been pre- 
 ferved, notwithftanding fo many Revolutions, 
 and unfavourable Circumftances and Accidents. 
 He faith, the Angels that were the Matters of 
 the firft Patriarchs; (as Raz,iel who was A^ 
 dam'^s ; Zsdechie/^ who was Abraham^ ; Meta^ 
 tron^ Mafter of Mojes ; MxUthiel^ MafUii_of 
 Elias'^) gave to their Scholars, either in rvrit- 
 ing^ or by word, of mouthy the Kjhbala : and by 
 this means, it hath come down to the People of 
 God. The currency of fuch Books ; and the 
 countenance given to them by fuch as Dr. A. 
 when they have a fmali turn to ferve ; very, 
 much expofes true Religion, to the contempt of 
 Atheifts and Deifts: while fuch Men fee the 
 moft fottifli Tales, and manifeft Impoftures, 
 even magnified by Perfons of fo great Cha- 
 rafter in Theological Learning ; they are pro- 
 voked to think that, Religion and Superftition 
 fland on the fame bottom. 
 
 Z^har, or Sohar, is another Pfeudepigraphal 
 (or fpurious) Book, which the /t^t^^^////^ im- 
 pute to Rabbi Simeon^ who lived under the Em- 
 peror 
 
141 ^^^ Account of the Letter j . 
 
 peror Adrian^ about 120 Years after Chnft ; an 
 Author that would have deiefted fuch trifling : 
 But the Learned among the ''jeivs confefs that, 
 this Book is little above 500 i'^ears old. 'Tis 
 a IQihbda and Allegory on the Books of 
 Mojes. 
 
 Bahir^ often alledged by Dr. J. fometimes 
 by the name of the Book, fometimes ( to mul- 
 tiply Authorities) by the name of the Author^ 
 Nechoma hen Kjina ; whom they will have to 
 be thirty or forty years frior to our Saviour. 
 It is not publifhed ; but the reafon is, fay the 
 Jejvsy becaufe it contains a fublime and re- 
 condit Wifdom, that ought not to be commu^ 
 nicated : The Rabbles however have quoted fe- 
 veral things out of it ; from which Qjotations 
 Father Simon gives this account of it ; It hath 
 mthim in it^ hut mjHlcal Kj-bbalifiicallnventi^ 
 onSy and other Suferjiitions of that nature, Firft 
 Pref. to the Crit. HiJL of the OldTeft, p. 50. 
 From the fame Quotations Buxtorf notes that, 
 This Book treats of the Profundities of the Kab- 
 bala ; and M^Heries of the Divine Names^ that 
 is, of thcSephiroth. 
 
 Siphra, ard Siphre; the firft an Allegorical 
 Commentary on Leviticm^ the other on Numbers 
 and Deuteronom] : they are very antient, not 
 long after the Year of Chrift, 220. 
 
 Pardes Rimmonimj The Garden of Pomgrd- 
 nates ; another Kabbaliftical Book, of efpecial 
 note among the curioU'S of Follies^ There are fome 
 Commentaries on it. Im're 
 
feyeral Jemp? ^ooks. 14^ 
 
 Imr e Binah, the Words of Wifdom^ and (its 
 other part) Mekor Cochmay or the Fountain of 
 Safience ; they are explanations of the Sohar. 
 The Author is RMi Iffacharyrfinm^ ovBear\ 
 who is alfo Author of P//^^^ j^^, in which he 
 explains the ten Sephiroth^ in fo many Chap- 
 ters. There is another Imre Bmah^ 3. Part of 
 Meor Enajiwy or the Light of the Eyes ; the Au- 
 thor of this, is RMi Azarias diU Italian Jew; 
 he refolves feveral DifEcultiesof Holy Scripture, 
 efpecially thofe that relate to the antientTran- 
 flations, and to Chronology : he was a Learned 
 man, and bad read the Principal Chriftian Au- 
 thors. 
 
 Scepha Tal^Plenty of Dew ; 'tis a Commentary 
 or Expofition of the Z^har^Jetzira, and Pardes 
 Rimmonim,' Books that contain all the Principles 
 of the Kjihhak. The Author was a Rabbi at 
 Prague, in Bohemia \ the Book was printed in the 
 Year 16 12. 
 
 I am thinking, my Lord, how I may give 
 you an Idea of the Jewifh Kjihhalifls ; if per- 
 haps you have not read 'em, or fomevvhere met 
 an account of them. lafTure you, you can 
 fcarce defire a parallel that is nearer to them, 
 than the Books of Jacob Behmen^ and his Com- 
 mentators. If Jacob hsid been learned, I fliould 
 have believed that, he wrote his Books in imita- 
 tion of the Rabbot ^2ind Kjibbalifls^the Titles of his 
 Books, and the Matter of them, are fo very like 
 to the Subjeft and Titles of the KJibbaliftical 
 
 Booksj 
 
144 ^^ Account^ &CC. Letter j* 
 
 Books, and the Midrafes. J. Behmen\ Magnum 
 Myfterium, or^r^^/- Myfiery unfolded^ is the ve- 
 ry Counter- part of the Midrajh rabba^ or grand 
 Explication ; as well in the manner and nature 
 of his Expofitions, as in the Titles. Jetzira^ 5^?- 
 har^ Bahir^ Pardes Rimmonimj are extremely re- 
 fembled ; but withal, fomewhat excelled ; by 
 honefl Jacob'^s Aurora^ or Morning-light^ his 
 threefold Life of Man , the forty Quejlions^ the 
 jtgnatura rerum^ or fignatures of Things. His 
 ten Forms, feven Spirits, three Principles, the 
 Abyfs, Tinfture, Sophia, Divine Salitter, are 
 a Kjhbala altogether as wife, and fober ; as the 
 Bahir^ and other Jewilh Books : they are alfo 
 fo like to one another, in the nature of the 
 Thoughts, that if it be true that is faidin the 
 Proverb, Good Wits jumf ; it is at leaft as 
 true, fo do thofe that are (as we fay) out of the 
 way. 
 
 My Lord, if this Letter hath been a great 
 deal too long, as I confefs it hath ; yet I have di- 
 ftinguifhtitintoSeGions, and Titles, to make 
 it the more Tolerable to you. 
 
 I am, with the greateft refpeft and efteem, 
 Your Lordjhifs Humble Servant, 
 
 S.N. 
 
 the 
 
>45 
 
 The Fourth Letter. 
 
 My Lor d. 1 
 
 THIS is the laft trouble I fhall give you 
 on this Subjeft ; but the Book I am go- 
 ing to confider, will engage us in curious Enqui- 
 ries and Searches ; that will open to the inmoft 
 RecefTeSjanddiiTolve the Difficulties, of the two 
 grand Qaeftions that have divided the Vnitari^ 
 ans from the Church. 
 
 GuiL Vorfim^ in his Bilibray has publifhed 
 his Thoughts on the Queftion, What the Syna- 
 gogue believes concerning Gody and the Meflias ; 
 that is, whether the Jews know any thing of the 
 Holy Trinity, and Divinity of the MeJ^as f 
 His Book is in anfwer to Mr. Voifin, a learned 
 Jefuit ; and he is of an Opinion in the cafe, 
 juft oppofite to the Author of the Judgment, 
 He had the advantage of his Antagonifts, JRi/'. 
 tangely2inA Voiftn^ as to the Subjed in queftion ^ 
 whether any Jews^ who are fo by Religion, be- 
 K lievc 
 
M/^6 Of the different Opinions Letter 4, 
 
 lieve the Trinity, and Divinity of the (ex- 
 pefted) Mefflas ? And being a Perfon very well 
 Verfed in the Jewifh Literature, and other Ori- 
 ental Learning ; he not only anfvi/ered, andex- 
 pofed his Oppofers, but prevented alfo w^hat 
 the Author of the Judgment had farther to fay : 
 but his Book did not pafs the Waters, till 
 fome weeks after the publication oi th^ judg- 
 ment. 
 
 In this Book, he not only proves that ; no 
 Jew by Rehgion ever owned n Trinity of Divine 
 Perfons, or that the Meffias is God : but he alfo 
 openly and- direftly oppofes the truth of thofe 
 Doftrines. He is fo much the more to blame ; 
 becaufe the Jefuit to w hom he replies, had right- 
 ly ftated thofe Doftrines. The Jefuit cites di- 
 vers Fathers, and Councils, who explain the Di- 
 vine Trinity by IntelleB^ or original WIS- 
 DOM; the Word^ or Reflex WISDOM; 
 and Will^ or Divine LOVE. He obferves, 
 Kj^owledg and WISDOM being the froduB 
 of M I N D, is fitly called the S O N ; and 
 LOVE, as it is the [fir at ion of W I S D O M 
 and INTELLECT, is properly named the 
 SPIRIT. One ofhiscleareft Authorities, is 
 the Canon of a Council of Toledo^ which fays-; 
 *' Let MIND be put as the Perfon of the Et- 
 ** ther ; then the M^ord (or W I SDO M) iflu- 
 ^^ ing from MIND, will be underftood to 
 *^ be the Son j as by the WILL proceeding 
 
 '^ from 
 
of Voifin and Vorftius.' 147 
 
 « from MIND and WISDOM, ismeant 
 
 " thQ Spirit, 
 
 He fays farther,As this is the Trinity believed 
 in the Catholic Church ; one may find the fame 
 Notions among . the Jews. But the Jewifh 
 Books that he alledges ; he either miftook, or 
 wrefted their meaning. And befides, they are 
 partly fpurious Books ; and partly have talk'd 
 in fuch an obfcure and equivocal Cant, mix'd 
 with fo many abfurd Fables, that neither can 
 any certain fenfe be made of the moft part of 
 what they fay ; nor can they be confider'd, 
 at beft, but only as Vifionaries and Enthu- 
 fiafts. 
 
 Vorfiius could not indure this fooling ; and 
 being an Anti-trimtarian^ makes what ad- 
 vantage he can of Voifm's trifling and miftakes. 
 He often falls foul on the Explication of the 
 Trinity by Foifm -, he exclaims againftir, as 
 a mere notional Trinity ; as a Trmity of lo- 
 gical Notions^ not of real and phjjical' Per fans. 
 To the Authorities of Councils^ and Fathers^ 
 cited by Foifm ; He anfwers. " Indeed ma- 
 *' ny of the Antients ^eatly pleafed them- 
 *' felves, with thofe fubtlettes ; Mind^ Reflex 
 " Wifdom, the Spiration of Love: but the 
 " Holy Scriptures have not a word of any 
 " fuch Trinity. That is, inftead of being a- 
 ware, of what the Jefuit had proved by fo 
 many Authorities, that the Trinity believed 
 K 2 in 
 
i4^ ^/ ^'^^ ^tjjerent Ofmions Letter 4. 
 in the Catholic Church, is only a Modal Di- 
 fiinBion in the Divine Nature \ and is as evi- 
 dent and certain in Philofofhy^ as it can be made 
 by any the moft exprefs ReveUtion : confe- 
 quently that, 'tis not the Trinity of the Church ; 
 but of Philofonm^ Jcachim^ Gentilis^ and fuch 
 others ; that He and his Friends meaat to op- 
 pofe. I fay, not being fenfible, as he ought to 
 have been, of his own and Parties miftake of 
 the Churches Doflrine : he takes notice only, 
 of the Jefuits (unlucky) overdoing in the cafe ; 
 hisfalfe and impertinent pretence and endea- 
 vour, to find the Myftery of the Trinity in 
 the K^ahhalijiicd and Allegorical Books of fome 
 Jervs.V^t grant, Vorfiim had hera a fufficient 
 advantage: but it had well become fo Learned 
 and able ^ a Perfon, rather to have obferved 
 the Jefuit's true Explication of the Trinity ; and 
 thereupon have urged him M^ith it, that there 
 is no difference in the Ideas that the Church 
 and the Vnitarians have of the Unity of God ; 
 than to throw fo much Salt upon him, for his 
 overcurious difcuflion of the Jewifh Books, in 
 fearchof aDoGrine^ v^itbout which the true 
 Unity of God is not rightly explained^ or un- 
 derftood. 
 
 But he feeks to cramp us by faying ; 
 " Ihe Holy Scriptures mention no fuch.lri- 
 *^ nicy, as Original WISDOM, Reflex 
 ^' W I S D O M, and Divine LOVE. Firfl:, 
 
 they: 
 
ofVoiCia andYo\'({ius. Y4P 
 
 they mention no other. The Church never 
 pretended, to have learned from H?/y ^^^^/'^^^'^j 
 or from the Antients^ any other than a modal 
 Diflincfion in God. Which fhe expreffes, by 
 the terms TRI xN I T Y, and PE RS O N S ; 
 and exfUins thofe Terms, as has been decla- 
 red in the firft Letter. Next, the Exception is 
 frivolous, and impertinent, in this place. For 
 the Controverfy between him and Voifin was 
 not, concerning the proofs of the Trinity from Ho- 
 Ij Scripture ; which, we fhall grant, our ordi- 
 nary Controverfial Writers have fo miflaken, 
 as to give occafion to people, to mifunderftand 
 the DoSrine and Faith of the Church : Bun 
 their debate was, concerning the Trinity it felf\ 
 namely, whether there be not fueh a Diftinflii- 
 on in the Divine Nature, or God, as has been 
 before defcribed ; and whether fome of the 
 Jews have not owned it ? That there is fuch a 
 Diftindion in the Deity, neither F<9ry?i/;^, nor 
 his Party, w^ill think fit to deny : Why thea 
 do they litigate about mere Terms, Trinity^ 
 Perfons^ Hypofiatical Vnion ;• which the Church 
 profeffes, not to.ufe in the Vulgar fenfe, but 
 in an Artificial^ and Theological, Dr. Sherlock 
 in his Book, The Diflinction between REAL 
 and NOMINAL Trinitarians Examined^ 
 fays well; " The Socinians fhould have re? 
 " membred that, the Perfons of the Trinity 
 " are not three fuch Perfons^ as their one Per- 
 K 5 '' fm 
 
150 The Churches DoBrine Letter 4, 
 
 ^* fo^ is, whom they call the one God : and ' 
 *' therefore the three fach Perfons, three fuch 
 " Mmds and Suhftances^ as their one Perfon, 
 ^' and one Spirit is, (who is the whole Divinity 
 " confined to one fingle Perfon,) would be 
 *' three Gods ; this does not prove that, three 
 *' fuch Perfons^ as the Catholic Church owns in 
 " the Trinity,who are all the fame om Suhjlance^ 
 " and but one Divinity^ muft be three Gods. 
 fage 65, He means, the Socinians by one 
 Perfon intend , one Spirit, one Intelligent 
 Subftance or Effence, no way diftinguifh'd ; 
 three fuch (infinite) Perfons would indeed be 
 three Gods .• but the Church by three Perfons > 
 means one Intelligent Subfl-ance, one Spirit, 
 moMly diflinguiflfd ; and therefore her Doc- 
 trine doth .not imply Trithefm, And, laftly ; 
 is VorfHus fo very fure that, the Scriptures have 
 not a word^ as he fpeaks, of the Or/gi/24/and 
 Reflex WISDOM, and Divine LOVE 
 which is God ? Both God and our Saviour are 
 divers times there charafter'd by WISDOM, 
 or arecalled W I S D O^M ; and thev are the 4^ 
 words of St. "fohn^ Godis L FE. In fhort, 
 the very Terms of the Church, WISDOM 
 and LOVE, by which flie defcribes the Di-^ 
 vinQ Perfom, are taken from Scripture^B^nd^vQ 
 TiOtm^xt Human Language, 
 
 But to open the (^eftion, between the 
 
 Church 
 
of the Trinity tn Qod. 1 5 1 
 
 Church and the Vmtarians^ to the Capacity of 
 every body ; and to make it evident to thofe 
 GentIemen,of the Unitarian Perfuafion,that there 
 is not 'the lead Reafon to divide from the 
 Church. They may obferve that, as there 
 are two very different fignifications of the term 
 Ferfons ; the Theological, and the Vulgar : fo in 
 fpeaking of God, we fometimes call him a Per* 
 [on, fometimes three Ferfons. Where we fpeak 
 of God, with exaclnefs ; that is, when we 
 fpeak of him, as he is in himfelf\ we cannot but 
 own, he is three fuch Perfons, as the Catholic 
 Church teaches : that is, the modal Diftinfti- 
 ons of Original and Reflex WISDOM, and 
 of Divine Love, or SELF-COMPLACENCE, 
 are fo certainly in his Nature; that without 
 them, he fhould neither be happy, nor God. 
 But when we confider him, only as a -particu- 
 lar Intelligent Being, and as diflinci from any 
 other particular Intelligent Being, or Beings \ 
 which is the vulgar acceptation of the word 
 Ferfon : we generally call him a Ferfon, Thus 
 we fay, for inftance ; fome Irregularities are 
 Sins, againft the Lam of God : but others are 
 Sins, againft his Ferfon ; as Blafphemy, Per- 
 jury, and divers more ; fuch Wickednerfes are 
 Sins againft the very Ferfon of God, confidered 
 as this particular Being. In like manner, the 
 moft Learned Divines of the Moderns are 
 fometimes wont to fay ; the Angels that ap- 
 K 4 peared 
 
[i 5 1 The Churches DoBrlne^ 8cc. Letter 4. 
 
 peared during the Old Teftament Oecommyy 
 have fometimes the Name of 5^/?(9i//i^ and Go^ 
 given to them, becaufe they fpeak in his Name^ \ 
 and did reprefent his Perfon, In this'fenfeof 
 the word Perfon^ the Church oi England^ even in 
 her Tranflations of Holy Scripture, calleth God 
 a Perfon ; namely, in Texts that fpeak of him, as 
 a particular (Intelligent) Being^and as diftinBfrom 
 fome other ^ or all other "particulars ,( Intelligent) 
 Brings. Job ij. 7, 8. Will ye fpeak wickedly for 
 God ? will ye talk deceitfully for him f will ye ac- 
 cept HIS P ERS N f Heb.i.i,2,j. GOD, 
 who atfundry times ^and in divers manners^ [pake in 
 times pajt unto the Fathers^ by the Prophets \ 
 hath J in thefe lafl days^ fpoken to us^ by his Son : 
 '—who being the Bright nefs of his (God's) Glory, 
 and the exprefs Image of his (God's) Perfon, and 
 upholding all things by the Word of his (God's) 
 Power ; when by himfelf he had f urged our Sins, 
 fat down on the right hand of the Maje/ly on high. 
 In the firft Text, God is intended to be difUn- 
 guijb^dfrom the Perfons whom he at any time judg- 
 ethy in the other, from Chrifi as our High 
 Vrkfi^ (I mean, from the Lord Chrift confi- 
 dered as our High Priejl) and Inter ceffor with 
 God. There is no Learned Divine, but is a- 
 ware of this ; and therefore fuch do fometimes, 
 as well in Preaching as Writing, fay the Perfon 
 of God : namely, when they fpeak of God, not 
 according to the internal perfection of his Na- 
 ture ; 
 
Socinus his Mtjlakes] 1 5 5 
 
 ture ; but according to fome external Relation, - 
 to other intelligent Beings ; that is, as dijlin- 
 guifh'^d from them, or oppofed to them, or fome 
 fuch like. . 
 
 I do not wonder, F. Socinus was not aware 
 of this ; as having no other but Grammatical 
 Learning, not the leaft tinfture of Academical, 
 much lefs of Theological: But Vorfiius ought 
 to have been aware of it. Becaufe Socinus 
 knew not, what the Church intends by Per* 
 jons^ Father^ Son, and Holy Spirit, when flie 
 ufeth them of God ; therefore he denied, there 
 are three Perfons of God, or three Divine Per- 
 fons : And becaufe he miflock what is meant 
 by Incarnation^ Hjpcftatlcal Union ^ and fuch 
 like, when he heard of them in Sermons ; there- 
 fore he denied the Divinity of our Saviour. I 
 fhall make this undeniable, from the Raccovian 
 Catechifm, which is the Socinian Syftem of 
 Divinity ; contrived and compiled originally 
 by Socinus J Smalcius^ and Mofcorovim^ 2iiRdC' 
 cou in Poland'^ and often reprinted, with the 
 Notes and Improvements of all the Great Men 
 of that way; and laft of all by B.W. (that 
 is, BenediciWiffowatius) 2lX. Stauropolis (that is, 
 Amflerdam) in the Year 1680. When this 
 Catechifm would prove that, there is hut one. 
 Perjbn of God ; what is their Argument, or (as 
 they call it ) Demonflration ? Take it, in their 
 own words. '^ Eflentia Dei una eft, non fpe- 
 
 [^ cie, 
 
^154 Socinus his Mijlakes Letter 4. 
 
 ^/ cie, fed numero: quapropter plures numero 
 *' Perfonae in ea effe non poffunt ; cum Perfona 
 *^ nihil aliud fit, nifi .elTentia mdividua intelli- 
 " gens. In Englifh, thus; The Effence of 
 God is bur one : and there can be but one Perfon 
 of God ; becaufe a Perfon is as much as to fay^ 
 one intelligent EJfence, Catech. Racov. f, 16. 
 This is their Demonfiration^ to prove that, there 
 is but one Divine Perfon ; or one Perfon of 
 God : but they will never be able to produce 
 one Catholic Writer^that ever faid ; God is three 
 Perfons, in their fenfe of three Perfons, i.e. three 
 intelligent EJfences. The Catholic Church ever 
 owned that, in this refpeft God is but one Per- 
 fon ; fhe ever taught, he is l?ut one intelligent Ef 
 fence : fhe declareth it to be Herejy, and Trithe^ 
 ifm^ to affirm three (infinite) intelligent EJfen- 
 ce s^ fhe belie veth but one fuch E (fence ; confe- 
 quently that, in that regard God is but one 
 Perfon. Let thefe Gentlemen know therefore, 
 their Patriarch has mifinformed 'em, concern- 
 ing the Churches Doctrine : he has engaged 
 'em, to oppofe a Trinity that was never held 
 in the Church; and to impugn his own (un- 
 learned) Mijlakes, as the proper Errors of the 
 Catholic Church. 'Tis too certain that, So- 
 cinm had never read one Theological Book, 
 when he firft fet up for an Herefurch, The 
 method of Education and Study, in his time, 
 was this. They firft learned Grammar, and 
 
 the 
 
of the DoHrine of the Trinity. i 5 j 
 
 the Claflical Authors ; they went then from 
 the School, to fome Univerfity, where they 
 read firft Logick^ then Ethics and Phjfics^ then 
 Mathematics and Aftronomy : this qualified 
 'em for an Academical Degree ; which Degree 
 entred them on the ftudy of Medicine, Law, 
 or Divinity. Socims began no part of the 
 Academical Learning: he knew nothing of 
 th^ very fir[t part of it, Logick^ till thfi latter 
 part ofjiis Life; as himfelf confeffes, and as 
 appears by his Books. It is no wonder there- 
 fore that, when he heard in the ^Chuvch-Con- 
 fejjions^ and Liturgies^ of three Divine Perfons^ 
 of Father^ Son^ and Spirit, of Inccirncition^ Hy- 
 foflatical Union, and fucli like ; he took them, 
 as 'tis to be feared the unlearned too com- 
 monly now do, in the familiar and vulgar 
 fenfe. 
 
 He imagined xkixtt fuch Perfons, as three 
 Men^ ox i\\\t^ Angels 2iXt\ that is to fay, Per- 
 fons that are effentially difiinB^ and not moMly 
 only. When*^ he heard of Father^ Son^ and 
 Spirit diftinfl: from both ; he conceited a Phy- 
 fical and natural Generation, or that they are 
 diftinfl; Beings, and diftinft Spirits. He took 
 Incarnation^ and Hypojlatical Union, as im- 
 plying that ; the whole of God was Incarnate ; 
 and the Humanity of the Lord Chrifl: deified^ 
 which was the Herefy of Eutyches. Becaufe he 
 was not aware, perfect' God may be Incar- 
 nate; 
 
1^6 The Qnirches Terms Letter 4. 
 
 nate ; while the rvhoie of God is not : for to fay, 
 the whole Immenfity of the Divine Effence 
 was Incarnate, is to fay that, I^jimte became but 
 commenfurate to Firnte. And becaufe he knew 
 not that, we fay indeed the Lord Chrift is ^r/s^^ 
 God, Creator, and from all Eternity ; and we 
 fay this, of his Ferfon : but of his Perfon, not 
 as Man ; but in refpeft only of the indwelling 
 Divinity, or God in him. 
 
 Briefly, I fay; h^d Socimis been qualified by 
 any Theological, or Academical Learning ; he 
 was a Man too difcerning to have oppofed the 
 Doftrine of the Church, or have controverted 
 the Terms flieufes: but becaufe O'zy/W's • Epif- 
 tles, Tullfs Offices, and a few pages of He- 
 fiod and Horner^ was the whole extent of his 
 Learning; he firft miftook the Church, and 
 then oppofed lier. • This provoked A, Rivet ^ 
 Profeifor c^t Lejde^^ to fay of him; Egoini^o 
 homine nihil video ; f rater Imperitiam^ omnia, 
 ignormdi ; & Audiciam^ omnia negandi. 
 
 Some of the moft Learned of Socinus his 
 Followers have known that theChurch doth not 
 intend th^^Qfuch Perfons in God, as are three 
 dijlinci EJfences : which is the Trinity they op- 
 pofe. Therefore to excufe themfelves, and 
 Socinus, they have faid that ; the tru? mean- 
 * ing of the word Perfon^ in common and gene- 
 ral Speech, is, one Intelligent^ EJfence^ dtftinB 
 a^ diverfe from all other particular (Intelligent) 
 
 Ejfences : 
 
Vindicated., 1 57 
 
 Effences : and that therefore if the Church 
 means not, there are three diftinft Ejfences of 
 God ; neither ought (lie to fay that, there are 
 three Perfons of God. In fhort, fhe giveththe 
 Scandal ; by her unfrofer Language. 
 
 To this, I anfwer. If the Gentlemen of this 
 way, will not allow us to ufe any terms in 
 Theology, that are borrowed from familiar or 
 vulgar Speech ; and to give to them fuch fig- 
 nification, as is proper to declare the Nature 
 of the Subject, of which we are to treat : they 
 deny to us what is yielded to all other Sciences 
 and Arts, whether liberal or mechanical ; with- 
 out any contradidion. For the Sciences adopt 
 the words of familiar Speech, and appropriate 
 them to their Myfteries ; in a fcnfe that fhall 
 make the Myftery intelligible,, without whol- 
 ly and entirely ftripping the word or terra of 
 its primitive or vulgar (ignification. Why do 
 we quarrel with the Church, about Ferfons^ 
 and other Terms ; becaufe not ufed in The- 
 ology, as in vulgar fpeech : when we are con- 
 tent that, all other Sciences afTume that liber- 
 ty ? Why, for inftance, are not large Volumes 
 written alfo againft the Metaphyficians, or the 
 Logicians ; for their Genus^ Species^ DijferentUj 
 Proprium^ and Jccidens : which thofe Gentle- 
 men have borrowed from the Roman Clafficd 
 Authors, and from common Speech ; but have 
 clothed them with a new fenfe utterly diffe- 
 rent 
 
158 The Churches Terms Letter 4. 
 
 rent from their Vulgar meaning ? In Latm Au- 
 thors, Gema is the Family, or Linage^ of any 
 Perfon ; Sfecies is the Form, Phyfnomy, or 
 Jhafe^ of a Perfon ; Differentia, on the contra- 
 ry, is the Diffimilitude of Perfons, or Things : 
 Troprium is ones own. in oppofition to things 
 cither ftolen or borrowed ; Accidens is any ca- 
 fualty^ good or bad, that happens to any Per- 
 fon. But when thefe words are ufed, as Terms 
 of their Science or Art, by the Logicians, or 
 Metaphyficians ; Blefs us, how do thofe My- 
 fiics transform them ? Genus^ according to them, 
 is not the Linage or Pedigree ; but is, as B E- 
 I N G to Suh ft ance and Accident, and asS U B- 
 STANCE to Spirit and Bodies. Species^ is 
 not the Form, Shape, or Phiz ; but is, as 
 MAN to Peter and ^ames, of as the fpecific 
 Nature of Lion and Bear to particular Lions and 
 Bears. Differentia is not, as among the Vulgar, 
 the external diffimilitude of Things; but the 
 particular Modality of each individual in the 
 feveral fpecific Natures ; namely the Angelical, 
 the Human, and that of Mutes. Proprium is 
 by no means a Man's own Goods and Chattels; 
 but is, as Rifibilitj imAian : a property that is 
 no integrating part of his Nature, but yet is 
 always in it. Accidens, or Cafualty ^thty metamor- 
 phize into an inferior fort of Beings ; it is as 
 Colour^ or other Qualities, are in Bodies: which 
 are things that may be away, or may be chang- 
 ed 
 
Vindicated. I c p 
 
 ed into their contraries, or be varied in degree, 
 and yet the Body (to which they belong) re- 
 main the fame. Here now was abundant mat- 
 ter, for Socinus his Grammatical and Philologi- 
 cal Skill : He may eternally confute the Meta- 
 phyficians, from the good Authors he had read ; 
 from Terence^ and Plautus \ nay from Tullj^ and 
 QuintilUn^ who fpake not only a true, but 
 learned Latin. And truly, every Body muft 
 grant that, he might as well (or better) have 
 attacked the Metaphysics, and all other Arts; 
 for ufing words, as he thinks, imfroferly \ that 
 is, not as they are ufed by the Vulgar^ in com- 
 mon Speech : as have reformed, or pretended 
 to reform the Language of the Church ; which 
 he underftood too, juft as much as he did Meta- 
 phyfics. 
 
 'Tis pertinent here, to take account of what 
 paffed between Merfennus and Ruarus ; two 
 Men very well matched, in refpeft of Elegance 
 of Learning, and freedom of Thought: there 
 havefcarce been two Perfons fo eminent, inboth 
 thofe refpefts. Merfennus was a Roman Ca- 
 tholic, a Regular (as I remember) of the Order 
 ' of the Minims ; but to whom all Learned Men 
 that vifited France^ always took care to be re- 
 commended, and to pay their Refpefts to him, 
 Ruarus \yas an Holfieiner ; a Gentleman of 
 plentiful Fortune, and a Mind no lefs great : 
 he was a SoQinimy and tho he never wrote a- 
 
 parti- 
 
i6o ' The Churches 7 ems Letter 4. 
 
 particular Book, yet his Letters to Learned 
 Men of all Perfuafions, procured hini a Repu- 
 tation all over Chriftendom, as well as among 
 his own Party; as the (Honorary) Head, or 
 Principal, of that whole Seft. Thefe (moft va- 
 luable) Letters were publiflied after his Death 
 in two Volumes, in O^avo^ at Jmfterdam : the 
 firfl: Volume, Jmo 1677 ; the other, Jmo 
 1681. 
 
 Merfennus having heard of this Gentleman, 
 and being defirous to read the, Socinim Au- 
 thors, wrote to him ; entreating him, to fend 
 to him the principal Books of the Men of that 
 Perfwafion : which were very fcarce in frmce ; 
 but very common in FoUnd^ where Ruarus 
 had chofe to refide, at a place near Dantzick. 
 Ruarus immediately made a remittance of the 
 Works of CrelUuSy Volkelius^ and Schlkhtwgius ; 
 which was requited by Merfemus^ by a Pre- 
 fent of Jbme of his own Books, and of the 
 Works of the Jefuic Petavius, 
 
 But when Merfenntis had lookM over the 
 Socinian Books, he prefently obferved what 
 I have been faying in thefe Letters; that the 
 Socinians wholly miflook the Do^rine^ and 
 Terms of the Catholic Church. They feem, 
 faith this great Man^ not to be well informed 
 what is the Faith of the Church concerning the 
 Holy Trinity ; I afTure you, and I will even fwear 
 to you there is no Tritheifm in our Doftrine. 
 We 
 
FindicateJ. I ^ i 
 
 We fay, '' the Father is Original WISDOM, 
 '' thePRINCIPLEorcaufeof^i^^WIS- 
 " DOM by which he knoweth himfelf ; and 
 ^' of that WILL, by which he loveth himfelf, 
 ^' oris delighted in his own Perfeftions. Pa^ 
 terefiORIGO INT E LL ECTV S, quo 
 fe perfem InPelligit ; & FOLVNTJTI S 
 etiam^ mediante Intelleciu. The words median- 
 te InteReBu^ were added to fignify the Pi i cef* 
 fion of the Spirit from the Father and the Son ; 
 or hj the Son^ as medUnte Intellect u more pi o* 
 perly fignifies. His words may be thus analy- 
 fed. 
 
 PatereftOrigoINTELLECTUS; the 
 Esther is original Wifdom. - 
 
 Intelleftus, quo fe perfefte Intelligit. The 
 Original or Cauje of that IV IS DO My by which 
 he ferfe^lj under fiandeth himfelf ; or of the 
 SON. 
 
 Et VOLUNTATIS, mediante Intel- 
 leftu. The Principle alfo of W I L L, (or 
 the Spirit,) hj the reflex WISDOM) or 
 Son. 
 
 I have fcarce feen the Catholic Dodlrine 
 fully couched in fo few words ; but as 'tis faid 
 in the Proverb^ a word to the Wife : in fo few 
 words, he thought he had faid enough, to fuch 
 a Mercury as Ruarus ; and that he had fully 
 anfwered to all the Socinian Books, that Gen- 
 tleman had fent to him. And fo it proved ; 
 for tho Ruartfs took a years time to anfwer, his 
 
 L Reply 
 
i6i The Churches Terms Letter 4. 
 
 Reply fet ves only to confirm what Merfennus had 
 la id. He Anfwers, 
 
 Firft. This Explication, of the Doftrlne of 
 the Catholic Church, is 2o'cj>ov ^'ap^fjut-^v ^ a 
 good Excufe. Is it fo ? but had it not been as 
 ' tafy, and a littk more fincere, tohavefaid, V/> 
 Ajufi Defence f for if it be the former, 'tis the 
 latter. 
 
 Secondly, He is in bodily fear left it fhbuld 
 be SdelUamfm. I fcarce think that, he is 
 in earnefi: ; fo Learned a Man could not but 
 know, the Doctrine of SabetUas is dire&ly op- 
 pofite to this of the Church. For the Divine 
 Ferfons, according to the Chui'ch, are 15^0^^/ 
 Difi'mcitons in the Divine Effence; Vt/berQofthe 
 Second is Generated by the firft, and- the Third 
 Proceeds from the other two : whence they are 
 rightly called I N T E R N A L R E L A T T- 
 O N S of the Deity ^ to it felj. On the contrary, 
 the Trinity of Sdellius^ is three EXT'ER- 
 NAL RELATIONS of God, towards 
 his Creatures : that is to fay, God afting in the 
 three Difpenfetions ; the Law, the Gofpel, and 
 the effufion of the Spirit on the Apoftles an(J 
 other Faithful. I fhall own however that, this 
 is an old ObjeQion to the Churches DoQrine; 
 even as old as the General Council of Nice : for 
 Sd>tr4^^j witneffes that, the MV^/? Fathers were 
 accufed by many, as reviving Sabellianifm, 
 becaufe of the term Homo-ufios ; by which they 
 meant, God is one Subftance, and the Divine 
 
 Ferfons 
 
Vindicated. 1 65 
 
 Perfons are one Eflencej and one Spirit. Socrates 
 Hffi.EccLl. I.e. 2j. 
 
 Thus thefe two great Wits parted, and made 
 flo more words of the matter in their following 
 Letters : Ruarus found there was no more to 
 befaid, in anfwer to the Objeftion; and Mer- 
 fennus perceived, he had already objefted 
 enough, tli-^ in fo few words. 
 
 To come towards aconclufion: of thefe two 
 Amhor?, whofe Books I have how difcuft, I 
 fhali venture to make this judgment; which 
 will be approved, I believe, by learned and in- 
 different Perfons. Vorjiim has af-tacqued*,a 
 Doftrine, which the Church oever held ; Dr. 
 A, defends a DoQiine, which the Church al- 
 way-s difclairned : they have J,:^^^ concerned 
 themfelves in a Controverfy, thrt mither of 
 them underfiood. Dr. A. has expended a gfe^t 
 deal of Learning; to render the converfton of 
 Ihfidels^ whether J\'^s ox Mahomet ms^ impot- 
 fibleand unprafticablc : Vorjtim has call: away 
 no lefs, towards preventing the //;^/o.^ of Chru 
 ftians. Vorflim is too nice and delicate, he 
 firains at a Gnat \ at mere Terms ^ zndfVords: 
 the other fwatlows a Camel^ GODS, C R E* 
 A T O R S, M A K E R S ; name and thing,rea. 
 dilyand eafily go down with him. Learnings 
 •what art thou ? not our Guide, J^^l^ould feetn, 
 or Clue ; but the Lahjrmthy in which the a- 
 bleft and moft obfervant quickly lofe them- 
 felvesi / , 
 
1 64 Dr. h's %e^i>Bms Letter 4^ 
 
 He that writes a Book, ought to remember 
 that, the time of being anfwered will (likely) 
 come: and therefore 'tis incumbent upon him, 
 not to charge his Antagonift with more than 
 hehathfaid; and to demean himfelf towards 
 him, as the merit of his Learning, Dexterity, 
 and other Worth, may reafonably claim. I 
 have all along bore this in memory : and there- 
 fore/;;/?, I have imputed nothing to Dr. J, 
 that, in cafe he denies it, I cannot juflify by fo 
 many Citations from all parts of his Book ; that 
 he will find himfelf obliged to expound what 
 he has fo unwarily faid, rather than perfift in the 
 denial of it. 
 
 Next, if I have not here anfwer'd with all 
 the refpefl: or tendernefs, that I would ; the 
 Doftor is to thank himfelf for it, as having gi^ 
 vtw A provocation^ that could not be diflembled. 
 He has now written two Books, one after ano- 
 ther, profefledly againft Mr. N. imputing to 
 him feveral Books, that were written not by 
 Mr. A^. but by Mr. S. and fomc others I could 
 name; as has been all along known to feveral 
 Gentlemen^ and to {omt Bookfellers: and at the 
 time that Dr. A, publifhed the Judgment^ it 
 was fo commonly known ; that his forwardnefs 
 and rafhnefs in libelling and delating Mr. N. 
 to the whole Nation, and to his Superiors, as 
 the undoubted Author of them, admits no ex- 
 cufe. Of fo many, eminent for Learning and 
 Dignity, as have written againft thofe Books ; 
 
 tho 
 
on Mr. N. anfurd. i6^ 
 
 tho without doubt they had heard the kackle 
 of Report, concerning Mr. A^ and other re* 
 puted Authors of Mr. lirmin^s Prints, as well 
 as Dr. A. yet in their Anfwers, none of them 
 charged thofe Books on Mr. N. or the other 
 fuppofed Writers, fave only this Stranger : who 
 of a Refugee for Religion, was not afhamed to 
 turn Informer. He that will take on him the 
 infamous Charafter of an Informer^ is ready 
 without doubt to go much farther, if Circum- 
 ftances and Opportunity invite him. Every 
 body knows, what Name is intended by Mr. 
 N. Should not an advifed and an honeft Man 
 have firft enquired, whether there be not more 
 Perfons of that Name : that if perhaps there 
 be ; he might avoid doing wrong to innocent 
 Perfons, by an indefinite uncertain fignification 
 what particular Perfon he meant ? When thofe 
 Books to which Dr. J, points, were written ; 
 there were no fewer than three Mr.N% Cler- 
 gymen, all of them Beneficed within lefs than 
 /^o miks of London ; and two of them acquain- 
 tance of Mr. Firmin. The Informant therefore 
 fhould have fome way notified, which of the 
 Mr. iV's he intended to accufe ; and wifh'd 
 to fee a public Sacrifice. I dm tell him, there 
 are divers WitnefTes among ihtSocinUnsihtm- 
 felves, that will at any time alTure Dr. A. or 
 any other; that neither of the Mr, A^s, Friends 
 of Mr. Ftrminy ever were in the fentiments of 
 Socinus. Tho it be true alfo that, they difap- 
 L 5 , proved. 
 
1 66 T>r.Pi^^efleSlmcenfu/d. Letter 4. 
 
 proved, and oppofed t^ e Tritheifm of feme 
 modern Writers ; that cor ended for a Trinity 
 of diftinQ: (infinite) Beings^ ivlmds, and Sfi- 
 ras : which might bring on them the imputa- 
 tion of Socmimtfit^ with a great number of 0- 
 therfoolifh Calumnies, from their Ad ver far ies; 
 QX from the '1 -i '^eiftic Party.- 
 
 But when fuch aii Impiitation or R^eport was 
 up : . I pray, How would it recomniend the 
 Books of Dr. A, to tell every body (or the 
 whole Nation) that they are written againft 
 Mr, N, more than if he had faid, they are 
 written againft fome anonymous pamphlets, 
 ttiat are gotten into too much credit and reputa- 
 tion? \ V 
 
 i have heard it confidently reported that, Dr. 
 A. himfelf^ is Author of one of Mr. Firmin's 
 principal Books ; the Defence of the brief Hiflory 
 of the Vnitarians : and fome Gentlemen of his 
 Nation (Refugees alfo for Religion) fay. Dr. 
 A. was always reputed a 6'/2W//^;^. I believed 
 both thefe Reports, and fo did many others : he 
 has convinced me by the Judgment, it was a 
 Slander, or at befl: a Miftake ; for he is a Tr/- 
 theifl. It will be a new warning to me, and 
 ought to be to hm^ not to publifh flying Re- 
 ports, for certain News; efpecially to a whole 
 Nation^ and to the poflible Prejudice of Perfons 
 who never wronged me. . 
 
 Well, he knows now, who is his Antagonift ; 
 and what are his Opinions ; let himmak^his 
 
The Autho/s expeclatlon from Vr, A. 167 
 
 beftof both. Only when heanr^ers, I fliall 
 cxpcd thefe few (reafonable) things, from 
 
 Firft, That he put his Name to his Book. 
 Informers are public Minifters ; we ought to 
 know their Names at leaft^and place of Abode. 
 But Dr. J. was fo fhy of this, that even when 
 he fent Copies of his Book to fome Friends ; it 
 was without fignification, as I am toJd, either 
 who was Author, or Donor. Himfclf, it 
 feems, fufpefted the currency of his Doctrine ; 
 and whether it might not be fome hazard to his 
 Perfon. 
 
 Next, if he will deny that, *tis his intention 
 to fay, there are three Vn- created- B E 1 N G S, 
 three Eternal S P IRITS- three GODS, or 
 three CREJTORSrkt him downright 
 tell us what (on fecond and better thoughts) is 
 his Intention ; in a word, v/hat /(pr/ oi Trinity 
 he believes ? I have a right to demand that, he 
 be very clear an^ exprefs ; in declaring his Doc- 
 trine. 
 
 Laftly. Whereas I Iiave amply faid in my 
 firft Letter, what (I believe) is die Doctrine 
 of the Catholic Church, and the C'lnrch of 
 EngU/2d\ in the Articles of the Holy Trinity, 
 and the manner of our Saviour's Divinity: I 
 hope, and (as I faid ) expeft, lie will make 
 me to knowit, if in any particular it be more, 
 or.lefs, or orherwavs; than the Fairh of the 
 L 4 Church 
 
1 6 8 Conclufionl Letter 4. 
 
 Church IS, If he declines this, or fhifts it off 
 with general Language ; I fliall take it for grant* 
 edthat, he hath nothing to offer, againft the 
 Explication I have made : and which I there- 
 fore undertook, becaufe fo very few have been 
 explicit enough, and withal particular enough, 
 in their Expofitions of thofe two primary Arti- 
 cles of the Church-Doftrine ; not to fay, how 
 many have moft unhappily miftaken the true 
 meaning of the Church about them, tho other- 
 wife very learned Men. 
 
 Before I conclude, I am obliged to take no- 
 tice of what, your Lordfhip (I doubt) hath 
 not overlooked ; namely that, I have not ob- 
 ferved in thefe Letters, in all refpeSs, the Me- 
 thod that I propofed in the beginning of the 
 firft Letter. I fhall confefs, it was an Inad- 
 vertence : yet I do not think it neceffary, to 
 give fuch long Letters another tranfcription, 
 in order to correft that overfight ; becaufe, 
 tho I have deviated fomewhat from my de- 
 figned Order, yet not for the worfe ; and be- 
 caufe, I have fpoke to all the Particulars, or 
 Points, that I there undertook. 
 
 I fee not, my Lord, that I need to add any 
 more, concerning the Judgment; or Bilihray 
 or thefe Letters : but I pray, permit me to take 
 this public Opportunity , of confeffing my 
 Obligationsy and giving you my Thanks ; for 
 
 the 
 
Conclujton. i66 
 
 the Favours you have done^ and for thofe 
 you have offered, to your Lorddiip's 
 
 V Moft obliged, moft humble, 
 
 and moft faithful Servant, 
 
 ^ Stephen Nye. 
 
 From Hormead Parva^ in 
 //^rt/. June 25. 1701. 
 
 SI quid hlcy in Controverfia. omnium dijpcilli^ 
 may contra, traditam S. Catholics Ecclefi^ 
 Fidem; velinTracfandi modo, contra civile s & 
 urhanos mores ; dictum fit : illud ego indiStum^ 
 revocatum^ damnatum Volo, 
 
 Stephanus Nye, 
 
 TO 
 
170 
 
 TO 
 
 Mr. NYE. 
 
 S I R: . 
 
 I Have read your four Letters ; concerning the 
 great Articles, of the Holy Trimty, and (as 
 you fpeak) the mamer of our Saviour's Divinity : 
 and concerning the Judgment of the Synagogue^ 
 on thofe Articles, 
 
 I confefs, the Book to vi^hich you anfwer, 
 was very far from pcrfwading me ; that the 
 Jews believed a Trinity, or expeft that their 
 Meffias is to be God. I fcarce think there is a 
 Rabbi or other Jewifli Book of note, but hath 
 faid fomevi^hat, more or lefs ; againft thofe 
 Doflrinesof the Catholic Church : and I do not 
 fpeak only, of the Rabhies that go the literal 
 way, but of the Allegorijls and Kjihhalifis. 
 Some learned Men ; Gdatin, Voiftn^ Rittmgel^ 
 the Author of the Judgment, and divers more ; 
 have been willing to conceit, that the three 
 fir ft Sefhiroth in the KjbbalifticalTree are intend- 
 e*d by the Kjibbalijls for Divine Ferfons^ the 
 (]'_. very 
 
A Letter to Mr. Nye. 1 7 1 
 
 very fame with the Chriftian Trinity. What 
 hatn deceived them, I think is this; that the 
 Kjihhdifts call the 5fp/^/>^f/^^ Spirits, Properties, 
 Modes : and they fay alfo fome fuch things of 
 them, as n'^do of the Trinity; calling them 
 Generations y Proceffions^ Degrees^ and divers 
 fuch like. But, as Father Simon fomewhere 
 rightly obferves ; the Kjhhdijls ufe thefe Terms 
 and Expreffions, far otherways than we do ; 
 of which, a flight acquaintance with the Jew- 
 ifh Books will ferve to inform any Body. The 
 three firfl Sephiroth^ according to the Jervs^ are 
 Eternity^ Wijdom, and Kjtowledg: we would 
 call them, Attributes) the /C^i^^///?/ give them 
 imany names, fuch as Emanations , Properties^ 
 Modes^ and Spirits. But when they fay Spirit Sy 
 they don't mean J6tual Beings ; or Extfiing Spi- 
 ritSy if I may have leave fo to fpeak : but Spi- 
 rit in their Phrafeology, is as much as to fay, 
 a Property or Firtue of a thing ; fo that to fay 
 the Sephiroth are Spirits, amounts with theni 
 only to thus much, they are Virtues, Proper- 
 ties, or Powers in God. This is fo obvious, in 
 their Books ; and even in the Quotations out of 
 them, by Votfin and the refi ; that they ought 
 not to have overlooked it. But I will not 
 concern my felf in your Controverfy, againfl: 
 your learned A ntagonift; I fee, you are abun- 
 dantly able to manage it your felf without 
 afliftance from me. 
 
 As to your Expofition, of the Articles of the 
 '-''- Trinity 
 
171 A Letter to Mr. Nye. 
 
 Trinity and Divinity of our Saviour, it is much 
 more clear, and 'tis alfo more full and particu- 
 lar ; than one fhall find in any om Book, whe- 
 ther Englijh or Latin^ that I have feen : you 
 have fetched it, with equal diligence and judg- 
 ment, from a great number of Books, Antient 
 and Modern, from the Councils, the Fathers, 
 the School- Dofliors, and firft Reformers. With- 
 out feeking to pleafe you thereby, I fhall fay ; 
 your firft Letter is a found, and perfeQ; Inftitu- 
 tion, in the Articles you undertake to explain. 
 But I diffent from you, when you impute Tri- 
 theifmy to the Author of the Judgment ; you feem 
 here to remember too much that he hath wrong- 
 ed you. 
 
 You quote one place, where he faith, The 
 Son and Spirit are uncreated BEINGS; and 
 another where he faith, they are three eternal 
 SPIRITS: this, fay you, is implicit Tntheifm. 
 
 But firft, he doth not give it as his own Judg- 
 ment, that they are S P I R I TS ; but he faith, 
 The Jews fometimes call the three Sephiroth eter* 
 nalSP IRITS. p. 1 7 5. 'Tis true, he pre- 
 tends the &/^A/>t?^/' are the three Perfons of the 
 Trinity ; but it is the KAbhaliJls that call them, 
 Spirits : and in whatfenfe^ I have laid juft be- 
 fore. 
 
 As to the Tritheifm ; a Man is not to be cal- 
 led a Tritheifi^ or his Do£lrine Tritheifm^ merely 
 for affirming fomewhattiiar, by a long train of 
 Confequeaces, drawn fucceflTiyely from one 
 
 another. 
 
A Letter to Mr. Nye. 17} 
 
 another, may end at lafl- in Tritheifm, A coft* 
 fequentid Tritheifm, is no Tricheifm, in the 
 Perfon that maintains it ; no more than the con- 
 fequential BUffhemyy which Divines are fo 
 ready to charge upon one another, is Blafphe* 
 my. Tritheifm, as well as Blafphemy, muft 
 he intended'^ if it be only interfretative^ not di^ 
 rtB and de[igned^ 'tis neither Blafphemy, nor 
 Tritheifm. 
 
 Farthermore, tho he fomewhere calls the 
 Divine Perfons,BE I N G S ; he feems elfewherc 
 to interpret this difallowed Term, to an Ortho- 
 dox fenfe: for he faith, *' The Doftrine of 
 ^' the Trinity fuppofeth the Divine Effence to 
 V be common to three Perfons^ difiinguifh'd 
 ^1 from one another hj incommunicMe Properties, 
 Judg. p. 99. This agrees with the Language, 
 and 6>A?/^ alfo, of the Church; and he fpeaketh 
 it as his own Opinion, not (,as in other places, 
 where he fometimes calls the Divine Perfons 
 SPIRITS, fometimes MODES) asthe 
 Opinion of the /C^^^^///?^. 
 
 You have fome more advantage, when he 
 tranflates •Elohim^ by GO DS ; and when he 
 fays CREATORS, and MAKERS, 
 Upon which you note, that he has taken no 
 care to excufe or mollify fuch dangerous Lan- 
 guage. But to fpeak impartially, *tis aTr/- 
 theifnt in the PVords only, not intheTA/Vsg it 
 felf; for he profefTeth more than once, there is 
 but one Jehovah^ and one God. Hisoverfight 
 
 hath 
 
i 74 A Letter to Mr. Nye. 
 
 hath been only this, that he did not confider 
 that thQ E^glijh Plurals, GODS, CREA- 
 TORS, MAKERS, never fignify fwgular^ 
 ly\ as the Hebrew Plurds (Elohim, &:c.) do: 
 and that therefore, tho the Hebrews may fpeak 
 plurallj oi God, we cannot. 
 * In Ihort, if you withdraw this (harfh) Ac- 
 cufation, of Tritheifm ; your Letters will lofe 
 nothing of their Force, or Elegance : I advife 
 you therefore, either to omit, or [often it ; for 
 the moft of your Readers (I doubt) will be of 
 my Opinion, that the Doftor has fpoke indeed 
 improperljj but (likely) meant Orthodoxly. 
 You will take this liberty, of counlelling 
 ybti ; for which your felf gave the occafion, 
 and which you feemed to defire j in good part : 
 from, 
 
 . : s i R^ 
 
 Your old, and affuredFriend, 
 Jme %^. 17OU 
 
 F. H. 
 
 w 
 
75 
 
 The /infvper to the foregoing 
 Letter. 
 
 ^ I R. 
 
 I Believe, you do not lack-any new afluran- 
 ees, of that Deference ; which I have al- 
 ways profelTed for your Opinion and Judgment. 
 ^When you only advife, I acquiefce initwith- 
 •out farther enquiring ; becaufe I believe, you 
 fee good reafon for it. But when you ufe Ar- 
 guments, I think your meaning is, I fhould 
 confider 'em ; and if there be caufe for it, dif- 
 fentfrom'em. 
 
 You are not willing that, I fhould impute 
 Heterodoxy, much lefs Tritheifm^ to Dr. A. 
 as if he were clear enough of both. But, con- 
 cerning the Divine Perfons, he is certainly moft 
 Heterodox ; not only in his Words or Terms^ 
 but in the Ideas he propofes and maintains : and 
 he has delivered himfelf, too indifferently, and 
 too loofely, concerning the Incarnation 3 ov man- 
 ner of our Saviour's Divinity. 
 
 As 
 
1^6 Mr.^yts Anfwer 
 
 As to the Divinity of our Saviour, he faith ; 
 ** The antient ^f^jvj affirmed, the Mefflas was 
 ^* to have the ao>®-, or WORD Dwelling 
 ** in him, Judgm. Chap. 15. p. j8o. He 
 maketh this Expofition to be his own, by faying 
 farther ; 
 
 " It cannot be denied, that the J^m^ crucifi- 
 " ed our Saviour, for affirming himfelf to be 
 ^^ the Son of God, Neither can it be fuppofed, 
 ^y that he meant no more by it, but that he 
 ^' was God's adopted Son) as the "Jews were, 
 " and fome of their Kjngs : for he fpoke in an 
 " ordinary and plain fenfe. He means therefore 
 ^^ by it, not only that he was the Mefftas^ but 
 " that the WO RD of God dwelt in him ; which^ 
 *^ the ^em acknowledged to be the OfFfpring 
 " (or Son^ of God. Judgm. ch. 25. p. j88. 
 In fo large a Book ; and when he was oppofing 
 Heretical DoQrine, as well concerning the Di- 
 vinity of our Saviour, as concerning the Trini- 
 ty ; fhould he have contented himfelf to fay 
 that, Chrift is the Son of God, and God^ by thd 
 Indwelling of the ^6y(^ (WORD) or Son in 
 him? fhould he^ot have faid, at ksitt fome- 
 where y that ; it was not only an Occajional In^ 
 dwelling, as in the Prophets ; or an affifling In- 
 dwelling, which was the Herefy of Nefiorius ; 
 but a z^^r/?^/^///*/ Union, and a perfond Indwel- 
 ling? Goddwelleth in all the Faithful, nay in 
 every Being ; but in our Saviour, by an exer- 
 tion of the Divine Attributes and Perfedions 
 
to the foregoing Letter. 1 7 7 
 
 #/; the Humanity, and hy it. Briefly, the //?- 
 dwelling of God in our Saviour^ is fuch an Ex- 
 plication of his Divinity ; as leaves him in the- 
 rank of mere Frofhets^ to whom alfo the Appel- 
 lation of Elohim is given in Holy Scripture : 
 but the Catholic Church believes, and a Catho- 
 lic Doftor fliould have faid ; the Indwelling of 
 God in our Saviour is Hjpoflatical^ perpetuaf^ 
 and hy an exertion of Divine Perfections ; as the 
 Soul exerts its (fpiritual and intelleOiual ) Pow- 
 ers in, and by the Human Body. I believe 
 however, Dr. A. meant as much of this, as he 
 knew: but that he knew it, I don't believe; 
 becaufe (on fuch an occafion) he would cer« 
 tainly have faid it, Notwithftanding, lam 
 content to wave that : what I fliall infifl: on, 
 is this, he has profefTed not only an im- 
 plicit, but exprefs Polytheifm, or plurality of 
 Gods. 
 
 ^ You fay that, I have quoted one place in the 
 
 Judgment^ where 'tis affirmed the Divine Per-* 
 
 fins are difiin5l BEINGS. Be content, he 
 
 hath called them BEINGS, in a great many 
 
 places. . r^ -^rr' ' 
 
 ' " The jfm^j confider'd the 5(9;? or the 'Aoy®-, 
 
 " and the Holy Ghoft, as not created B £- 
 
 '\INGS, but as BEI N GSofthefameDi- 
 
 "vine Nature with the Father ; by an eternal 
 
 '' Emanation from him : and as having the 
 
 '' fame Pow^r, and the fame Majefiy, Judgm, 
 
 p, 114, He. always maketh the Judgment: 
 
 M and 
 
178 • A/r. HyesJnfwer 
 
 2nd DoGf ine of the Jews to be his own ; and 
 to the cafe now before us, he faith exprefly as 
 here followeth. 
 
 '' Whofoever they were to whom God 
 ^^ faid, Lef m Make^ or let as do this or that ; 
 -^ they could be no Creatures ; they muft be 
 " uncreated BEINGS like himfeif, if there 
 <« were any fuch then in being; but that then 
 *' (at the Creation) fuch there were, evert the 
 ^^ So^ and Spirit^ has been fliown from the be- 
 *' ginning of that Hiftory (I think) beyond 
 " contradiftion. 5^W^7;^. p. 144. 
 
 Again, at/'. 1^2. '' It was not of a created 
 " Wind, but of a Divine and uncreated B E- 
 'M N G, that Mofes fpeaks ; when he fays, 
 ^^ the Sprit moved on the Face of the Waters, 
 *' Gen. I. ^. 
 
 He that faith the Divine Perfons are fo ma- 
 ny B E I N G S, hath affirmed they are fo many 
 SPIRITS, andGODS. ' For if theyare 
 three Beings^ either they are three Corpreal^ or 
 three Spiritual BEINGS: he will not fay, 
 they are corporeal Beings ; and it will admit 
 no difpute that, three Spiritual Beings are three 
 SPIRITS; a Sprit J and a Spiritual Being, 
 are convertible terms, that imply the fame 
 thing. Again, if they are three Spirits, they 
 ^VQthi'Qt Finite and CreatedSipivits , or theyare 
 tbr^Q Eternal ^nd Infnite Spirits: he dares not 
 to fay the former ; therefore he muft fay, the 
 Divine Perfons are three Eternal Infinite Spirits. 
 
 I pray 
 
to the foregomg Letter. ' '^7^ 
 
 I pray now, tell me, what is this biit three 
 God/: for how will he or you define, or de- 
 fer ibe three Gods ; but by faying, three E'ierfjd 
 hf^ite Spirits ? 
 
 You Obje8: that, an implicit or confe(^uentid 
 Tritheifm, is not Tricheifm : for Tritheifm, 
 like Biafpheniy, mud be direct^ and intended. 
 But why do you conlound c^onfequentid and 
 if;w/>//a> Tritheifm ; as if they were the fame? 
 I grant, Men are riot to be charged with Tri- 
 theifm, or Blafphemy ; becaufe (as you fpec.k) 
 their Do5friney hj k long train of Confequences 
 futceffively drawn from one another^ mdy perhaps 
 end in Blafphemy or Tritheifm : But when the 
 Tritheifm is aftually couched in their very 
 words, is virtually contained in the ordinary fig- 
 lilfication of the word^ thit they ufe; wh^n 
 what they fay, is One of the ufual Forms by 
 which Tritheifm is exprelfed ; in this cafe, the 
 Charge is juft, and is neceffary. Thus, we 
 fay fometimes, three Gods ; but we as ufuaSy fay, 
 three eternal infinite all-perfeO: S P I R I T S, or 
 BEINGS: and we think we have as fully 
 fiid three Gods^ in that defer ipt ion \ as when W'e 
 fay it, in exprefs words. Nay, he that fays, 
 three eternal BEINGS, three irifinitei all-per- 
 fc6t SPIRITS, has more fully and more 
 effedually declared his meaning; thart he that 
 barely fays, threeGODS; for the fornnier is 
 the De^nition^ by which the other (even three 
 GODS) is expounded and declare d^ 
 
 Ma Y6fyf 
 
J 8o A/r. Nye i Anfwer 
 
 You fay farther ; He doth not call the three 
 Divine Perfons, ovihtSefhiroth^ SPIRITS; 
 but only faith, the "^ews fo call them : and you 
 farther excufe him, by alledgingthat, xht'Jews 
 indeed call all the Sefhiroth, SPIRITS; but 
 they mean only, Virtues and Fowerso^ God. 
 I fhall grant this laft ; but 'tis plain that, Dr. 
 A. did not fo intend , nor fo underftand the 
 Jews\ for his words are thefe. " The Jews 
 " affert thefe three firft Sephlroth^ which they 
 ^' fometimes call SPIRITS, to be eternal ; 
 *^ ^nd ejfe^tial m God. And this^ fay they^ we 
 *^ ought not to deny, becaufe we can't eafily 
 ^' perceive it. For the Divine Nature is Incom- 
 *^ frehenftblej far exceeding the Limits of ournar- 
 *' row Under ft andings ; and the Revelation God 
 ^' hath given ti^s^. doth not fut m into a capacity 
 /^ to judg of the Nature of the things revealed. 
 You perceive, I fuppofe, that ; he dos not'un- 
 i^erftand the Jews^ as intending that, the 5^- 
 fhiroth are SPIRITS, only in the fenfe oiFir^ 
 tues and Powers : for then he would not haye 
 made them to fay, or approved of their faying 
 that; Our Vnder ft andings are narrow^ and Gt?4's 
 ' Revelation doth not explain the things it revealeth. 
 He would never have put that fort of Apology 
 into their mouths ; if he had not underftood 
 them as intending fuch Spirits, as are fpiritual 
 'Beings^ 2S\d not the Powers only ov Virtues ,oi 
 'a Spiritual Being: for 'tis very intelligible, and 
 ^ even very. ^i'w/y; that/ the ^^//^/V^^^ may, be 
 
 (and 
 
to the foregoing Letter] 1 8 1 
 
 (and are) Powers and Virtues of the Divine 
 Nature. What more obvious than that, Etcr- 
 mty, Wifdom^ and Kj^owledg^ are fo many Pow- 
 ers, Virtues, or Perfections of God ? 
 
 You grant, I have more advantage, where 
 the Doftor faith, the Divine Perfons are three 
 Eiohim ; which he interpreteth to be G O D S ; 
 and where he calleth them, CREATORS, 
 and MAKERS. Let us firft fee, what that 
 advantage is ; by laying together what he bath 
 faid. ' 
 
 ^' In fome places of the Old Teftament, there 
 " are plainly three Divine Perfons fpoken of to- 
 '' gether ; efpecially, in the beginning of Ge^ 
 " nejis : where, it ought to be remembred that 
 " the word Eiohim^ GODS, doth import a 
 " Plurality, p 192. The Propofitions of this 
 Paragraph, are thefe ; i. The Divine Perfons, 
 mentioned in the beginning of Genefis^ are Eio- 
 him. 2. Eiohim fignifies GODS. j. There- 
 fore there is 2iflurdity of Gods. 
 
 " He IMofes-] had the word Eloah, G O !>} 
 ^' in th^ finguUr ; he had alfo other Names of 
 ^' God, all of them Singular ; which he ufes 
 " in other places : any oi them had been fitter 
 '' for his ufe, to root out Poljtheifm ; or the 
 " Opinion of more Gods. p. 117. The Pro- 
 pofitions here are, i. Mofes might have faid 
 Eloah^ GOD. 2. He would have ufed that 
 word, if it had been his defign to extirpate the 
 Opinion of more Gods. 
 
 Mj He 
 
I S I Mr, NyeV A^ifmf 
 
 He tranflates the following Texts, tlitjs; 
 Gen. 20. I J. JVhe;2 the GODS caufed me to 
 winder from my Father'* s Houfe. Eccl. 12. i. 
 Remember thyC R E J T R S^ in the Dxys of tij^ 
 To/^th^ And the in fome Texts to render thq 
 Hebrew words by GODS, and CREATORS, 
 deftroys the Grammatical Senle ; and introduces' 
 a palpable Non-fenfe; yet he will have more 
 Gods, thothe Nonfenfe be never fo apparent, 
 and grofs. Gen. i. i. I/i the heginning^ the 
 GODS H AT H created the Heavens and the 
 Earth, ^ara Eiohim^ Du Creavit^ the Gads 
 buh created'^ felTe Grammar^ and Nonfenfe in 
 ali the three Languages, it Elohim be taken 
 and rendered plurally. Gen. ^5. 7. Jsicoh called 
 the Name of the fUce Beth- el (the Hpufe of 
 G Dj becaufe the GODS there appeared to 
 him.' Jofhua 24. 19. Te cannot ferve THE 
 1 RD , for he is the Wj GOD S. 2 Sam. 
 ^, 0.7^. What one Nation is like to lfi*ael, whom 
 THE GODS have redeemed for a People to 
 H'l MS ElTi 1(^.^4, 5. ThjMJKiERS 
 are thy Husknds^. the UO R D of Hop tsHIS 
 Name.: Ycu will not deny that every one of 
 thcfe Texts thus rendered, is Nonfenfe and falfe 
 Grammar in both Languages; or that, be- 
 caufe IDv. A^ could not but be aware of it, he 
 ought to have feeri chat Elohim is of fmgular 
 fignification, G O D, not G O D S. He ought 
 to have feen that a plurality of Gods cannot 
 J)eeftablifhed from Scripture, as hehasendea- 
 ^■-^ "-' ; vor'd; 
 
to the foregoing Letter. i 8 ; 
 
 vor'd; but by deftroying the Grammatical 
 fenfe thereof, and impofing Nonfenfe on tte 
 Reader. 
 
 Whereas I obferved in the firfl: Letter, that; 
 theDoQorhas not ojFerM theleaft word any 
 where, to mollify, or in abatement of, hispro- 
 feft Tritheijhr^ you have thought fittoapoJo. 
 gize for him. You fty he fometimes fpeaks 
 Orthodoxly ; as where he fays, The Divine 
 EJfeme is common to three Ferfons^ that are ii- 
 Jimguiflj^d from one another bj incommunicable 
 Fr£)/?err/>i: Which you fay again, is both the 
 Language, and fenfi of the Church. It is far 
 from juftifying him from my charge of Trithe* 
 ifm. I fhall tell you, you have mifunder- 
 ftood Dv, A. and the other Gentlemen of this 
 way. 
 
 He faith indeed once^ at page 99. '^ The 
 ^^ Divine Eflenceis common to three Perfons; 
 " that are diftinguifli'd from one another, by 
 ^' incommunicable Properties. 'Tis neither 
 the Language, as you affirm, nor fenfe of the 
 Church ; I mean, as 'tis here put together : 
 the Paragraph, as it here lies, is Heterodox ; 
 tho divided^ and rightly underjiood^ 'tis the 
 Churches Doftrine. 
 
 He faith, *^ The Divine EfTence is common 
 '' to Three Perfons ; which (which Perfons) 
 ^' are diftinguifhM by incommunicable Proper- 
 "■' ties. By his leave, he fhould have faicj ra-, 
 ther, the Divine Effence is diftingujfh'd by Pro- 
 M 4 perties> 
 
J 8 4 ^^« Ny e'5 Jnfwer 
 
 perties ; which Properties (confiderM with the 
 Efledce) arethe Divine Perfons. If we will 
 fpeajc properly, 'tis the Ejfence that is diftin- 
 guifhed by the Properties : and the Properties 
 are the Verfondities ; each of which (Perfo- 
 nalities) confidered with the Effence, isaPer- 
 fon. - 'Tis true, We fay alfo fometimes; the 
 Terfons are diftinguifht 6y incommunicable Pro- 
 perties : but then we mean the Divine EiTenee 
 confidered with (for inftance) the Property 
 to he of none^ or the father, is diflinguifhM from 
 the fame Divine EfTence, confiderM with the 
 Properties to be of the Father^ and of the Fa- 
 ther and Son ; or Reflex WISDOM and 
 Divine LOVE. But at no time, after we 
 have faid, as the Doftor doth, The Divine 
 EJJence is common to three Persons ; do we add, 
 as he doth, which Perfons are diftinguijh^d by 
 incommunicable Properties : for when we fpake 
 of the Effence and Perfons together, in the fame 
 Period ; we fay the Ejfence is diftinguijb^d by 
 Properties^ and not that the Perfons are diJUn- 
 guifh'^d by Properties^ becaufe (in that form of 
 fpeaking) the Perfons \^vq the very Properties 
 that do diftinguifh the Effence, and are themr 
 felves diflinguifli'd only as they are (internal) 
 Relations'^ as was explained in my firfl: Let- 
 ter. 
 
 Farthermore, and efpecially ; when thefe Gen- 
 tlemen that believe the Divine Perfons are di? 
 ftind Beings diwdi Spirits^ fay as Dr.-^. doth; 
 
 the 
 
to the foregoing Letter. 185 
 
 the Divine Effence or Nature is common to three 
 Perfons^ that are difiinguiflj^d (or charactered) by 
 incommunicahle Properties: they are far from 
 intending hereby, as the Church intends ; they 
 xntend to oppofe, and to deftroy, her Faith. 
 They mean as the Human Nature is common 
 to more Men, to Peter ^ James, and John: 
 who are diftinguifh'd from one another by in- 
 communicable Properties, or what is the fame, 
 peculiar Chara^ers ; as that for inftance, John 
 is frefherj taller, xvifer than Peter ; and Peter 
 than James. In the very fame manner, is the 
 Divine Nature common alfo to three Perfons ; 
 or there are tPjree Perfons, each of which is a God: 
 and each diftinguifh'd by his proper Charafter ; 
 for one is the Father, another the Son, and the 
 third a Holy Sprit that proceeded frorn both. 
 We grant, the latter part here is true, namely, 
 that the Divine Perfons are diftinguifhM by 
 tho^Q Characters, or Relations; tho not in /-/^^-zy 
 fenfe: but the others, namely, that the Divine 
 Perfons are diftinguidi'd juft as three Human 
 Perfons are, is deteftable Herefy ; and if not /;^. 
 tentional, yet material Blafphemy ; that is, for 
 the matter of it, 'tis Blafphemy. 
 
 You expefl: that, you have n^/W/y delivered 
 him ; by adding that, his Tritheifm is only ver^ 
 haL He faith indeed, GODS, C R E A- 
 T O R S, M A K E R S ; but withal, he ex- 
 prefly faith in fome other places, there is but 
 one Jehovah^ and but one God. But on the 
 
 con. 
 
i 86 Mr, NyeV Jvfwer 
 
 contrary, he hath rvho/Ij deceived j^«; by the 
 ufual Sophifm, or cauh of the Men of that way. 
 Gentilis^ Dr.Cudworth, Dr. Pain\ and their 
 PredecefTors, Philoponus^ Joachim^ Genehrard^ 
 the they faid, the Perfons of the Trinity are 
 diftinft BEINGS, SPIRITS, and 
 MINDS; tho they faid, the Father is a God, 
 the Son 4 God, the Holy Spirit /i God ; tho 
 they contended that the Divine Perfons are 
 GO DS in the rigor (or propriety) of fpeaking ; 
 yet they all faid at the fame time, as Dr. J. 
 doth, there is bi^t one God. Nay feme of them, 
 2sD\\ Cudrvorth, are very fharp upon fome of 
 the Fathers^ as teaching an implicit Tritheifm ; 
 becaufe they faid, tlie three Divine Perfons are 
 ec^udj in Power, and all other Divine Perfefti- 
 ens. It follows, fdith Dr. Cudworth^ that they 
 are three Gods : the true Doctrine is that, the 
 Father only is Omnipotent adintra^ and hath 
 fo much the fole Authority, that the other two 
 Divine Perfons are wholly dependent on him; 
 and thereby, tho the Son is ^ God, and the holy 
 Spirit /« God, yet only the Father is God, ^t' 
 l^oy^w^ or God by way of Excellence. 
 
 In fliort, thefe Gentlemen teil you that, in 
 fomeitn'icthtvQishutoneGodj for the v^f^W^ 
 the prseeminence, the power and' authority, is 
 in the Father^ and he only is the fole Fountain 
 of the Deity : but in another fenfe, there arq 
 three Gods ; namely as there are three Perfons 
 that are fp m^ny (diftinft) eternal Beings^ or 
 
 Spirits I 
 
to the foregoing Letter. i 87 
 
 *S)/^/>/V/; of like Nature, and PerfeSions ; cqusiU 
 \y Creators^ and equally Lcjr<j/j pf the Creation. 
 They exprefs this, in divers forms; moft 
 commonly thus: Each Divine Perfon is ^ God, * 
 and there being three Divine Perfom^ of necefli- 
 ty there are three Gods in the Perfomlfcnk of 
 the word God ; but then becaufe there is but 
 ofie Divine Nature , in this fenfe (which takes 
 the word God ejfenttdly) there is but one God. 
 The F/'W contills in this; by one Divine Na- 
 ture, one Godhead, and one God, they mean ; 
 'v^God, the Godhead, or Divine Nature^ are/(? 
 one, as Mm^ or Human Nature is one. Man^ 
 ovthQ Human Nature^ includes a great number 
 of particular Men ; Peter^ James^ John, and 
 innumerable more; in like manner the P/i//»^ 
 Nature, or God^ is alfo but one ; tho there are 
 three individuals in that Nature, each of which 
 is 4 God. 
 
 Shortly, whereas 'tis very common to ufe 
 the word Man, for the Human Nature, which 
 includeth many particular Men ; as when we 
 fay, God and Man, Man and Beaft, or any 
 fuch like: and in this fenfe there is but one 
 Man^ becaufe there is but one Human Nature, 
 Juft fo, fd) thefe Gentlemen, God is but one, or 
 there is hut one God, namely when by God we 
 niean the Divine Nature, which includeth three 
 perfonal Gods ; the Father who is a God, the 
 Son who is 4 God, and the Spirit who alfo is 
 4 Cod. They mean to fay, there are as truly 
 
 « aad 
 
1 88 Mr.-tiyQ'sAnfwer 
 
 and really more Gods^ as there are more Me;f : 
 yet we fay alfo God in the fmguUr, becaufe 
 ,we then intend the Divine Nature^ or God- 
 head, that comprifes three Gods; aswefome- 
 times {2iy Man^ in the fingular, becaufe we 
 mean the Human Nature, or Manhood, that 
 comprifeth many Particular Men. 
 
 Dr. A. hath moft plainly difcovered that, 
 he intends as did thofe Gentlemen ; he means 
 one God, and one "Jehovah^ juft in the fenfe 
 that they did : namely, three Gods in the 
 concrete, or in reality ; one God in the abftra6t 
 way of fpeaking, or fpeakingas aMetaphyfi- 
 cian. And otherwife, I pray, tell me; what 
 occarion had he to fay, as he doth ; '' There 
 *' is' but one "Jehovah, but there is Jehovah 
 ^^ ^nd Jehovah and Jehovah : tliQYQ is but one 
 ^^ God, but th^VQ^vQ three Elohim^ and Elo- 
 " him IS GODS: the G O D S created the 
 ** Heavens, and the Earth ; the GODS 
 " caiifed me to wander ; Remember thy Cr^^ 
 ^' ators^ ; thy Makers are thy Husbands ? No 
 Orthodox Divine, or that means not as Joa- 
 chim^ Gent His ^ Cudrvorth, and Pain did ; but 
 heartily and fincerely means, as the Church 
 meaneth ; would ever fay, or could have oc- 
 cafion to fay, as our Author doth, Jehovah, 
 Jehovah 2ind Jehovah^ three Elohim, Elohim 
 is GO D S ; and the reft before quoted. Nor 
 &» thofe Expreffions, and PerverfionsofHo- 
 
to the foregoing Letter. ' i 89 
 
 ly Scripture and of the Catholic Faith, beany 
 other way reconciled to th^DodinnQ o? l?ut one 
 Jehovah^ and but one God. ; than is before faid. 
 There cannot be Jehovah^ Jehovah and jTe- 
 hovah, three Elohir^, GODS, C R E A- 
 TORS, M A K E R S ; in any other fenfe 
 but this, three Gods in the concrete way of 
 fpeaking, one in the abflract way. That is, 
 three true and real Gods ; one metaphyfical, 
 notional, abftrafted, imaginary, phantaftic 
 God. 
 
 Sir. I have but toucliM on thefe things ; but 
 if occafion be given, I will deduce them more 
 largely ; I will make them evident to the 
 very meaneft capacity. In the mean time, 
 I pray read Dr. Cudworth\ IntelleGual Sy- 
 flem\ Dr. P^/Vs Letter, and Findkatwn, to 
 the Bifhop of R. the two Trafts, called Coff- 
 fiderations on the Explications of the Doctrine of 
 the Trinity: you will feei in thefe Books that, 
 the ranked Tritheifls have feveral fraudulent 
 fenfes, in which they can fay, and do fay, 
 htdt one Jehovah^ and but one God \ while 
 they as much mean three Gods^ as any Pa- 
 gan ever did. You will confefs, I have not 
 wronged Dr. A^ but rather that you have 
 miftaken me, where you fay; that I advff- 
 ed with my paflions, and that* I too much 
 remembred'he had injured pie ;\ao^^ that this 
 
 bcca* 
 
1 9 o Mr. Nye^i Anfwer. 
 
 occafioned my charging him with Trithi^ 
 
 ifm, 
 
 I am, 
 
 Your afTured Friend, 
 
 Brother and Servant; 
 July s. 170U 
 
 S.K 
 
 7 HE ETSiD. 
 
 ERRATA, 
 
 PAgc 17. line 22. for or read of, P. 18. 1. 20. for the^ i.thefe. 
 P. 10. 1. 9. r. in the Baith, P. 20. 1. 7. dele V« P. 69. I. 27. 
 for Afin/, r.W7n(/. V,S$.l2^.r,NiftorkaL ?, iiiA, s.r.cal- 
 ledthem, P.i^^, J. ,p. r. Epjfllcs, P. 145.1.(5. dele fo. P. 152- 
 1. 9. r. particular, P. 1 84. 1, ip. r. fpeak,, P. 1 8 5. i.2 1. r. o^/kjr/. 
 
Advertifement. 
 
 AN Hiftorical Account, and Defence, of the 
 Canon of the New Teftament. la An- 
 fwer to Mr. ToUncCs Amjntcr. 
 
 The Syftem of Grace, and Free-wilJ ; as 
 'tis held in the Catholick Church, and the 
 Church of England ; propofed, and vindicated. 
 Both by Stephen Nje, Reftor'of Hormead. 
 
 'Sold by A, Bell at the Crofs-keys and Bible 
 in Cornhil. 
 
INSTITUTIONS> 
 
 Concerning the 
 
 HOLY TRINITY, 
 
 And the Manner of our 
 
 Saviours Divinity; 
 
 BEING, 
 
 I, An Explication or Declaration of the (Ge- 
 neral and Current) Do£i:rine of the Catho- 
 lic Church, concerning thofe Articles ; and a 
 Defence of the fame, againft the Socimaris 
 and Tritheijls. And an Abftraft or Summary 
 of the XV Books of St. Auflin^ concerning 
 the Article of the Trinity, and the defending 
 Articles and Queftions ; with the Claufes of 
 the Confeffion of Faith, of the Oriental or 
 Greek Church, that explain alfo the fame. 
 
 II. A Scholaftic DifTertation, that reprefents the 
 Dodrine of the other Latin and Gretk Fathers, 
 of the Schoolmen, and of the Divines of the 
 Reformation. This laft from the Latin \ but with 
 a ConcluIioD, and Notes added to it. 
 
 The Whole an Abridgment of the Learning on 
 thefe Articles. 
 
 V" 
 
 By STEPHEN NTE, Reaor of Hormead. 
 
 1,0 N D O N^ Printed, and fold by J. Nun 
 near Stacioners Hall. 1703. 
 
Sando & Reverendo 
 
 Clero ^ngUcatno, 
 
 HAS, D E 
 
 DIVINA TRINITATE, 
 
 D E au E 
 
 ChRISTO oEANGPa'nn, 
 
 INSTITUTIONES; 
 
 Cenfendas 
 
 DD. LM. 
 
 STEPHANVS NTE. 
 
 A s 
 
The Preface. 
 
 By how much the more Wit or good Senfe 
 any Manha^, by fo much (always) 
 he isjnore Curious and Inquifi- 
 tive ; and content {or rather pleafed) l^ith 
 the i^ains^ and Mention, that are necejfary 
 to a full and lure Information : more efpeeial- 
 ly concerning important SubjeBsy and that are 
 much litigated. Hpr willfuch mijlake Depth, 
 for Obfcurity ; or Accuracy, for Nicenefs or 
 (Precifity. It is fuch a Reader that this 'Book 
 requires ; and it will profit no others : more 
 efpecially the Second Part o//f, or the Dif- 
 fertation. ©wt / will gi^e a particular Ac- 
 count of the Whole ; that emy Reader may 
 judg for himfelfy whether he ought to meddle 
 with ity yea or no ? 
 
 7he Firft Part has two (Principal) SeBi^ 
 ons. 7he frft SeBion is only fome Part of the 
 l(i and /\ih Letters, fuhlifhed about two Years 
 ago^ under the Title of The Poftrin of the 
 
 Holy 
 
The Preface. 
 
 Holy Trinity ^and the manner of our Sa- 
 viour's Divinity, as they are held in the 
 Catholic Church and the Church of Eng* 
 land ,• in four Letters, to a Peer. Eut 
 here IhaVe eocj^latned /ome things more clearly ^ 
 and fully ^ than m thofe Letters : and I hay e 
 exprejjed fome others more in the Forms and to 
 the Mind of the Metaphyficians, and Scho- 
 laftics ; to take away Occaftonfrom thofe Med- 
 lars in Learning, who being but Cavillers, 
 would yet fet u[> for Critics. The other Sec- 
 tion of this Part, U an Abridgment of the 15 
 ^ooks of St. Auftin, concerning the Holy 
 Trmity 5 becaufethe Authority of this Father 
 h46 always been reverenced m deci{ive,(£;/ped- 
 ally in tUfe Queflions) by the Catholic Church. 
 This Part wtU be obvious and eafy enoughy to 
 whatfoeVer ^ader ; and contains nothing but 
 what is neceffary to be known by all, for the 
 avoiding o/Herefy, or Trithcifm. 
 
 Tl)e fecond Part, being a Scholajlic Dif- 
 fer tat ion, will require more Attention in the 
 Reader ^ and that he be content to go oVer it 
 more than once : if he ^ipould fuUy under jlani 
 all of it. ^ut for the fake of thofe, who are 
 indeed the mofi^ that loVe not to take too much 
 
 A } Tains ^ 
 
The Preface. 
 ^ains ; 1 haVe added a Conclufion, '^hich is 
 a Summary and an Elucidation of the Differ- 
 ration : all the Opinions are there clearly re- 
 prefented^ and a Judgment made of them. 
 7he SeBions of the Vijfertation^ are thefe ; 
 
 L May the VoUrine of the Trinity, he^ 
 ing a Myftery, k explained ? 
 
 II. How much of the DoBrlne of the Iri- 
 nity^ is necejfary to he belieVedhy all Chrijlians^ 
 as a Condition of their Salvation i 
 
 III. What Traces and LikeneJJes of the Pi- 
 Vme Jrinity may we find in the External 
 Creation? 
 
 IV. What in the Jium^n Soul, or SouV 
 of Man ? 
 
 V. Is there a Trinity of f^llSlCIPLES 
 (or Effential Attributes) in Gody as well a$ 
 in the Soul ? 
 
 VI. In what doth the Trinity o/(P(^72S[. 
 ClPLES in the Souly agree with the Divine 
 Trinity of Principles or Peribns ? 
 
 VII. Is the Trinity 0/ Principles and of 
 Perfons in Gody the fame } Tins Sedion 
 hath many leffer onesy viz. 
 
 I. What doth the Term Logos {which 
 m render WO^D) fignify in the context of 
 
 St. 
 
The Preface. 
 St, John, Chap. i. I^erf. i, 2, &c. 
 
 2. fr/;^t i^^Perfon? 
 
 3. l^/;^f is a Relation, in God? 
 
 4. What are the Foundations of the l^e- 
 lations in God ? 
 
 5. Wherein do the Divine ?nncipks {or 
 lowers ) in Qod^ dijfer from one another ? 
 
 6. What have the Fathers /ai^i of this Mat- 
 ter ? 
 
 7. VFhat is the VoSirine of the Scholaf* 
 tics, or Divines of the middle Ages? 
 
 8. FFhat have the Divines of the Refor- 
 mation ( thofe that began andperfeEied the (?^e- 
 formation) /aid? 
 
 VIII. The Determination and Judgment 
 of the Author^ concerning the Divine ^^IR'^ 
 ClfLES and ^E%S01siS. 
 
 IX. His ^ropojitions concerning the Tri- 
 mty ; Name and Thing. 
 
 X. Ihe Conclufion, hy the Tranflator; 
 being a Sum ^ and Elucidation, of the 
 whole. 
 
 When the SchooUDoHors fpeak here, it 
 will feem Jometimes obfcure, fometimes 
 flat ,• to thofe that underfland not the Meta- 
 phyfical Terms and potions ; but Learned 
 
 Men 
 
The Preface^; 
 Men know that^ thofe accurate DiJlinBms 
 and VtViftons are ufefuly and are almojl necef- 
 faryy to an exaB i\nowled^ of Things. Sut 
 DivineSjOr any that fludy Theology ^muft by 
 no means he wholly unacquainted with them ; 
 becauje 'ii?ithout 'em^ they cannot read the ahlefl 
 Authors^ efpecially in the Trinitarian and 
 Quinquarticular ControVerjies. This Dif- 
 fertation, read fometimes, will acquaint a 
 capable ^ader with the meaning ofmo/i of the 
 Scholaftic and Metaphyfical Notions and 
 Terms. Armandus de Bello vifu (or 
 Bellovifius ) has explained almojl all of them ^ 
 in his Lexicon ; Scheibler Verj/ many of 
 them^ in his Metaphyfics. 
 
 1 Jhould excufe the great Number of An-- 
 thorSy and Authorities here^ to the fame things 
 if I did not fore fee thaty it ts ahfolutely neceffa^ 
 ry for appeafing thoje, who will be fo much 
 furpri:^ed that the Faith of the Churchy isfo 
 different fro?n the Vulgar ineaning of the Terms 
 in which //;e expreffes it. 
 
 I expefly to be again charged^ 04 too nice 
 and curious in thefe Inllitutions ; I refer 
 my felf therefore to what J haVe largely faid 
 thereupon^ in divers places j of this Treatife. 
 
The Preface. 
 If that will not fatisfy^ T mujl anjmr tofucb 
 my AccuJerSy cvs they deferve : 7iamely that^ 
 Fools are always Incurious ; and all the In- 
 curious ifo far forth y or in proportion thereto) 
 are Fools. Jofuch^ I never intended to write; 
 and theyfhall do well^ not to concern themjelves 
 with Sooks* 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 PAgeg. lin. 15. for always, read ordinarily, P. §. 1.^2, 550 
 dele it ii the Individual IntelleSifial Nature, P. 2$. I. 8, 9. 
 f. conjiantly^ r. ordinarily. P. 41. 1. 32, 33. r. under]} and, P. 47. 
 I. g. r. dicitur, P. 52. 1. 26, r. Oeconomies, ?.6^, I. 27, 28. r. 
 miferable, P.71. I.i$. r. concrete, P.72,74,7^,78j8o. r. the run- 
 ning Tide thus, Some Queftions and Controverjies, P. 109. 1. 9. f. 
 ^Kf, r,All, P. 128. 1. 31, r. fitf;\<s^ P. 147. J. 31. r. Soncinas. P. 
 1^7. I. 29. x,Gisbert, 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT, 
 
 THE three following Books publifh'd by Mr. Stephen Nye^ 
 which contain a Vindication of the Catholick Church and 
 the Church of England^ in feveral Important Points of Faith, 
 may be had of J, Nutt near Stationers Hall, either fingle, or 
 bound up with thefe Inftitutions • vi:^. 
 
 The Syftem of Grace and Freewill, in a Vifitation-Sermon. 
 
 A Defence of the Canon of the New Teftament, in anfwer 
 to Mr. Toland's Amyntor, 
 
 . The Doftrine of the Holy Trinity, and the Manner of our Sa- 
 viour's Divinity. In feveral Letters to a Peer. 
 
A Catalogue of the Authors cited 
 in this Treatife. 
 
 FATHERS. 
 
 jithanafiw. 
 
 ^mbrofius, 
 
 uinfelmus, 
 
 Jgnellus, 
 
 Andreoi Cdfarienf, 
 
 Bafilms C^farienf 
 
 Baftlim SeUuc, 
 
 Boethius, 
 
 Clemens Rom, 
 
 Cletnens Alexandr, 
 
 Cyprianus, 
 
 Confiantims M- 
 
 CyrillM Hierof, 
 
 Cyrilltii Alexandr, 
 
 Chryfofiomw, 
 
 Cloryfologus. 
 
 Cafarius. 
 
 Damajcenus, 
 
 Eugenihs Carthuf 
 
 Bdmnndns Cmtuar. 
 
 Efhram, 
 
 Epipbanius. 
 
 Fulgenms, 
 
 GennadtHsScheL 
 
 GregoriHS Nyf, 
 
 Gregorins Naz. 
 
 GregoriHS Thafsmat, 
 
 GMtm^mdiiS. 
 
 GuilielmHs Parifienfis, 
 
 G erf on, 
 
 Huronymus. 
 
 Hugo de S, FiCiore. 
 
 Hilarius Pi^av. 
 
 JtiftiriHS, 
 
 Iremens, 
 
 Joannes Hierof, 
 
 Ifidorpts Peluf, 
 
 Lhcianpts Mart, 
 
 LaCianttHS. 
 
 Leo I. Rom, 
 
 Mac ar ins, 
 
 Maximus Mart, 
 
 Methodms. 
 
 Origenes, 
 
 Peregrinus Lauren* 
 
 Potho. 
 
 SyneJtHS. 
 
 Tatianus. 
 
 TheophilHs Antioch. 
 
 TertftHianHS, 
 
 Thi^ 
 
Authors cited in this Treatifc; 
 TheoriarJHS, Zeno Verenenf, 
 
 TheoJorns Ahnc, ZAnhatm Mct^Un» 
 
 lUS. 
 
 SCHOOLMEN, 
 
 AQuinas. 
 AlhertinHs, 
 Aureolus, 
 jiUnfis. 
 ^gidihs Rom, 
 Bajjolis. 
 BofjaventHra, 
 JBiel, 
 
 Cajetanus, 
 Capreolus. 
 JDnrandHS. 
 EfiiHs, 
 FerrtHS, 
 Ferrarienfis. 
 
 Fonfeca. 
 
 FrancifcHS a S» Clara, 
 
 Faber, 
 
 Cregorius de FalentiB, 
 
 HenricHS Gandav, 
 
 Httrtadus dc Mend, 
 
 Holkot. 
 
 Berv£fif NatalU, 
 
 Joannes de Rifa, 
 LychetHS, 
 Lyranns. 
 Lombardfis, 
 Molina, 
 Mairo. 
 Meurijfe. 
 
 NkholaHs D' OrbeUUi 
 OckamHs. 
 Palacios, 
 Tetrus a Jofefh, 
 Rada, 
 
 I Richardns de S. FiSl^e, 
 ScotHs. 
 Scotellus. 
 Soncinas. 
 SnareJiHS, 
 Toletus, 
 Trombeta, 
 VafqHefiHS, 
 ZabareUa* 
 
 MODERNS, 
 
Authors cited in this Treatife. 
 
 MODERNS. 
 
 ALt'wgiHS. 
 Armmus. 
 Amefttis. 
 'Bez.a, 
 BecayiHS* 
 Bncanw, 
 BHilingerHS, 
 jBeHmlerus. 
 Baxterus, 
 Calvims* 
 Cluto, 
 Chamiertts. 
 
 Deodatu S''\\^-^-^-^ 
 
 X>Htch Annotations^ 
 
 Davenamtts, , 
 
 FayHS, 
 
 Forbefttis^ a Corfe, 
 
 Fennems. 
 
 GomaYHS, 
 
 Grotms. 
 
 Harmonia Cottfeffmm. 
 
 lHyricHs. 
 
 jHmits, 
 
 Janfenm. 
 
 Kec\ermanms, 
 
 MMCOvius^ 
 
 Maidonatm* 
 
 1 Martyr, 
 
 iMn[cnlHS^ 
 Matth. Adartinius. 
 Marejtus, 
 MeUnchton, 
 Par£us, 
 Pctavms* . 
 FoUniif, 
 Pofewitz* 
 Polyander* 
 Sohnius, 
 Snecanus, 
 JuL Scaligtr, 
 Scheihkrm, 
 ScharpHS, 
 Sfanhemius, 
 trelcacifis Jnn. 
 ThyftHS, 
 
 7hefes Sedanenps. 
 Thefes SdmHrienfes^ 
 FalU. 
 P. Foetm. 
 Vrfims, 
 
 IVigandns^ 
 ZanchitiS, 
 Zmnglihs, 
 
 Infti 
 
( o 
 
 Inftitutions, concerning the Holy 
 Trinity, and the Manner of fms 
 Saviour's Divinity. 
 
 P ART L 
 
 An Explication or Vedaratm of the (Gene- 
 ral and Current) J)oBrine of the Catholick. 
 
 ' Churchy and of the Church of England, 
 concerning thofe Articles ; and a defence 
 of the fame^ againfl the Sodtihas^ mu4 
 Tritheifts. 
 
 IT is felf.evidentthat, to hold the Dodrincs of 
 the Trinity, and of our Saviour's Rivinity; 
 in the Terms only, without knowing the Senfc 
 intended (by the Catholick Church); in thofe 
 Terms; is to be no more fofitively Orthodox^ .in thsSs 
 Articles, than an /<5^f<7ns. ; 
 
 rkj» properly are Infidels,, or Vribslievers^' that 
 know not ( or what is the fame, Hnderftandvot): the 
 •Faith of the Church. To know it, and yec deny ir^ 
 is not un-bslief, but dif belief. _^V , 
 
 There is no other difference between fuch a Hea- 
 ■hen, that nevfer heard of the Trinity i andaChri- 
 ilian^ that uBderftands not what he ought to mean 
 
 iB by 
 
2 An Expire ation of the CatholkkDo&rwe 
 
 by it •, but that the latter is culpably (if not dam- 
 nably ) ignorant, as having both negleded his Du- 
 ty, and abufed his Opportunities ^ and the other 
 (the Heathen; hath neither of thofe Guilts upon 
 him, he fliall anfwer only for his Immoralities. 
 
 Whereas fomc fay here, the Trinity and Incar- 
 nation are Myfteries , and that therefore all ( pre- 
 tended) Explications and Declarations of theni,are 
 to berejeded •, as not only Prefumptuous, but Falfe 
 alfo. It is true indeed that, fo far forth as any thing 
 is a Myftery^ *tis not Intelligible, and therefore not 
 Explicable. But the Objedors yvere never taught 
 by the Catholick Church, that thefe Articles of the 
 Chi iftian Faith are whoUy and altogether Myfteries -^ 
 but Myfteries^ in fome fart and degree revealed : and 
 that, fo far forth as they are revealed, they may 
 and oiigijt to be declared and expounded, to fuch as 
 do not competently know them, or are in Errors 
 concerning them. That thefe Articles are Myfteries 
 revealed in feme fart and degree^ is a^ much held 
 and taught ( 2nd inculcated alfo) by the Catholick 
 Church V as that, they are in fome refpeds ( ftill ) 
 great a^d abfolute Myfteries. 
 
 1 hope, thefe prefent Papers ( the Effeds of much 
 Study and Reading, and of long Confideration) 
 ^^vill fufficiently declare the revealed Fart of thefe 
 Myfteries : which is fo neceflary to be known, for 
 the avoiding divers /^^rf/i^i; and which the Catho- 
 lick Church therefore hath fo many ways propofed 
 to her Children. As, in thz Creeds^ 2nd Canons of 
 Councih ; in the folemn Condemnations of divers He-- 
 retick^y or Here fie s •, and in the VidalUcal and Contro' 
 verfial Writivgs of fo many Fathers^ Schoolmen^ and 
 Modern Divines. I fay therefore. 
 
 The Belief of the Church in thefe (neceflary) 
 Articles of, three Divine Perfons^ and the Divinity of 
 our Saviour •, as it lies in the Creeds and Canons of 
 
 Councils y 
 
Part L cof2cerning the Holy Trinitj. g| 
 
 CfiUHciis, the (judicial) Condemniitioni of HerefieSf 
 and the Current of affroved Writtrs ^ may be couch- 
 ed in thefe ( following ) Heads, or Diftindtions. 
 
 f. T}[\zrthbt*tOne ( Infinite All-perfed ) uncred^ 
 ted BEING, SPIRIT, or MIND, whois folt 
 MAKER of Heaven, and E^rth i Jole Ohjedt of 
 Divine Worfhip, properly fo called ^ and whona we 
 ufually defign by this word, GOD* 
 
 II. The Divinity, or God, (and tnore efpecially 
 the £e;^o/, WISDOM, or WORD) hath af- 
 fumed the Humanity of Chriil, into fuch an inti- 
 mate, perfonal, and indiffolnhle Union with ic felf 5 
 that thereby the Human Narure is always under Di-^ 
 vine Illumination, and Conduft *, and the Divinity 
 doth always exert its natural and eternal PerfeUions in^ 
 and (as far as the Htttnanity if cafable) hy the Human 
 Nature, 
 
 Whenlfiry, the natural and eternal Perfedfions of 
 the Divinity j I mean the Attributes of Omnifciencef 
 and Omnipotence^ and the reft For the Omnifcience 
 of the LordChriftwa mmifciled in the knowkdg 
 of the IhoHghts^ and of the Future : His rf impotence^ 
 in the Power of Miracles •, and of Creatm^ as wfaea 
 he twice mtltiplied the Loaves. 1 
 
 When I fay, at far as the Hnmanity is capable^ h h 
 to obviate the Eutychian Herefy, chat turned the Hu^ 
 manity into God: And becaufe foaie of the Divine 
 Perfedions feem altogether incommunicable, as the 
 Omni'pr e fence ^ and Pra- eternity '^ tho alfo Chrift as 
 God, or with refpeU to the inhabiting DiHinity^ is Prs-* 
 eternal, and Omni-prefent. 
 
 The Catholick Churtn expreffes this Faith very 
 jaftifiably, by the Terms hcarnatiofi , PerfonalVnij- 
 on, God J God' man. Some others, more nice than is 
 needful, keep to the words of Scripture ythe Man 
 
4 An Explication of thefytholkl^ D0rine 
 
 Jeffif ChKifl^in whom dmtteth the Fdnefs of ,ihe God^ 
 head: which yet is all that the Church means by thofe 
 exceedlng.prop^r Terois>?»c4rw^/p«, (/(7^-w<i«, &c. ^ 
 We fhali fee by and by very fully, what is intend-, 
 ed by the L^gos (r which the Greek. Church interprets 
 W I S D O M V the Latin^. not fo properly , WORD) 
 and which we fay woi Incarnate* Bu| here we muft . 
 fo far anticipate, as to obferve that^ whereas 'tis 5 
 the general (and I think, truer) Qpiqion, thatjon* 
 ly t4ie WISDOM, or SON was incarnate, not 
 the whole T R I N IT Y;v/tis to be Udderftood thus. 
 The W I S DO M (not as 'tis a mere PERSONA- 
 LITY, but ) as 'tis Uoderftood with, or as it Im- 
 plies and Comfrifeth that whole Divine Nature^ or God- 
 head^ -with all its AttribHtes and Perfe^ions^ wm united 
 to the Humanity of ottr Saviour^ or doth inhabit his 
 Human Natnre: whereby he is as compleatly and 
 perfe(ftly God, as he ftould be if the whole Trinity 
 (and not the SON only) were Incarnate. And 
 by occalion hereof, I muft add alfo tiere > when we 
 fay, the Divinity (the Fdnefs of the Godhead^ as St. 
 Z'^iw/fpeaks) doth inhabit, or is united to the Hu- 
 manity of Chrifl: 'Tis not meant by the Church, 
 the Divinity becomes ^«^ commenfurate to the Huma- 
 nity^ Infinite to Finite i nor yet, as Entyches ima- 
 gined, that^^f Humanity u deified^ that ill becomes 
 Omniprefent^ Jmfajfible^ and the reft of that kind ^ 
 Perfedions that are plainly incommunicable tq the ' 
 Humanity, and would deilroy it. But we mean v as 
 God is pei:fe{Ily and equally Go^ in whatfoever porti- 
 on of.fpace, in the leafi imaginable Extenfion, no 
 lefs than in the wWe Immenfity of his Eflence : 
 therefore he can fully and p^y/^^/y communicate 
 liimfelf to the Humamty of Chrifl, tho but F/w//^. 
 As the whole Nature artd (phyficaO Perfedion of •• 
 Fire, is in every part of the Fire, even in a Spark v^ 
 and the whole (confiitHiive) Perfedion and Nature , 
 
 of 
 
Part I. cdncermng the Holj Trimij, * 5 , 
 
 of Water is in a lingle i?r<?p, no lefsthan in the 
 whole Khine or Danube : So is the whole Nature and 
 (effential) Perfedion of God in every (and the 
 leaft) affignable part of the Divine Infinitude. .Buc^ 
 if we referve thefe Confiderations, till we are got 
 okr the next Head, or Particular, they will be more 
 eafily and fully apprehonded . 
 
 III. God is moft perfedlly One^ in refpeB of Ef^: 
 fence^ Vnderjianding^ Tower of AElion^ and IfiU"^ 
 thefe are truly and numerically one in God, as in an 
 Angela or a Man, There is however fuch a Modal 
 Diftmlion in God, that thereupon he is t^^Afr^, and ^ 
 three Perfons j not in the ordinary and vidlgar Senfc 
 of the term Perfon, but in the Theological, / 
 
 This modal Diflindion "hath been declared and 
 explained, with fome Latitude j as to the Tfrwj,and 
 even astotheCW^^^rA?/ the Perfons, .. , 
 
 Some Divines (as well Fathers as Schoolmen) 
 make the Charader of theiirft Perfon to" be aQive 
 Fower^ or Life, or VITAL ACTIVITY j of 
 the Second, to be VnderftanMng, or Wifdom, or 
 SELF-KNOWLEDG^ of the Third, Z.(?z;^, or 
 WILL. For Love in God is not, as in us, a Paf- 
 iion; but his Effential WILL, In fliort, thefe 
 Jthree, SELF-Ll V ING, SELF-KNOW^ING, 
 SELF-LOVING, are God's (Eflential Immanent) 
 ji^s on himfelf, the Eternal Object : therefore feve- 
 ralof the Antients, of the School- Dodors, and^of 
 the Moderns, go no farther, in accounting for (he 
 Myftery of the Trinity. They aljedg that, >'A 
 " Divine Perfon is a Mode^ or Property, of an 
 *' individual intelle(ftual Nature ^ it is the indi- 
 " vidhal JnteUeCiual Nature \ it is the individual Di- 
 *' vine Nature, with a difcretive Property, or parti' 
 ^f cular Mode. Confequentiy, God, or the Divine 
 ' Nature, is THREE PERSONS, on the ac- 
 
 B 5 ** count 
 
6 An Explication of the Gatholicl^Vlo^rine 
 
 " count of the aforefaid Modes or Properties ^ that 
 *' u;, as he is SELF- LIVING, SELF-KNOWlNG, 
 **• and SELF-LOVING. Nor \^h^ more than Thrfc 
 ** P^rfbns^ becaufe the fe are the only EfTential, Im- 
 ^^m'&rit^i'Xov Internal) AftsofGod. 
 
 ThefeDtjdors were never f:enfured, or blamed in 
 the Churchy as defedive in the Faith, or as lefs Or- 
 thodox than they oughc to haver been. The Fathers 
 that ^0 this way, arenientioned in the (folloyving) 
 Divert ation: The School- Doctors that I have noted, 
 are bur and. i. d,^S. qa, i. Thorn, i. qn, i(), a 
 4. ad cjuintHm^ ^TiA €^H*if. art, \. Snarez^ Meta- 
 fhyf. d'tfp, s,p, p. II 3, I ^ 4' Of the IVloderns, Wert- 
 dilinHs^ jilfcdm^ and SceihUr, Of pur Evglifa Di- 
 vmt% Mv* Baxter in hh Catholic Iheology^ hwX. '^t- 
 ry largely in his Methodm TheologU ^ indeed it is the 
 governing Thought that direfts his y^holt Method 
 pr Sytlcm, and goes through it. 
 
 But becaufe tho this Explication accounts for the 
 potion of P E R S O N S in the Divine Nature ; yet 
 it doth not, with fo obvious Facility, fatisfy for the 
 RELATIONS (Father^ Son^ and 4'p^'m that fro- 
 ieeds from both) in God : therefore the more cur- 
 rent Expofition is St. Ji^ftin^y as here followeth. 
 
 The ^r/? Perfon in the Holy Trinity, is u7ihegottci$ 
 Mind, oxlmelle^, or ORIGINAL WISDOM ; the 
 foleCaufe (or Principle) of the S'^^a;?^, and there- 
 fore (hy analogy to things Natural^ and condefcenfio^ 
 to the HHmanVnderflandmg) called the FATHER. 
 
 Next is the Logos^ the Reflex or begotten WIS* 
 DOM\ even the IVifdom th2th generated by, or 
 that refulteth from, Eternal MIND's contempUting 
 and knowing its own Perfcdions 5 tjiat Ideal Repre- 
 fentation, Self-knowledg, or exfrefs Jma^e (as St. 
 Fanl fpeaks ) that is neceflarily begotten within him- 
 felf, by the F^tW'*s knowing and underftanding hira-r 
 ielf, and therefore is named the SON. f 
 
Part I. conarning the Holy TrinHj, 7 
 
 Lsfilyj The Divine Volition or LOVE (the joint 
 Ad of Father and Son by which God loveth or 
 willtth\i\m\di-^ the Eternal SPIRATION, or, as it 
 were, hrtathing of Love towards himfelf •, on that 
 account fitly caUed the SPIRIT. 
 
 They do not mean however that, mere WIS- 
 DOM, or KNOWLEDG, or LOVE in God, js a 
 F€rfon : but each of thefe Idioms, as 'r^ under[tood 
 with., or M it incltkieth the Divine Natnrey <r Godhead^ 
 wth allits Attributes and Perftifiorts^ u rightly called a 
 Ter forty and a Divine Per [on. And hence alfo we 
 fay, each Perfon is truly and properly GOD, B E- 
 ING, SPIRIT-, but not4God> a Being, 4 Spi- 
 rit ; becaufe ^tis the fame (numerical) God^ Beings 
 Spirit^ who, as having thefe three Idioms ( Cha- 
 raders, Ads, Modes, Perfonalitles) is therefore 
 named Three Perfons. 
 
 It is (undeniably) with refped to this Explica- 
 tion of the Trinity, that the Divines of the Schoolsy 
 the General Councils of the Lateran and Lyons^ the 
 Councils of Toledo^ ^c, have defined that, the SOM 
 is eternally generatedy and the SPIRIT eternally pro- 
 cuds. They rightly make the Generation and Spira- 
 tion (or Proceflion) to be Eflential, Permanent, and 
 Eternal Ads *, becaufe eternal original Mind mull 
 needs be underftood Xfi Know, and fVili^ or LOVE 
 it felf, by a continual perpetual A^. And from hence 
 alfo they truly infer that, the Generation and Pro- 
 ceflion are natural and nccejfary^ not arbitrary and free 
 Ads. As alfo that, tiiere can be no more Perfons in 
 the Divine Nature, but only thefe three-, only ori- 
 ginal MIND, the reflex WISDOM, and the eternal 
 Spiration of Love, or SELF-COMPLACENCE : 
 for thefe compleat the Notion, and Perfedion of 
 God; and without them he ftould neither be Happy, 
 nQv God. 
 
 « / LOVE 
 
8 An Explication of the Catholick, Do&rine 
 
 LOVE naturally arifeth, or proceedeth, from 
 what is apprehended, and is KNOW N^ as oht 
 greateft and wofi connatural Good: And the greateft 
 Good of God can be no other, but that he perfedly 
 KNOWETH himfdfs for He only is a ferfe^ OhjcU. 
 From whence we fee, how the Spirit, who is the 
 Divine LOVE, proceeds from the Father and the Son^ 
 ( or from Mind or INTELLECT, and from SELF- 
 KNOWLEDG s ) and that this whole Difcourfe, of 
 Original MIISD, rete KNOWLEDG, and LOVE, 
 is verified ( as the Schools and Metaphyficians fpeak ) 
 in the Divine Nature. 
 
 When yfc fay, this Trinity is a MyBery •, 'tis be- 
 caufe all the Terms in which the Holy Scriptures ot 
 Church have delivered thefe Articles, are equivocal, 
 or do nof: fignify the fame thing as in Human Speech : 
 Father^ Son ^ and Spirit zvQ not here intended, as a- 
 mong Men •„ as neither is Perfons. Perfons, Father^ 
 Son^ Spirity Generation^ Proceffiofjy Spiration^ Begot ^ 
 ten^ in the Divinity are fo called, as was before faid, 
 only by an Analogy (or remote Itkeneff) to things 
 Natural^ and by condefienfion to the Human Vnder^ 
 fi an dinger. In all crtf^M Perfons, fo many Perfons are 
 fo many djftind SuhftanceSy Vnder (landings ^ Wills^ 
 and Powers of Atlion ^ they are fo many diftind BE- . 
 INGS, MINDS, and SPIRITS. In like manner al- 
 fo do Fa/^^y* and 5o« differ, iq all the created kindt*, 
 they are asdiftindt andfeveral ( by their refpedive 
 Subftamces^ Vnderfiandings^ Wtlls) as three Angels 
 do differ (or are diftind) from three Men. How 
 extremely unlike is this Alterity and Diverfity, to 
 the r^l Unity of the Divine Perfons^ or of Father, 
 Son, and Spirit, in God? For thefe in God, as we 
 h^ve faid, are not diftinguilhed, by diflincl Sabflan- 
 in^ Vnderfiandtngs^ Wills^ 6cc. but are numerically one 
 Subfence, Underltandwg, Being, Spirit 5 they dif- 
 fer, a^ a Mind and its Acts, 
 
 The 
 
Parti. ccticcrtjing the Holy TrwHj. 9 
 
 The great variety of Terms ^ ufed by Divines, 
 in treating of this Queftion *, perplexes and con- 
 founds moft Readers : who are not aware that, all 
 thefe fo (feeramgly) different Terms lignify the 
 fame thing; but becaufe none of them exprefs it 
 adeqHately^ therefore for a more clear and perfed: 
 Conception of this Article, we willingly ufe all forts 
 of Terms and Explications that help to enlighten it. 
 Thus, Mr. H^o^r, Author of the Ecclefiafiical Po- 
 licy^ {ays: ''The Divine Subllance (or EfTence) 
 *' with this Property^ to he of none^ maketh the Per- 
 ** fon of the FATHER-, the fame Divine Ef- 
 *^ fence with this Property, to be of the Father^ mak- 
 '' eth the Perfon of the SONj thQ fe If fame Di- 
 *^ vine Effence or Subftahce with this Property^ to be 
 «^ of Both^ maketh the Perfon of the Holy SPIRIT. 
 *' So that, in every Perfon there is implied, the 
 " SUBSTANCE of God, and alfo the PROPER- 
 **• TY, which caufeth the fame Perfon to differ, 
 ''*frora the other two. 
 
 It is not a novel Explication, devifed by Mr. 
 Hocker-y but the Explication commonly received in 
 the Church, and only reprefented in other equiva- 
 lent Terms, For by the Property^ to be of None 
 (which, he faith, together with the Divine Eflence, 
 doth make the Perfon of the Father) he means O- 
 RIGINAL WISDOM. Mr. H<?^^tfr calls it the Pro- 
 perty to be of None^ becaufe 'tis un- begotten and un- 
 originated. By the Property to be of the Father .^ he 
 means the Reflex, or * BEGOTTEN WISDOM v 
 which is £emr ate d ^ (^ m th^ manner before declared ) 
 by Original Wifdom^ or the Father^ and is therefore 
 named the Son, He faith again, to proceed from 
 both maketh the third Perfon. Righr,for Divine LOVE 
 proceeds from unbegotten MIND and the reflex 
 WISDOM. He concludes as fcundly •, *•' Each 
 " Divine Perfon is the Divine Subfia^ce with one of 
 
 ^' thefe 
 
lO An Explication of the Cdtholick^Do&rwe 
 
 *' thefe Propertiefy and confifleth of the Property and 
 *^ the Suhfta>ice, "^Tis as much 04 to f4y •, a Divine 
 Perfon, is either ORIGINAL WISDOM (which is 
 ef none) together with the Divine Eflence : or it is 
 the Divine EfTence with the REFLEX WISDOM, 
 which u of the former •, or (laflly ) 'tis the fame Di- 
 vine Edence or Subftance, with the Spiration of 
 LOVE, which proceeds /r<jw /'(^f^. 
 
 When others call the Divine Perfons indifferently 
 by ahfira^i or concrete Names v which when ufed of 
 Creatures, or their Qualities or Afts, are readily un- 
 derllood by every Body : but when applied to the 
 Subjed of this Article, are underftood only by the 
 Learned i and often mifunderftood even by them, 
 unlefs they have been long converfant in^ thefe Que- 
 Itions : I fay, thofe as well abfiraB as concrete Terms 
 and Names, do all refer to that Explication of thi^ 
 Article that is before given *, they are intended only 
 farther to explain it, and do explain it. • 
 
 Thefe Terms or Names are j^^Jj Proper ties^ 
 Mcdes^ Suhjtfiences^ CharaUers^ Idioms^ Notes^ Noti- 
 cnSy JdcAs^ R flat ions ^ Perfons^ Perfonalities, Effence^ 
 Subftance^ Trinity^ Their meaning is, briefly, as 
 here follows. 
 
 The Divine Perfons are called ACTS', becaufe Wif 
 dom and Love are indeed Effential A^soi God, on 
 himfelf the Eternal Objeft. Yet it is not the mere 
 A^ that is a Perfon^ but the Divine EITence (or God- 
 head, ox God) thus aBing, 
 
 They are PROPERTIES, IDIOMS, and CHA- 
 RACTERS^ 2L$ihQydiftirj£uilh^ and thereby variouf- 
 ly denominate^ the Divine Eflence. For in refpedk of 
 one Property, Chara^er, or Idiom, the Divine 
 EfTence is named the Father ; in refpe(n: of another, 
 the Son ^ in refpedl of the third, the Holy Spirit. 
 But we muft always remember that, thefe Appellati- 
 ons are not ufed Vnivoca/iy (ox in the fame fenfe and re- 
 
Parti. concermngthe HclyTrimty. H 
 
 f^tU) concerning God and any Creatures, or their 
 A£ts. Only the Term or Word £w/, an Entity or 
 Being, is predicated Vnivocally of God and Creature; 
 and the more nice Metaphyficians will fcarce allow 
 that, the Creature is Ens in the fame fenfe as God is. 
 ^Mr. Baxter^'lov inftance, fays: '"-IfGodand Crea- 
 ** ture is Ens^ then either diftm^ or the fame ^ not 
 "the famcj for then the Creature fhould be God: 
 " if dtfttn^i and feveral, then there is more Entity 
 *' in God and the Creatnre^ than in God alone ^ for 
 " two is numerally more than One, and two Beings 
 ^' have more Entity than One, how fmall foever 
 *^ the lefler be 5 and then God fhill be but part of 
 '* Univerfal Entity, which is ImferfetUon. 
 
 They are NOTES, NOTIONS, IDEAS ^ as 
 they ferve to notify, or declare to us, the peculiar 
 and proper Diftinctions and Ads of the Divine Per- 
 fons. As namely that, the firft Perfon is the God- 
 head (or God) under the Notion of Un-begotten 
 MINlDj the fecond is the fame God, Godhead o** 
 Divine Eflence, under the i^f^ of Reflex WISDOM; 
 the third is the fame Godhead under the Noteoi Di- 
 vine LOVE. 
 
 They are RELATIONS, as from the (analogical) 
 ji(h of Generation and Spiration there arifeth in God 
 the myltical Relation o{ F ATHEKy SON, and SPIRIT 
 proceeding from both. 
 
 They are MODES, and SUBSISTENCES; or if 
 you-will, MODES of exifiing'^ as by occaflon of them 
 God is confidered as exiting, after three Modes or 
 Manners^ namely, as Vn-begotten MIND, reflex 
 or generated WISDOM, and as loving or WILLING 
 himfelf. 
 
 They are PERSONALITIES, when conndeiM 
 abftradedly *, that is, feparately^ from the Divine 
 Eflence or Godhead : they are Perfons^ when conU- 
 <lcr*cl concrtttlyy that is, together with the Divine Ef- 
 
 fence '^ 
 
\2\ An Explication of the Catholick^ Dodrine 
 
 fence '^ each of ttiem fo confiderM, is na longer a 
 mtrt Per fonaliiyy butaPerfoni a Perfon livings imel- 
 Ugent^ really exifling, CNote, In my four Letters ' 
 concerning the Trinity, printed ^nno 1 701. to thefe 
 laft words of this Paragraph, a Perfon livings intel- 
 ligent^ reaUyexifting\ by the liberality of the Prefs,/ 
 there are alfo added thefe words, and not fnbfiBing 
 only^ which were never intended by me, and indeed \ 
 deftroy the Senfe^ tho (I fee) fomc have taken 
 them as implying feme great Depth.] 
 
 The Divine ESSENCE, or SUBSTANCE, is the 
 Godhead, oxGod\ with all Divine Attributes and^^ 
 Perfections. 
 
 The TRINITY is the fame Divine Eflence, as 
 diftinguifhed by its three Properties or ReUtions, that 
 have been before fully defcribed. 
 
 But we may note farther that, of thefe Terms, 
 fome are roqre generally ufed, and are warranted 
 by greater Authorities, than the reft are: fuch are 
 the Terms, MODES, PROPERTIES^ and PER- 
 SONS j therefore I will fpeak more particularly of 
 them. -^ ^^^^'^^ 
 
 MODE is a Term more antient than any of the 
 refl, and alfo more frofer \ it b older than the Terra 
 TRINITY it felf i it was ufed by Jtifiin Martyr 
 within lefs than 1 40 Years after our Saviour. His 
 words are, mioc \s57oso^(ns, ipoi^oi 3 wap^ecos xpes. 
 One SubHance or ESSENCE^ three MODES of Ex* 
 ^fl^^i* 'Tis iifed alfo by J, Damafcen^ thefirft'of 
 the Fathers that colleAed together the fcatter'd and 
 confufed parts of Theology into a regular Syftem 
 or Body ^ his words are, 'eth tms ocyioj^ TpiaJ\@^, 
 x^6soc(n<; '(^V ocvoc^xQ^ TpoV©-* ths ai(Ai» Assra^-^ 
 |it6)S ', *' In the Holy Trinity^ a Perfon is an Eternal 
 ^^ MO DB or manner of exi fling, 'Tis alfo the 
 moll x:ommon Term of the Divines of the middle^ 
 Ages, called the SchoUfticks^ or SchdoUDcdors, What' 
 . -^ . is 
 
Part L . conctrntng the ]rh\y Trwiiy^ ^ ^ 1 5 
 
 is meant by it> in thefe Qpeftion?, was iiftittiated 
 before, when we faid •, ** The Divine Perfons are 
 *frcalled Modti^ as by occafion of them, God is 
 *^ confidered as exifting after three Modes or Man^ 
 *' mY5\ namely, as un-begotten MIND, as gene. 
 " rated and reflex WISDOM, and as loving or 
 'rW I L L I N G hirafelf. ' fis a frivolous Exceptioa 
 thiat ^accovm makes to this Teem, when he fays ^ 
 ^J^jTis but improperly nfed of .the Divine Perfons, 
 *- for a Mode is always fofterkr 10 that of which it 
 *Vis the Mode \ which we mud not fay of the D/- 
 *' vine Perfons^ in.refped of the Divine Effence or 
 **■ Gfod. For the AfFedionsof Being that we call 
 Modes, are often conn^e to the Beings of which 
 they are the Modes : And in particular 'tis evident 
 in the cafe before us, that INTELLECT SELF- 
 KNOWLEDG SELF-COMPLACENCE are fuch 
 Modes of Divinity, as are Co-eternal to it; and 
 therefore Bamafcen (before- cited) calls them Tpo"- 
 ^01- oLVUf^y^i fr A eternal Modes, 
 
 PROPERTIES is much ufed by the C7mj^ Fa- 
 thers ^ and it. fignifies here much the fame, as in 
 cpramon Speech : for INTELLECT SELF-KNOW- 
 LEbG SELF-COMPLACENCE are Properties of 
 God, m fuch fenfe as Rationality and Ripbility are 
 faid to be Properties of Man \ they are not the Ef- 
 fence of Man, but are natural and infeparahle MJHnHs 
 of his Effence, and thereby diftinguiflied from ^c- 
 cidentsj That which has made this word the more 
 authentick, is the Programma of the Emperor Ju^in^ 
 to which all the Churches of the Orient (tho not effecially 
 thereto reqmred) gave their jijfent ^ ^s ^vagrins has 
 informed us, Hift. EccL /. 5. c, 4. In this Program^ 
 ma it is faid i " We adore the Trinity in Unity, 
 '^ and Unity in Trinity: an Unity, as to ES- 
 ** SENCE or GODHEAD ^ a Trinity, as to PRO- 
 *^ PERTJES or PERSONS. \n the Greek, 
 
14 An Explication of the Catholick^ Do&rine 
 
 Mr. Calvin, after a judicious and learned DifTcr- 
 tation concerning the J^olj Trinity^ and the Term 
 ferfons^ concludes, and fumraeth up all in thefe 
 words: " But if any are fo nice, that after all they 
 '' will not'aljow the word Perfons^ yet do what they 
 *' can, they mufl confefs that when we fay One^ we 
 " mean the Subjlance : when we fay Three^ we in- 
 '' tend that in the Divine ElTence or Subftance there 
 " arc Three Propertiei, Which being fincercly ac- 
 '* knowledged by any, we will not litigate with 
 *' them. Inflit, c. 6. S. 25. p. 179. Gettev, 1550. 
 
 But PERSONS is now more commonly, and 
 almoft only, ufed. St. Anftin faith of it, " We ufc 
 *' the Term Perfonsy not becaufe we find it in Scrip- 
 '* ture, but becaufe the Scriptures do not contradict 
 *' it ; and by a kind of necelTitv, as labouring uii--^^ 
 '* der want of words. deTrin. l.*], '\C 
 
 As the L^/«»; did not at firft like the Term f^^ 
 po/lafis, fo the Greeks were difTatisfied with Profofvn^ 
 or Perfon : but they pame to an Agreement, by fix- 
 ing 2L determinate fenfe on thofe very ambiguous 
 words; the Latins were content with Hypoftafis^ 
 and the Greeks vj it\i Pro fopon^ as both arc interpreted 
 by J^ftin Martyr* s TpoV©^ wap|£6o^, a MODE or 
 manner of exifting. 
 
 There was never any thing fo truly faid, or fo 
 well eftablifhed ^ hwt onz ScioUfi or other would be 
 excepting to it, either out of Vanity, or on Miftake 
 and Ignorance :' accordingly this Faith of the Church, 
 has been attacked by divers Objedions *, fome of 
 them indeed fjpm otherways Learned Men, but the 
 moft from fuch as were ignorant. I fhaU mention 
 only the Objedlions that are conGderable > and from 
 able Perfons, or Parties. 
 
 ' Of 
 
Part I. concerning the Holy Trinity. ] 5 
 
 Of fome OhjeHions, 
 
 Of this fort I account the Author of the Intel- 
 U^Hal Sy^em^ Dr. Kalfh Cndworth, who revived the 
 Errors of Valemintu Gentilis^ concerning the Trini- 
 ty. He makes the Three Divine Perfons to be di- 
 fiin^ Snbfi ances mtiwrnbtV', and only the Father to 
 be truly and properly God^ or Almighty, and AI- 
 knowings the other two Perfons to be fubordinate 
 to the Father in Power and Authority, and wholly 
 dependent on him. Therefore he could non endure 
 the Dotirine of the Schools ( which is indeed the Do- 
 ctrine of the Catholick Church ) concerning the 
 Trinity. He complej;nents us in a very extraordina' 
 ry manner, on our Explication of that Article ^ he 
 faith, '* The SchoUftick T rinity is a pure Jar^onry, 
 *' the Philofophy of Gotham : a Trinity that falls 
 ^' not under Human Conception, and which cannot 
 ** be in Nature, A phantajiick Trinity, of merely 
 " nominal Perfons; Perfons only in name, not in 
 " reality. . It was invented by P.Lombard, Father 
 *' of the School-I^oEiors^ and Bifhop of Parii *, and 
 *' never was authorized by any publick Authority, 
 ''except at the Council of Later an^ in the Year 
 *' 1215. 
 
 I was furprizM I confefs, that Dv.Cudworth {hould 
 prefume to fay s the Catholicl^Paith^ or as he calls it 
 the Scholafltck.Trimty, is a Novelty, devisM by the 
 Bilhop of P^r/i : and which hath no Warranty but 
 the Council of the Later an. We quoted before, the 
 Words oijuflin Martyr^ (carcc 140 Years afccr our 
 Saviour ; one ESSENCE^ three MODES of Exifiing ' 
 and the Definition of J. Damafcen^ a Perfon in the 
 Holy Trimty is a MODE or Manner of exiting \ which, 
 tho in fo few words, implies the xfhoU Dodrine of 
 the Schools concerning the Trinity. The Vrogramma 
 
 ^Ifo, 
 
1 6 An 'Explication of the CathoHck^ DoSrwe 
 
 alfo, receiv'd by all the Grffi^ Churches, is about ^oo 
 Years older than P. Lombard Bifhop of P^rw. 
 
 As for the Latin Church, St. u^ftftin has written 
 15 Books of the Trinity^ the Sum and Subflance 
 of them all, is only this ; '' Mens^ NotitUj Amor^ 
 *'fMIND, WISDOM, LOVE,) are the 
 " three Perfons of the Holy Trinity: the BlefTed 
 *' Trinity is God, conftdered as original Jf 1 S* 
 '•'' DOM^ andas KNOWING and WILLING 
 '^ Himfelf, This was followed by thz SchooUVv^ors^ 
 and middle Ages-, in particular, by the General 
 Councils of Later af7^ and Lyons^ and by the Councils 
 of Toledo. Thofe Councils, as well in their Confefll- 
 ons as Canons, very qarefuily ^adhere to the Doc- 
 trine of St. Jnflm^ and of the Schools concerning the 
 Trinity. 
 
 Of the modern Jargonifls^ I fliall mention only 
 Mr. Calvin: He is a perfect Difciple of St. ^*!)^w ;* 
 as well in this, as in other Articles of Religion : in the 
 6tb Chapter of hislnftitutions, Geftev. I'y'yO. he faith.' 
 ^' Non eft tanten inanis vel fupcrvacua ordinis ob- 
 " fervatio; dum primus recenfetyr Pater v deinde 
 *^ ex eo f///«/, poftea ex utroque Spirms, Nam' 
 '' & Mens uniufcujufque eo fponte inclinat, ut pri- 
 ^^ mo DEUiM confideret, deinde emergentem ex ed 
 '^ SAPIENTIAM^ tumpofcremo Firtutem^ qua con- 
 " filii ful dec^ta exequitur: qua ratione duncaxat 
 *' a Patre exiftere dicitur Filius ; a Patre jimd ■&■ 
 " Filio Spiritus. In fhort, thus ; " *Tis even natun 
 *' ral to conceive, fir ft GOD, next his Reflex WIS- 
 *' DOM^ then his POWER, by which he executes 
 *^ hisCounfds and Will; on which account only wefay^ 
 '^ xhe Son is of the Father ^ and the Holy Spirit of4?Qth, 
 But note here that, y[x,Calviny in his (.reciting the 
 Order of the Divine Perfons, calls only the Father^ 
 GOD; b,ot he did this only byvpoy of Affro^mi^n^ 
 asthey fpeak- That is, not as u the fecond and 
 
Parti- concermfig the Holy Trinity, 17 
 
 third Perfons were notalfo God^ and equally fo with 
 the Firft \ but on the account that the FAther is Fens 
 Veitatis^ as the Jntients fpoke, the Fountain and Caufe 
 of the ether two Perfons -^ as is before defcribed. And 
 this way of (peaking of the Fatheryh not peculiar to Mr. 
 Calvin •, other Orthodox Writers, and the Scriptures 
 themfelves, fometimes ufe it, as hath been obferved 
 too by others, who have written on thefe Queftions. 
 
 The Authority pf the Lateran Council is not fo 
 lights as Dr. Cndworth would intimate 5 much lefs 
 is this the only Council that confirms the Expofition 
 of the Holy Trinity, now generally received. The 
 Council oT the Lateran^ in the Year 12 15. confifted 
 of LXX Metropolitans, GCCG Bifhops, other Fa- 
 thers more than DCGC; the Ambarfadors of the 
 koman and Creek Emperors, of the Kings of England^ 
 Spain^ France^ Jernfalem^ and Cyfrus, They follow* 
 ed the preceding Councils, in accounting for the 
 Myflery of the Trinity ; and have been exprejty af- 
 prov'd l^y all the ^nhfequem Councils, 
 
 Dr. Cudworth, in oppofition to that Council, de^ 
 fcribesthe Divine Perfons to be noes, MINDS*, and 
 UvivfA.ocrocy SPIRITS : but neither he, nor Dr. Pai»^ 
 could ailed g fo much as one Council or Fat her j thae 
 ever fo fpoke. So little reafon had they, to accuAs 
 the Catholick Do(n:rine,as Novel ; or not warranted 
 by a fufficient Number of good Authorities* 
 
 In fhort, the Cowamites and Jargonifts defend them- 
 felves very well againft this firft Objedion ^ and re-* 
 tort it. On their Oppofers. 
 
 But others have raisM another Except iony to the 
 Do(ftrine of the Church ^ before defcribed. They 
 fay; by this Account, not only GOD, but ever/ 
 other intelligent Being, Ihall be three Perfons : for 
 every Angel, and every Man, has thefe three /W<?<^<r/g 
 Profcrr/«, or whatever elfe you will call them, Mind 
 or original W1SD0M> reflex or generated KNO W« 
 
 c ledg^ 
 
1 8 Afi Explication of the Catholick^DoSrine 
 
 LEDG, and LOVE towards it felf. If thefe inter- 
 nal Diftindtions do not make a Man, or an Angel, 
 to be three Terfons •, or introduce the Kelatms of 
 Father J Son^ and Sprit : why fhould it bg faid, 
 they are three Perfons^ or introduce three Relati' 
 onsj in God ? This is an Objedion of the Vnitariansy 
 much infifted on by a ToUnder^ who undertook to 
 anfwer B. Keck^rmatij Profeflbr at Dantzickj^ and 
 by M, Ruarw in his Letters to (the Learned Minim) 
 Marintts A^erfenms. The Metaphyficians, and par- 
 tieuliarly, our Countryman Mr. Serjeant^ in his j^pfen^ 
 dix to his 7ranfnatural Pholofofhy^ anfwer Jiere with 
 many Subtleties and FinenefTes •, from the Mctafhyp' 
 cat School : in my Opinion, the Catholick Faith hath 
 no need of them ^ and the true Anfwer is this. The 
 Objedors have not confidered that, PERSONS and 
 RELATIONS, when ufed of God, are fciemifical 
 Terfhs , and therefore have a peculiar meaning in Theo' 
 hgy^ altogether different from their Intendment in 
 familiar Speech. There is no Science or Art ; whe- 
 ther Sacred or Civil, whether Learned or Mechani- 
 cal ;, but has its Ttrms that are peculiar to itfelf only : 
 which Terms are Words, all of them borrowed, 
 •from common and familiar Speech ^ but ufed by the 
 j^rt^ in quite another Senfe i a Senfe peculiar to the 
 Science or Art. Therefore we are not to be furpriz- 
 ed at it, that PERSON, in common Speech and ufe, 
 is a particular Beings diftinB from all other Beings •, and 
 that hath fnndry Properties or Modes belonging to it : 
 but in the Science of Theology^ when we fpeak of God, 
 it is only a Mode or Property ^ as fuch Mode is confidev 
 ed together with the Divine Effence^ Godhead^ or God, 
 The Terms of Sciences and Arts are mod: commonly 
 Arbitrary ^ we are not to demand a Reafon of them t 
 'tis fufficient that>they are explained to us i and that 
 when we know what is intended by them, we fifd 
 our felves inltruded in fomething that is either ufe» 
 
 * ful. 
 
part I. concetnwg the Holy Trinity. 1 9 
 
 ful, or curious. Notwithflanding, in the choice of 
 Terms, we fometimes afTedl fome fort of Analogy *, 
 fome Degree x)f Likinefs^ between the things : that 
 is, the thing intended by the Word, as it h^fcienti- 
 ficfl Term j and the thing intended by it, in ordinary 
 Ufe and Speech. And hence, becaafe SELF-KNO W- 
 LEDG, and SELF-COMPLACENCE, regenerated 
 by MIND •, therefore in Theology^ thefe Ads and Pro- 
 perties have the. Names of Father^ Son\ and Sprit 
 froceeding from both: and for the fame Reafon they 
 are called RELATIONS. And again, becaufe by 
 Perfon in ordinary Speech we mean a particular Intelli- 
 gent Beings diftinguifhed from all other Beings, by 
 fome peculiar Property or Mode \ therefore the God- 
 head, or God, as confidered to three different and 
 difcretive Modes or Properties, is conlidered as (or 
 is named) three Perfons, And we appropriate to 
 jijod this way of fpeaking ; we extend it not to Crea- 
 tures, whether Angels or Men \ out of Reverence to 
 the Divinity: and becaufe thefe Properties are fo much 
 more excellent and perfedl in God, than in whatfoe- 
 ver Creatures/, that the fame Name agreeth not to theni» 
 And laftly becaufe, as the Fathers expreft themfelves 
 In this Matter, WISDOM and SELF-COMPLA- 
 CENCE in God are Permanent -^ and always in AEi : 
 while ours is rr^«/?<?«f, and paiTes away, dying in the 
 very A(ft i of which, more hereafter. And it fhonld 
 feera, this Accoirnt mult neceffarily be admitted, by 
 all the Orthodox*, who acknowledg no other but 
 a modal Difiin5iion in God. It was a Remark, wor- 
 thy of his Learning and Judgment, that Dr. Edward 
 Stillingfleet^ late Bilhop of Worcejler^ makes in his 
 Preface to his Vindication of the Do^rine of the Trini^ 
 if, " When we confider, faith the Bijhop^ a Divine 
 ** Eflence v there can be no Difiin^ion conceived irt 
 ^' it,- but by different MODES of fubfijUng -^ or 
 *' What is the fame, RELATIVE PRO- 
 
 C 2 *'P£R- 
 
20 Ah Explication of the Catholtcl\ DoSrine . 
 *' P E R T I E S in the fame Divine Effence. Fref. 
 
 p. 15. 
 
 There i% yet this farther Scruple. It is not very 
 obvious, how reflex ox generated WISDOM can 
 be faid to be incartjatt: or how, if the Son q^d 
 Spirit are only the SELF-KNOWLEDG and SELF* 
 LOVE of God, they can he invocated in fuch a Form 
 as this : ** O God the SON have mercy upon us 
 " miferable Sinners i O God the HOLY GHOST 
 ** have mercy upon us miferable Sinners.* Nay, and 
 the words, O God the FATHER have mercy upon 
 Hi miferable Sinners^ will be as improper \ for the Fa* 
 thcr^ in this Hypothefis, is not a difiind Being •, the 
 Father^ as the firft Perfon of the Trinity, is no more 
 but Hnbegotten IV IS DOM. Farther, the Expref- 
 fions in the Nicene Creed, -and divers in the Holy 
 Scripture, attribute fuch Properties and Ads to the 
 Divine Perfons, as plainly fuppofe them to be Beings 
 and Spirits • It feems, they cannot be interpreted 
 (unforcedly and naturally) of a mere SELF- 
 KNOWLEDG, SELF-LOVE, or Original 
 WISDOM of God. 
 
 This is the great Objedion of the* tritheifis *, or 
 of thofe that hold, the Perfons of the Trinity are, 
 fomany infinite Spirits^ Minds^ and Beings: It is 
 folely grounded, on a mifapprehenfion of the Chur- 
 ches Meaning, and Doftrine. 
 
 For firfl', the Church doth not fay that, mere 
 §ELF.KNOWLEDG (or generated WISDOM) 
 was Incarnate •, but this Property, " as taken with, 
 " or as it comprifes the Divine EfTence, Godhead, 
 " or God, with all his Perfections and Attributes, 
 *' was Incarnate. Which is warranted by divers 
 r clear) T^xts*, as, Co/, 2. p. In him [] Chrifl: Je- 
 fas 3 dwe/ifth the Ftdnefs of the Godhead* Col. 2. 3. 
 In whom [ the Lord Chrift ] are all the Treafnres of 
 WISDOM and KNOWLEDG. i Cor. i. 24. 
 
 We 
 
Part I. concerning the Holy Trimty, 2 1 
 
 We freach Chrifii the Power of God^ and the WIS. 
 JDOM of God. Rev. I p. 13. Hn Name is called 
 ( Koy©^ tS ©eS) the WIS DOM of God, Thefe 
 Texts amount to this, " The Fulnefs of the d O D- 
 " H E A D in the Perfon of the W 1 S D O M, was 
 J^ Incarnate in the Humanity of Chriit. 
 
 It is hard indeed to apprehend, how the Divinity 
 (or God) Ihould be incarnate in the Perfon on- 
 ly of the Logos^ or WISDOM*, while the other 
 two Divine Perfons were not Incarnate : and the 
 Anfwers, ufuallymade, methinks, are not very fa- 
 tisfadlory. Some Learned Men have faid, not the 
 Aoy©^ (WORD or WISDOM) only was In- 
 carnate, but the whole Trinity : and that, other- 
 ways we cannot fay, God was Incarnate ; for <3 O D 
 implies the whole Trinity. Others have anfwered ; 
 there lies the fame Difficulty againft the tritheifiic 
 Hypothefis : for if there are three infinite Spirit s^ who 
 yet are all but one God j what was incarnate could 
 not (in this Hypothefis) be perfeiH God, if only 
 one of thofe Spirits was Incarnate : we cannot fay, 
 God was Incarnate^ if only one iS'p/V^V of the Trinity 
 ( or God ) was Incarnate. Let. the Objedors there- 
 fore clear their own Explication from this Excep- 
 tion '■> and at the fame time they will clear ours. 
 
 I (hould chufe to fay, We are not concerned in 
 this Difficulty, becaufe we fay only, God was Incar- 
 jiate, and the Divine Wifdom Incarnate : We go no 
 farther \ we affirm nothing in this matter of the In- 
 carnation, concerning the other two Perfons. We 
 fpeak of the Incarnation no farther than it is re- 
 vealed i that GOD, ptrfeU GOD, in the Perfon 
 of the WISDOM, was Incarnate : this is intelli- 
 gible, it hath nothing of difficulty to our Apprehen- 
 Sons. He that is difpofed, to ask hereupon 5 Can 
 <?<?</ be Incarnate, and not the whole 2>i«;>)>, which 
 is God \ the Fulnefs of the Godhead^ and not all the 
 Perfons of the Godhead ? Such a one is too curious, 
 
 C 3 and 
 
2 2 An ^xplicatm of the Caiholic\ Do&rtne 
 
 and importunate ^ he puts Queftions that cannot well 
 ( it may be ) be anfwered, without our affirming or ■ 
 denying beyond what hath been revealed by God, 
 or is required by the Catholick Church to be be- 
 lie\ced. Yet to fuch a one we may fay > It is evident 
 that, prfe^ God can be communicated, when the 
 whole of God is not communicated. For God being 
 prfed: God^ as was before obferved, in whatfoever 
 portion of Space ^ in the leafi imaginable Extenfion, 
 no lefs than in the whole Iramenfity of his EfTerice: 
 He can therefore, tho /«^»/>^, communicate himfelf 
 prfe^ly^ to the finite Humanity of Chrift, as to Di- 
 vine Perfedions *, tho he do not communicate himfelf 
 xchoUy^ as to the Omm-prefence and hfinity of his Sftb" 
 finance or Ejjence. Therefore if fomething like to 
 this hath alfo happen'd in the Incarnation of the 
 WISDOM only, while the other two Perfons were 
 not Incarnate: It implies no Contradidion •, nay ic 
 feems fufiBciently illuftrated by the other, that is to 
 fay, fo far illuftrated or cleared, that we need not 
 to hefitate at it. 
 
 The Prayer, "O God the Father^ O God the 
 *' Sort^ O God the Holy Ghoft^ have mercy upon u§ 
 ." miferable Sinner?, hath been difliked by divers 
 Learned Men, in-particular by Mr. Calvin : But we 
 inuft interpret the Church's Prayers^ by her known 
 DoUrine, The Church doth not intend, cannot 
 intend, by that Form ^ to acknowledg more Pivine 
 Objedsof Worfhip than one only, for (he profef^ 
 leth the contrary. She intends only therefore here, 
 " to invocate God^ by, or under^ the feveral Di^ 
 •' ftinthom^ which fhe acknowkdgeth to be in him? 
 *^ and by which Ihe endeavours more perfedly to 
 •'apprehend him. But thtk Difiin&ions \ tho for 
 good Reafons named Perfom, and Father^ Son^ 
 and Spirit •, are under ftood by her as only the dif- 
 ferent MODES of the Divine Exifterice, or Exi- 
 gence of God : apd therefore as often as they 
 ' occur 
 
Part L concerfiing the Holy Trinity. 2 3 
 
 occur in the Prayers, they are to be taken in the 
 Theological Sziik, not in the Familiar and Vulgar. 
 But to this Exception, I (hall have occafion to fpeak 
 more fully hereafter. 
 
 As to fome ExpreffionsintheCrtf^</f, and Holy 
 Scriptures. Many things are faid of our Saviour in 
 the Scriptures and Creeds, which not only fuppofe 
 him to have been pr£'exiftent to the Worlds but to be 
 the Makfrj and Governor of it. The Catholick 
 Church underftands them, as fpokenof his Per/on ^ 
 but of his Perforty only in reffeSt of the inhabiting Di^ 
 vinity : And fhe believes that, not the generated 
 WISDOM only, bxxt GOD in the Ferfon of the 
 WISDOM or SON, was Incarnate. Thefe two 
 Keys open all the Difficulties of any Expreffions in 
 the Church Creeps and Holy Scriptures ; whether 
 concerning the WISDOM, WORD, or SON, or 
 concerning our Lord Chrifl oiheii God and M^n, 
 
 Concerning the Holy Spirit^ where-ever fuch At- 
 tributions are given to him, as imply him to bean 
 aaual diftind BEING, MIND, or SPIRIT: 
 They are fpoken of him, either by a Profifopeia •, 
 or as the Perfon of the Spirit includeth, in its r<>w- 
 p/tf^r Notion, the Divinity, Godhead, or God -j and 
 are not fpoken bf his Perfonal'ny only, which is no 
 more but Divine LOVE, or Divine SELF-COM- 
 PLACENCE. And the fame U to he under fiood of 
 the other tm Per fans. 
 
 And now, upon review of the whole Explication, 
 I have given of thefe Articles j I have but this far- 
 ther to add. Firit, I will be thankful to any that 
 fhall inform me, on good grounds, wherein the Ex- 
 pofition here given, is more or lefs^ or otherways^ than 
 the ufual Dodtrine of the Church ? 
 
 Next, I think, nothing hath been faid, but what 
 is obvious enough to any ordinary Capacity, ufing 
 fuch heed, as is required to the underftanding and 
 
 C 4 com-: 
 
24 -An Explication of the Catholick^DoHrim 
 
 comprehending tht Ady^ery of any other Art 6t* 
 Science. There is no Science or Arc, bat mull have 
 an intent Application of the Mind of the Learner, 
 or he (hall never comprehend it : The Inftitution in 
 Arts and Sciences, in the very meanefi of them, muft 
 be (liligently and often confide red j or a Man (hall ne^ 
 ver be an Adcft^ or Matter of his Art. Therefore, 
 if alfo in Divinity or Religion, feme Articles muft 
 be heard or read withaclofeObfervation, to ap- 
 prehend them rightly, fully, and dittinclly ^ if they 
 muft be read, it may be, over and over again : Let 
 us be content with fome Study, in a Matter of fo 
 high a Nature, and fo great Concernment to us. I 
 think however, it were well, if the Articles of the 
 Holy Trinity, and the Incarnatibn, were propofed 
 to our People, and even to all Learners, in a ^Uintr 
 and jhorter manner than is ufually done : forinftance, 
 in forae fuch Form as this. . 
 
 *-' There is one Eternal BEING, one Infinite 
 
 "^^ SPIRIT^ ible CREATOR of all things. 
 
 ** In the Unity of this Godhead, we are to confi- 
 
 *' der this following Diftindion*, Eternal MIND, 
 
 " Divine SELF-KNOWLEDG generatedb^ Mind, 
 
 " Divine SELF-COMPLACENCE neceflarily r«- 
 
 *' ceeding from both. Of thefe the firfi is called 
 
 *^ the FATHER-, as being manifeftly the fole Ori- 
 
 ** gin and Caufe of the Second \ the fecond is cal- 
 
 *' led the SON^ as being the Generation and OfF- 
 
 " fpring of Eternal Intellect Or Mind ^ the thirds as 
 
 *' the joint Ad, and ( as it were ) Spration of the 
 
 ^^ two former, is fitly called the SPIRIT, They are 
 
 " PERSONS; not as an Angel, or a Man, is a 
 
 " Perfon : But as each of them is underftood with, 
 
 " or comprifeth the Divine Nature 5 that is to fay, 
 
 ** as it ccmfrehendeth^ and is comprehended by this 
 
 ^' Word GOD, Concerning o\ir SavioMtj we are 
 
 ^V not to think of him as a mere Man ? he is GOD- 
 
 ^^MAN. 
 
Part I. concerning the Holy Trinity. 2 5 
 
 " MAN. Man^ in refped of his reafonable Soul, 
 Hand human Body ; Cod^ in refped of the indwel- 
 *' ling Divinity. Which is not to be underftood only 
 *' of an occafional (AJfifiing) Indwelling, fuch as 
 '- that in the old or later Prophets: But of fuch k« 
 " Vnionoi the Humanity to the Divinity, that the 
 '' former is always under the Conduift and IDumina- 
 " tion of the other •, and the Divinity doth con- 
 H ftantly exert the Divine Attributes and Perfedi- 
 " ons i«, and hy the Human Nature. What was 
 *' thus Incarnate, was ^erfeCi God^ in refped of Di- 
 ** vine Per fe^ions : It was not however, if we may 
 *' fo fpeak, the whole of God, in refped of Per Jons, 
 " For the Divinity, or God, communicated him- 
 '* felf ( in the manner beforefaid ) to the Humani- 
 r^ ty of Chrift v only in the Perfon of the genera- 
 ^' ted WISDOM, or SON ^ not in the Perfons of 
 c*Kthe FATHER, and SPIRIT. Which hath 
 e^ more of Difficulty, and lefs of Neceffity, to 
 f *'' comprehend the manner of it 5 than to be ( ordi- 
 *' narily ) requifite for us to inquire into it. 
 
 Such an Expofition (or Declaration) of the 
 Faith, as is this, would prevent all the (numerous 
 and dark) Quellions and Difputes of the Schools 
 concernini thefe Articles 5 and fatisfy the Dijfenters 
 from the Churches Doctrine : as well as be a true 
 . and ;«y? reprefentation of what is neceflary to be 
 believed and affirmed ; either becaufe it is revealed 
 in Holy Scripture, or isdifcovered by Reafon, or 
 defined by the Catholick Church. As it is certain, 
 this is all that the Church intends *, fo it would hap- 
 pily fnperfede and nullify a vaft .number of Logical 
 and Metaphylical Terms and Diftin^ions \ befides the 
 -many ( dangerous and captious ) C^ftiojis that oc- 
 • cur in the Writings of the Scbolaftics, and other Po- 
 lemical Writers v which will clearly appear to any 
 that j(hall> with judgment and heed, read the Differ- 
 
 tation 
 
2 5 An Explication of the Catholicl^ Do&rine 
 
 tAtion added to thefe Papers. But it will be proper 
 to fay foraething more particularly, of the Socm- 
 4ins\ and f^ them: becaufe many think, and them^ 
 felves ajfo for the moft part, that they have a great 
 Controverfy with the Catholick Church on thefe 
 Articles ; while in truth the Diflent and Controver- 
 fy (on both fides) is only from a mifapprehenfion 
 of one anothers Senfe and Meaning. The laft, and 
 one of the moft confiderable Writers of the Socini' 
 ans^ is Guil, Forftitu^ in his Bilihra ' Let us examine 
 and difcufs this Book. 
 
 Of the Socinians, and the Bilibra of 
 Gull. Vorftius. 
 
 In this Book, Vorflius has publifbed his Thoughts 
 on the Qiieftion, IVhat the Synagogne believes concerning 
 Cody and the Mejfias-^ that is, whether the Jem 
 know (and acknowledg) any thing of the Holy trinity^ 
 and the Divinity of the Me^iasf His Book is (chiefly) 
 in anfwer to Mr, P^oifm^ a Learned Jefuit-^ who 
 maintains that the Jews believe, at ieaft have (gene- 
 rally) believed a Trinity of Divine Perfons, and that 
 the Aiejftas is to be God as well as Man 5 or God incar- 
 nate : Fortius denies both thefe. He had' the Advan- 
 tage of his Antageniffs^ Foifin and Rittangel^ as to the 
 Subje(!t in queftion j whether any Jews^ who are fo by 
 Religion, believe thefe Chriftian Articles : and be- 
 ing a Learned Rabbinifly he not only anfwered, and 
 expofed, his two Oppofers ^ but prevented alfo (for 
 the moft part) what the Author of the Judgment rf 
 the Jewijh Church has (fince) farther objeded.' 
 
 But in the Bilibra^ Vorftius not only proves that ; 
 no Jevsi by. Religion, ever awned a Trinity of Divine 
 Perfons, or that th^Meffias^God-^ but he alfo o- 
 penly and diredly oppbfes' the^^ruth of thofe Ar- 
 ticles. 
 
Part I. concerning the Hclj Trinity. 2 7 
 
 tides. He isfo much the more to blame; becaufc 
 the y^'M, to whom he replies, had rightly ftated 
 thcfe Doarines. The Jefuit cites divers Fathers and 
 CoHucils^ who explain the Divine Trinity by JmeBeiJ^^ 
 or original WISDOM ', the Word, or reflex WIS- 
 DOM h and Will, or Divine LOVE. He obferves, 
 Knowledgy2nd WISDOM being the Proddh of MIND, 
 is fitly called the SON-, and LOVE as it is the Sftratil 
 pn of WISDOM and INTELLECT, is properly nam- 
 ed the SPIRIT.. One of his dearcft Authorities, is 
 the Canon of a Council of Toledo^ which fays *, *' Let 
 ^' MIND b^ put as the Perfofi of the Father-^ then 
 *' the Word (or WISDOMJ iffmng from MIND will 
 " be underftood to be tlie SON ; as by the WILL, 
 *^ proceeding from MIND and WISDOM, is meanE 
 *^ the Spirit. He fays farther, as this is the Trinity 
 believed in the Catholick Church 5 one may find the 
 fame Notions aniong the Jews, But the Jewi^ 
 Books that he alkdges ^ he either miftook, or wreft- 
 ©d their meaning. And befides they are partly fpu- 
 fious (pfeudepigraphal) Books ^ and partly have 
 talked in fuch an obfcure or equivocal Cant, mixed 
 with fo many abfurd Fables, that neither can any 
 certain Senfe be made of the moft part of what they 
 fay \ nor can they be confidered at belt, but only as 
 Vtfionaries and Enthhfiafts. 
 
 ForfiiHs could not endure this fooling ^ and being 
 an j^nti'Trlmtarian^ makes what advantage he can 
 oiVaifinh trifling and miftakes. He often falls foul 
 on the Explication of the Trinity, by T^oifin ; he ex- 
 claims againft it, as a mere notional Trinity j a Tri- 
 nity (faith he^ of Logical Notions^ not of Phyfical 
 o: real Per fins. To the Authorities of Q//;?r///, and 
 Fathers^ dlQd by Foijin^ he anfwers. ^' Indeed ma- 
 ^' ny of the Antients greatly pleafed themfelves,with 
 *' thofe Subtleties ; Mind^ reflex Wifdom^ and the 
 ^\ Spiration of Love : but the Holy Scriptures have 
 
 " not 
 
a 8 Api Explication of ileCatholick^ Do&rtne 
 
 ** not a word of any fuch Trinity, That is, inftead 
 of being aware of what the Jefuit h^d proved by fo 
 many Authorities, that the Trinity believed in the 
 Catholick Church, is only a Modal DiHinEiion in the 
 Divine Nature *, and is as evident and certain in Thilo^ 
 fifhi 2S it can be made by the moft exprefs Revelati^ 
 en: confequently that, it is not the Trinity of the 
 Churchy but of Fhilofonusy Joachin, Gentility and 
 fuch others^ that He and his Friends meant to 
 oppofe. I fay, not being fenfible, *as he ought to 
 have been, of his own and Parties mistake of the 
 Churches Dodrine : he takes notice only of the Je fa- 
 its (unlucky) overdoing in thfi Cafe ^ his falfe and im- 
 pertinent pretence and endeavour, to find the myfte- 
 ry of the Trinity in the Kabbalijiical and AUegoricd 
 Books of fome "jcm. We grant, Fortius had here a 
 fufficient Advantage : but it had become fo learned 
 and able a Perfon, rather to have bbferved the Jefu- 
 it*s true Explication of the Trinity •, and thereupon 
 have urged him with it, that there is no difference in 
 the Ideas that the Church and the Vnitarians have of 
 the Unity of God •, than to throw fo much Sale up- 
 on him,' for his overcurious and partial Difcuffion of 
 the Jewifh Books, in fearch of a Dodrine, with- 
 out which the true Unity of God is not rightly ex- 
 plained or underflood. 
 
 Bijt he feeks to cramp us, by faying ^ " The Holy 
 " Scriptures mention no fuch Trinity, .as original 
 ** WISDOM, reflex WISDOM, and Divine LOVE. 
 Firft, they mention no other. The Church never 
 pretended, to have learned from Holy Scripture^ or 
 from thQ ^ntientSy2Lnj other than a Modal Difiin^ion in 
 God. Which Ihe exprefles by the Terms TaiNlTY, 
 and PERSONS ^ and explains thofe Terms, as has 
 been already declared. 
 
 Next, the Exception is frivolous and imperti- 
 nent 3 in this place. For the Controverfy between 
 
 bins 
 
Part h catJcermKg the Holy TrinHy. 2 9 
 
 him and Koifin was not, concerning the Proofs of the 
 trinity from Holy Scripture: whkh^ we fliall grant, onr 
 ordinary Contraverfi4 Writers have fa mifiaken, as t9 
 give occAJion to People ta mifundtrpand the Do^rint 
 and Faith of the Church: but their Debate was, cori' 
 cerning the Trinity itfelf:^ n,amely whether there be not 
 fuch a Diftindtion in the Divine Nature, or God^ as 
 has been before defcribed ^ and whether fome of the 
 Jews h?ive not owned it ? That there is fuch a di- 
 ftindion in the Deity, neither /^^r/i«/, nor his Party, 
 will think fit to deny : why then do they litigate a» 
 bout mere Ternis, Trinity^ Perfons^ Hypofiatical Vni^ 
 on:, which the Church profefTes, not to ufe in the 
 vulgar Senfe, but in a Scientifical and Theological. 
 
 But to opep the Queftion between the Church and 
 
 the Vnitarians^ to the capacity of every body \ and 
 
 to make it undeniable to thefe Gentlemen of the t^- 
 
 mtarian Perfuallon, that there is not the leafl: Reafoa 
 
 to divide from the Church. They may obferve thai, 
 
 as there are two very different Significations of the 
 
 Term Per fans y the Theological, and the Vulgar : fo 
 
 in fpeaking of God we fometimes call him a Perfors^ 
 
 fometimes three Ptr fans. When we fpeak of God, 
 
 with exadneis-, that is, when we fpeak of him, as he 
 
 is in himfelf'i we cannot but own, he is three fuck 
 
 Perfons,as the Catholick Church teaches : that is, the 
 
 modal Diftindlion of original zn^ reflex WISDOM, 
 
 and of Divine Love or SELF-COMPLACENCE, are 
 
 fo certainly in his Nature 5 that without them; 
 
 he (hould neither be hapfy nor God. But when we 
 
 iconfider him, only as a particular Intelligent Beings 
 
 and as diftin^l from any other f articular Intelligent Beings 
 
 or Beings j which is the vulgar Acceptation of 
 
 the Word Perfon : we generally call him a Perfon. 
 
 Thus we fay, for Inftance \ forae Irregularities are 
 
 JSins againfl; the Laws of God : but others are Sins^ 
 
 "againfi hts Perfon j as Blafphemy, Perjury and fome 
 
 more; 
 
30 An ExpUcatiiin of the Caiholkk^ DoUrike 
 
 xnoxfj fuch WickednelTes are Sins agairift the v^ry 
 Terfon of God, confidered as this particular Being. 
 In like manner, the molt learned Divines of the' 
 Moderns and jintitnts are fometimes wont to fay v 
 the Angels that appeared during the Old-Teftathenfe 
 Oeconomy, had fometimes the Names of Jehovali 
 and (jod given to them, becaufe they reprefenced his 
 Perfon^ and fpake in his Name. In this Senfe of th^ 
 word Perfon, the Church of Engknd^ even in her 
 TranQatioDS of Holy Scripture, call God a Per fan:, 
 namely, in the Texts that fpeak of him, as a f articular 
 (Intelligent) Beings and as difiind: from fome other ^ or 
 all other f articular Beings, Job 15. 7, 8. Will y't 
 ffea\ wickedly, for God^ will ye talk deceit fully for him^ 
 will ye accent HIS PERSON? Heb, i. i, 2, 3. GOD^ 
 who at fmdfy times and in divers manners fpake in times 
 fafiio the Fathers by the Profhets^ hath in thefe laft times 
 
 fpoken to m by his SOISl ; who being the brightneff 
 
 of his (God's) Glory ^arid the exfrefs Image of his (God's) 
 
 PERSON i when by hmfelf he hadfHrgedonr Sins^ 
 
 fat down on the right hand of the Majefly on high. In 
 the firft Text, God is intended to^ bQ diftinguijhed 
 from the Perfons whom he at any time judgeth -^ in the 
 Other, from the Lord Chrift conpdered as Our tiigfi^ 
 Priefi or Interceffbr with God, There is no Learned 
 Divine, but is aware of this •, and therefore all fuch 
 do fometimes, as well in writing as preaching, faj^ 
 the Perfon of God : namely, when they fpeafc of 
 God, not according to the internal Perfedion of his 
 Nature*, but according to fome external Relation, 
 to other Intelligent Beings ^ that is, as diftinguifhed 
 from them, or as oppofed to them, or fome fuch 
 like. 
 
 I do not wonder, K Socinns vvas not aware rf 
 this \ as having no other but Grammatical Learning, 
 not the leaft cindure of Academical^ ouch lefs of 
 Theological : But Votftms ought to* have been aware 
 
 of 
 
Part L conctrmng the (loly Trimty. 5 1 
 
 of it. Becaafe Socinns knew not, what the Church 
 intends by Ferfons; Father^ Son^ and Holy Sfirit^ 
 when file ufesthera of God 5 therefore he denied, 
 there are three Perfons of God, or three Divine 
 perfons : And becaufe he miftook whac is meant by 
 Incarnation^ HyfoftaticalVnion^ and fuch-like, when 
 he heard of theoa in Sermons •, therefore he denied 
 the Divinity of our Saviour. I fhall make this un- 
 deniable from the Raccovian Catechifin, which is 
 the Socman Syftem of Divinity s contrived and com- 
 piled originally by Socimsj Smalcius^ and Mofcoro- 
 ifiusj at RaccoH in Poland -^ and often re-print- 
 ed, with the Notes and Improvements of all the 
 Great Men of that Way ^ and laftof all by B.IV. 
 ( that is , BenediQ WiJfowatiHs ) at Stauropolis^ 
 (that is, Arnfterdam) in the Year i58o. When 
 this Catechifm would prove that, there is but one 
 Perfon of God -^ What is their Argument, or (as 
 they call it ) Demonftration ? Take it, in their own 
 words : Effemia Divina una tft^ non Spcicj fed nu- 
 Xtiero : ^napropter plnres ntimero Perfona in ea ejfe non 
 foffmt 5 cum Terfona nihil aliud [it^ nifi Eflentia indi- 
 vidua intelUgens. In EniUJh thus j " The Eflence of 
 ** Godisbutowff- and there can be but one Perfon 
 *' of God ; becaufe a Perfon is as much as to fay» 
 *^ one Intelligent Effence, Catech. Race. p. 26. This 
 is their Demonftration, to prove that, there is but 
 one Divine Perfon *, or one Perfon of God : But they 
 will never be able to produce one Catholick Writer, 
 that ever faid •, Godii three Petfons^ in this Senfe of 
 three Perfons, i,e, three Intelligent EJfences. The 
 Catholick Church ever owned that, in this re- 
 fpedGod is but one Perfon j fhe ever taught, he is 
 hut one Intelligent Effence : She declares it to be Hert" 
 fy^ and Tritheifm^ to affirm three (v/tfinite) Intelligent 
 \ Effencesy fhe believeth but one fuch Eflence j confe- 
 quently that, in that regard God is but one Perfon. 
 
 Let 
 
32 An Explication of the Catholic^ DoSrine 
 
 Let thefe Gentlemen know therefore, their Patri- 
 arch hath mifinformed them, concerning the Chur- 
 ches Dodtrine : He has engaged ^em, to oppofe a 
 Trinity that was never held in the Church *, and to 
 impugn his own ( unlearned ) MiftH^es^ as the pro- 
 per Errors of the Catholick Church. 
 
 'Tis too certain that, Smnus had never read one 
 Theological Book, when he firfl fet up for an He- 
 rejiarch. The Method of Education aiid Study, in his 
 time, was this ; they firft learned Grammar, and 
 the Clallical Authors : they went then from the 
 School to fome Vniverfity^ where they read firft Lo^ 
 gick,, then Ethkks and Phy/tcks^ then Mathematicks 
 aijd Aftronomy : This qualified them for an Acade- 
 mical Degree ; which Degree entred them on the 
 Hudy of Medicine^ Law^ or Divinity. Socwhs be- 
 gan no part of the Academical Learning : He knew 
 nothing of the very firft part of it^ Logic^ till the 
 latter part of his Litey as his Books (how, and as 
 himfelf confejjes. It is no wonder therefore that, 
 when he heard in the ChHrch-ConfeJfions^ and LitHr^ 
 gieSy of three Dmn^ Perfons^ of Father^ Son, and 
 Spirit ^ of Incarnation^ Hypofiatical Vnion^ and fuch- 
 like > he took them, as 'tis to be feared the Un- 
 learned too commonly do now^ in the familiar and 
 'Uhlgar Scnfe. 
 
 He imagined three fuch Perfons, as three A^en^ or 
 three jingeU are 5 that is to fay, Perfons that are 
 effentially difiin^^ and not modally only' When he 
 heard of Father^ Sony and Spirit diftind from both ^ 
 he conceited a phyfical^nd natural Generation, or 
 that they are dillintft Beings,, and diftin(n: Spirits, 
 He took Incarnation J and HypoflaticalVnion^zsim" 
 plying that-, th^ whole of God was Incarnate, and 
 the Humanity of Chrift was deified: The firft, the 
 Herefy of the Patrifajfians \ the other, of Entychfs^ 
 Becaufe he was not aware, perfe^ God may be Incar- 
 nate? 
 
Part T. cofjcermffg fhe Hotj Trwifji, 33 
 
 natev when the whole oC God is not. And becaufs 
 he knew not that, we fay indeed the Lord Chrift is 
 true God^ Creator, and from all Eternity •, and we 
 fay this, of his Perfon : But of his Perfon, not as 
 Man 5 but in refped only of the indwelling Divini- 
 ty^ or God in him. 
 
 Briefly, I fay ; had Socinus been qualified by any 
 Theological, or Academical Learning 5 he was a Maa 
 too difcerning to have oppofed the Do6irine of thd 
 Church, or have controverted the terms fhe nfcs : but 
 becaufe Ovidh Eptftles^ TuUfs Offices-, and a few Pages 
 of Hejiod ^nd Horner^ were the whole Extent of his 
 Learning •, he firft miftook the Church, and thea 
 oppofed her. This provoked J. Rivet^ ProfeHbr 
 at Leyden^ to fay of him '■> Ego in ifto homine nihil 
 ijideo^ prater imperttiam^ omnia igmrandi ; ^ audu'- 
 ciam^ omnia negandi. 
 
 Some of the molt Learned of Socinas his Follow- 
 ers, have known that the Church doth not intend 
 three fuch Perfons in God, as are three diftinCt Ejfen^ 
 ces\ which is the Trinity they oppofe. Therefore 
 to excufe themfelves, and Socinus^ they have faid 
 that ; the true meaning of the word Perfon^ in com- 
 mon and familiar Speech, is, one Imelligent Effence, 
 diftindi and dlverfe from all other particnU^ (Jntelli- 
 gent) E fences : And that therefore^ if indeed the 
 Church means not, there are three diftindt Efftnces 
 of God; neither ought fhe to fay, there are three 
 Perfons of God. In ^oni&\Q givcth the Scandal, 
 by her unproper Language. 
 
 To this, I anfwer : If the Gentlemen of this Way, 
 will not allow us to ufe any Terms in Theology^^ 
 that are borrowed from familiar and vulgar Speech 5 
 ^andto give to them fuch fignification. as is proper 
 to declare the Nature of the Subjed: of w^hich we 
 treat: they deny to us what is yielded to ail other 
 Sciences and Arts, whether Liberal or Mechanical, 
 
 D withoug 
 
34 -^^ Explication of the C^tholicliDo&rine 
 
 without any contradiftion. For the Sciences adopt 
 the Words of familiar Speech, and appropriate 
 them to their Myfteries i,' in a Senfe that iliall make 
 the Myftery more intelligible, without wholly or in- 
 tirely ftripping the Word or Term of its primitive 
 or vulgar Signification, Why do we quarrel with 
 the Church about Perfinsy and other Terms , be- 
 caufe not ufed in Theology, as in vulgar Speech v 
 when we are content that, all other Sciences ufe 
 that liberty ? Why, for inftance, are not large Vo- 
 lumes written alfo againft the Logicians, or the Me- 
 taphyficians •, for their Genus^ Species^ Differentia^ 
 Froprium^ and Accidens : which thofe Gentlemen 
 have borrowed from the (Roman) ClalTical Authors, 
 and from common Speech ^ but have clothed them 
 with a new Senfe, utterly different from their vulgar 
 meaning? In Latin Authors, Genns is the Family, or 
 Linage of 2iny Perfon ^ Speciesis the Form, Phyfnomy, 
 or (hape of a thing ^ Diff^erentia^ on the contrary, is the 
 dijfmilittide of Perfons or Things *, Proprinm is a 
 IVlan'soiP», in oppofition to things borrowed ox fiolen 5 
 Accidens is any Cafuality^ good or bad, that happens 
 to any Perfons. But when thefe words are ufed, as 
 Tfrwj in their Science or Art, by the Metaphyficians, 
 or the Logicians •> Blefs us, how do Myfticks tranf- 
 form them? Genns^ according to them, is not the 
 Linage or Pedigree*, but is, as BEING to Sub" 
 flame and Occident ^ and as SUBSTANCE to 
 Sfirit and Bodies. Species is not the Form, Shape^ 
 or Phyz \ but is, as M AN to Teter and James^ or 
 as the fpecifick general Nature of Lion and Bear to 
 particular Lions and Bears. Differentia is not, as a- 
 mong the Vulgar, the external Dijfimlitude of 
 things •, but the particular Modality of each Indivi- 
 dual in the feveral fpecifick Natures, namely the 
 Angelical, the Human, and that of Mutes. Pro- 
 prium is by no means a Man's own Goods and Chat- 
 
 •t telsi 
 
Part I. conccrnmg the Holy Trinity, 5 5 
 
 telsi but is, as RtfibiUtjim Man, a Property that 
 is no ejfential part of his Nature, but yet is always ia 
 it. Accidence^ or Cafnalty^ they metamorphize into 
 an inferior, fort of Beings •, it is as CoIoht^ or other 
 Qualities are in Bodies i which are things that may 
 be away, or may be changed into their Contraries, 
 or be varied in degree, and yet the Body (to which 
 they belong) renaain the fame. Here now was a- 
 bundant Matter, for ihcims his Grammatical and 
 Philological Skill ; He' may eternally confute the 
 Logicians and Metaphylicians from the good Authors 
 he has read ^ from Terence^ and Tlautiu •-> nay from 
 Tnllyj and QHintilian^ who fpake not only a true, 
 but learned Latin. And truly every body muft 
 grant that, he might as well (or better) have at- 
 tacked the IVletaphyficks, and all other Arts ^ for u- 
 ling words, as he thinks, improperly ^ that is, noE 
 as they are ufed by the Fulgar: as have reformed, or 
 pretended to reform the Language of the Church *, 
 which he underftood too, juft as much as he did the 
 Adetafhyficks. 
 
 'Tis pertinent here to take account of what paf- 
 ^^di between Merfennns^ and Rmrns •, two Men very 
 jwell matched, in refpe<5t of Elegance of Learning, 
 'and Freedom of Thought : there have fcarce beea 
 two Contemporaries fo eminent, in both thefe re- 
 fpedts. Mirfenms v^ras a Roman C^thoWc^ a Regn- 
 Uvj of the Order of tht Minims: but to whom all 
 Learned Men that vifited France^ always took care 
 to be recommended, and to pay their Refpedtsto 
 him. RHarMsvj2LS^Holj}einer^ a Gentleman of arti- 
 ple Fortunes, and a Mind no lefs great : He was a 
 Socitiian j and tho he never wrote a particular Book, 
 yet his Lttters to Learned Men of all Perfuafion^, 
 jjrocured hini a Reputation all over Chriftendom, as 
 well as among his own Party, as the (Honorary) 
 Head, or Principal, of that whole Se^:* Thel6 
 
 D 2 Letters 
 
3 6 An Explication of the Catkolicl^ Do&rme 
 
 Letters were piiblifhed, after his Death, in two Vo- 
 lumes, 2tAmfl€rdam\ the firft Volume, Aniio i<$77. 
 theother, Anno jdSi. b^thmOliavo, 
 
 MerfmnPis having heard of this Gentleman, and 
 being defirous to read the Socinian Authors, wrote 
 to him \ entreating him, to fend to him the princi- 
 pal Books of the Men of that Way : which were 
 Icarce in France ; but very caramon in Poland^ where 
 RHartis had chofe to refide, at a place near 
 Dant^i^kc Ruants immediately made a Remittance 
 of the Works of Crellius^ Folkelius^ and SMichtin- 
 gins h which was requited by Merfennus^ by a Pre- 
 fent of his own Books, and of the Works of the 
 ]t^\AlPetiivms. 
 
 But when Mrfennus bad looked over the SocinUn 
 Books, he prefently obferved what I have been now 
 faying, that v the Socinians whoUy miftook the Voc* 
 trine and Terms 'of the Catholic Church. They 
 feem, fays thU Great Ma^.^ not to be well informed 
 what is the Faith of the Church concerning the Holy 
 Trinity --> I afllire you, I will even /wear to you that, 
 there is ?io 'irithetfm in our Dodrine. We fay, 
 *' i:^,^ Father is Original WISDOM, the Princi- 
 " pie or Caufe of that WISDOM by which he 
 *' knowethhimfelf; and of that WILL by which he 
 " loveth himfelf, or is delighted in his own Perfedi- 
 *' ons. Pater efi ORlGO INTELLECTVSj qmfe 
 ferfeUe htelHgit ♦, & FOLVNTATJS etiam, wediantc 
 Intelkllu. The words mediante InteUe^n^ were ad- 
 ded to (jgnify the Proceffion of the Spirit from the 
 Father and the Son > or i^* the Son, as mediante In' 
 telle^H more properly flgnifies. His words may be 
 thus Analyfed, viz.. 
 
 Pater efi OrigQ INTELLECTUS, the Father u Ori^ 
 
 ginalWifdom, 
 
 ^ Intel' 
 
part L concermng the Holy Trimty. 57 
 
 InteHeStm^ t^uo fe perfe&e Intelligit, The Original 
 fir Califs of that WJST>QM^ by which he' ferfeiily 
 mderftandeth himfelf^ or of the S O 2V. 
 
 Et voluntatis^ weMante ImdUBtt, The Vrincifle 
 alfo of WILL^ (or the Spirit J by the reflex WIS- 
 DOM ^ or Son. 
 
 1 have not feen the Catholick Doctrine couched in 
 fo few words ; but as it is faid in the Proverb^ A Word 
 to the Wife : In fo few words, he thought he had 
 faid enough, to fuch a Mercury 04 Ruarus *, and that 
 he had fully anfwered all the Socinian Books, that 
 Gentleman had fent to him. And fo it proved ; for 
 l\[0 Rnar us took a year's time to anfwer, his Reply 
 ferves only to confirm what Merfennm had faid. Hp 
 anfwers, -^'^fl* ^ 
 
 Fir^, This Explication of the D0(ftrine of the 
 Catholic Church, is ^6(pov cpocpijuxxxiv^a good Excufe^ 
 Is it fo ? But had it not been as eafy, and a little 
 mote fincere to have faid ; T/x a juft Defence? For 
 if it be the former, \is the latter. 
 ' Secondly, He is in bodily fear left it (hould be 
 SabeBiamfm. f fcarce think that, he is inearneft; 
 fo Learned a Man could not but know, the Dodrine 
 of SabelliHi is diretlly contrary to this of tiie Church. 
 For the Divine Perfons, according to the Church, are 
 Modal DifiinEiions in the Divine Nature^ or Eflence \ 
 whereof the fecond is generated by the Firft, and 
 the Third froceeds from the other two : Whence 
 they are rightly called, INTERNAL RELATI- 
 ONS of the Deity^ to it felf On the contrary, the 
 Trinity of SabeUius, is three EXTERNAL RELA- 
 TIONS of God^ to his Creatures : That is to fay, 
 God afting in the three Difpen fa tions ;, the Law^ 
 the Gofpelf and the effufion of the Sprit on the Apo- 
 Itles, and other Faithful. I ihall own however, 
 that this is an old Obj(5iion to the Churches Doc- 
 trine: for S<fcrates witnelleth that, the Council of 
 
 D 3 Nios 
 
§8 The Opinion of St. Auftin 
 
 TSlice was accufed by many, as reviving SabeUiamfm<, 
 by their terra Homo-ufws 5 by which they meant, God 
 is one Subftance, and the Divine Perfons are one 
 Eflenc^i and one Spirit, Socrates^ Hift. Ecch /.J. 
 
 Thus thefe two Wits parted 5 and made no more 
 words of the Matter, in their following Letters: 
 ^uarm found there was no more to be laid to the 
 Objcdion; and Merfennus perceived, be bad al- 
 ready objeded enough, tho in fo few words. 
 
 Of St. Auftin. 
 
 The Difputes we have lately had in England con* 
 cerning the true Notion of the Divine Trinity, 
 make me willing to confirm what bath been (hi- 
 therto) faid \ by fome fuch Authorities^ as may en- 
 tirely fatisfy the doubtful : I will begin with that 
 of St. Anflin^ becaufe it includes fo many more. For 
 as to this Father, Monfieur Dh Pin has rightly and 
 juftly obferved, in his Hiftory of the Ecclefiafticd 
 Writers^ ^th Century, p. 207. " St. >^«y?j« Bilhop 
 *' of Uipfo^ framed ( if we may fo fpeak ) the Bo- 
 *' ^y of Divinity for all the Latin Fathers that came 
 *' after him : They have not only taken out of his 
 *'*' Books, the Principles they made ufe of; but oft- 
 " times they have only tranfcribed him. TheOww- 
 ** cils have borrowed his words, wherewith to ex- 
 ** prcfs their Decifions. P. Lombard, Bifhop of P^- 
 " ris in the i2rib Century, undertook to make an 
 *' Epitome of the whole Body of Theology \ bis 
 " Work, after al), is little elfe but a CoUet^ion of 
 ** Paflages out of this Father. And tho St. Thomas 
 '*" and other School- Voit or s followed another Method', 
 " yet for the moft part they adhere to St. Jufiins 
 '* Princi^ks^ and upon them have ereftcd their Thep- 
 
 " logical 
 
Part /. concerning the Holy Trinity. 5 9 
 
 ^* logical Opinions and Conclulions. In (hort, hs 
 faithy the Councils of the Church, the Fathers, and 
 Scbool-Dodors or Divines of the middle Ages, in 
 the Latw Chnrchj have all ftridtly followed the Do- 
 ftrine of St. Mfiin. We Ihall fee hereafter that 
 the Greek Churches have no lefs deference for St. -^«- 
 ftin^ efpecially in the Article of the Holy Trinity •, 
 than the Latin ( or Weflern) have. 
 
 Of all the Works of St. Jtiftirt^ his fifteen Books 
 of the Trinity, feem to have coft him the raofl time 
 and pains. Mr. Dh Pin faith, he began them in the 
 Year of our Lord 400. and finifht them in 416. 
 No doubt that Learned Critic had very good Reafons 
 for that Supputation ; but St. Aaftin himfelf, fpeak- 
 iug more generally and laxly, faith, De Trinitate 
 (quA Deu6 verm & fHmmus eft) libros JHVenis inchoavi^ 
 fenex edidi : '^ The Books concerning the Trinity, 
 '' which is the true and moft High God, Itegan 
 " when young, I publiflied them when old. 
 They are direded, (or if you will, dedicated) to 
 AureliHi Bifhop of Carthage^ and Primate of Africa^ 
 in thefe words : Beatiffimo^ & San[io, & fincerifftma 
 charitate Venerando^ Fratri & Confacerdoti^ Pap£ Aa^ 
 relio, " To the moll blelled, holy, venerable, onr 
 ** beloved Brother and Fellow-Prieft, Pope A^reli- 
 '' us. To which we may note, by the by, that 
 Pofe and Saim were Titles that were given indiffe- 
 rently to all Bifhops in that Age, and down to the 
 latter end of the nth Century ; when Pope began to 
 be appropriated to the Bifhopof Rowe^ and Saim was 
 bellowed only on the Dead, and by that Bidiop. 
 
 Mr. Dh Pin well exprelTed the Nature, and De- 
 fign, of thefe Books of St. Aufliriy in thefe words: 
 ''^ They are rather a dogmatical Difcourfe (or InflitH- 
 *'^ tiori) concerning the Myflery of the Trinity, than 
 " comroverfial Writings againft Heretick^ He in- 
 ^' f^eth not fo much; on refuting the Reaf^j^ns of the 
 
 D4 ''He- 
 
40 The Opinion of St. Auftin 
 
 '' Hereticks, or proving tbeDoarine of the Church » 
 ^' as upon fubtle and curious Enquiries, for clearing 
 ''• ov exfonnding this Myfitry, Eccl. Hift. Ce«r. 5. p. 
 1^3. I mention this, the rather, becaufe a late 
 Learned Writer has thought fit to fay, in his Prefa- 
 tory DifcoHrfe^ to an Examination of an Expofttion of 
 the XXXIX jirticks^ by my Lord Btjhop of Sarutn ^ 
 '*• There is very little, if any thing, to be met in 
 " Holy Scripture, to explain the Trinity: nor is it 
 '' what any one ought to pretend to explain^ any farther 
 *' than to prove a Trinity In Vnity^ and Vnity in Tri- 
 " nity, (according to what is revealed in Scripture) 
 *^ is tobeworiliiped. St. jiufiin^ on the contrary, 
 thought that^ when we fay Trinity in Unity, and 
 Unity in Trinity, and thefe are to be worfhip- 
 edj 'tis as neccifary that one Ihould underftand 
 what is meant by Trinity in Unity, and Unity in 
 Trinity, as 'tis to iror/|j?p fuch Unity in Trinity, or 
 Trinity in Unity. And truly other-ways, either by 
 falfe Ideas, we fhall be guilty o{ Idolatry ♦, or by none^ 
 of Athtifm. But let us hear the Father hirafelf : Cer- 
 U cum credunt Scripturis fan^is^ agant orando^ & bene 
 I'ivendoy at intelligant h<ecf Id eft^ ut <jHantum fieri po^ 
 tcfl^ 'VideatHr mente qmd tenetur Fide, ^ms hoc prohi' 
 heat ; inw quis ad hoc non hortetnr f '^ Let em endea- 
 *' vour by Prayer, and by Holy Living, to under- 
 *'• ftand thefe things 5 that iS| to comprehend by the 
 '' Mind, what is- believed by Faith, Who will forbid 
 ^^ 'em-, or rather, who will not advife thera there- 
 *^ to? De Trin. X.15. c, 27. Again, " That God 
 *^ is a Trinity, we ought to evince (Jf we can) by 
 *' fome Demonllration, to all capable Perfons ; as 
 ^* well as to Bd'tevers^ that r&ft in the Authority of 
 *• Scripture. Why I faid if tt<? can^ will better ap- 
 ^' pear, when the Matter itfelf begins to be opened, 
 ^' in the following Enq-uiry concertjing it. But God 
 ^^ will help us: for it is written in the Pfalms of Z^^- 
 
Part I. cofjcerning the Holy Trinitj. 41 
 
 *-^ vidy The Heart of them (hall live that feek^the Lord. 
 '' And, Let thofe that feek^thee^ rejoice. And again, 
 *' fiAy^^ ^^' ^^^t f^^k. him always. Farther more, 
 be often takes notice of St. Panlh worcfeto the J^o- 
 m^ns '■> The invifthU things of God are clearly feetu being ««- . 
 derftood by the things that are made : to which ne as often 
 adds the words of God, in the firft Chapter of Gcnefis \ 
 Let us make Man^ in our Image^ after our Likenefs, 
 Grounding himfelf on thefe Texts, he difcovers a 
 Trinity, in the vifible and fenflblepart of the Creati- 
 on s but more efpecially in the Soul of Man, on which 
 (faith lie) the Image of the Trinity is manifeftly im* 
 prefled •, in his own words, Immortaliur immcrtalitati 
 ejus inftta. Which things, faith he again^ we have 
 made to be the Subjed of this prefent Writing, from 
 our 9r/? to our \\th Book, Li^.i 5. (7.2. He believes, 
 it v/as the very Reafon that an- Intelligent Nature is 
 given to usj even this, to enquire and fearch con- 
 cerning God \ ad hoc debet homo ejfe Intelligens^ ut re- 
 qnirat Deum. L. 15.^. 2. He fpeaks there, not of 
 knowing rto God is, but what he is^ the Vnity of 
 his Nature, the Trinity of Perfons, and how both- are 
 to be finder fl 00 d : which is the matter of his Enquiries, 
 in all thefe Books, 
 
 St. Baz.il furnamedxhe C7r^^f, St.Gregory called the 
 Theologer cr Divine^ and St. Gregory Nyjfeny^ Greeks 
 Fathers that flourifhed fometime before St. Auflin^ are 
 very much employed in explaining the Myftery of the 
 Trinity : there will beoccafion hereafter Co fet down 
 their Explications^ here I only mention them, to 
 fiiow that the moll celebrated Fathers believed it to 
 be lawful, and even thought it to be neceUary, to «w- 
 fland with the Mind{^s we have heard Si^Anfiin fpeak- 
 ing) what is believed by Faith, 
 
 The Councils alfo, General and Provincial, the 
 Confeffions of Faith by the Proteftant Churches ^ 
 have alraoft all of them given fome E^cflkathn^ and 
 
 divers 
 
42 The OpmioH of Sf,AnRin 
 
 diveris of them a very large Explication, of the Trini- 
 ty in Unity, and Unity in Trinity. 
 
 Neither ought we to omit that, the Heretical Ex- 
 plications of^ SabelliHSy of yirins^ and Philofonns^ a- 
 
 * mong the#Antients ; of 'Joachim^ Gilh. ForretaUy P. 
 AbatlarciuSy in the middle Ages ^ ofGentilis^ CurceUdz- 
 
 ns^ and Mr.Bidle^ Gnce the Reformation ^ do inevita- 
 bly engage the Orthodox in very particular Explica- 
 tions of this Article : unlefs by only ufing the general 
 Expreflions of irinity in Vnity^ and Vnity in "Trinity^ 
 we fhould rather feem to licenfe all of them, than dif- 
 allow any of them. For 'tis undeniable that, all thofe 
 Heretics contend for Trinity in Vnity y and Vnity in 
 Trinity^ tho in Heterodox Senfes. 
 
 Therefore if fome Learned Men have more em- 
 ployed themfelves in other Studies, than in this •, 
 fo that they don't think fit, themfelves to ftate the 
 Dodrine of the Catholick Church in this Article : 
 they ought not hereupon to forbid to others all Exp- 
 fition of the Churches Faith, but only this •, that we 
 are to believe and worfhip Trinity in Vnity, and Vni- 
 ty in Trinity, Rather, we ought never to ufe thofe 
 words, without an Expofition : to fpeak 'em without 
 Ideas^ that is without a meaning, is to fpeak them 
 Cto fay the beft) as Parrots •, to fpeak them with wrong 
 Ideasy implies Herefy, But I return to the Fa- 
 ther. 
 
 To give a'diftind Account of St. Anfiins Work, 
 we were beft to obferve this Method \ we will confi- 
 der, I. The curious Queftions, relating to the Arti- 
 
 - cle of the Trinity, that are here refolved. 2. The 
 Expofitions of fome of the Gree\{ Fathers, that St. 
 jiuflin rejedls ^ as partly imperfect, and partly as 
 leading to Error. 3. Some likenelTes of the Trinity, 
 that he finds in the vilible Creation, and in the 
 Soul of Man •, but which come not up to a tolera- 
 ble Explication. 4. The Explication, that after 
 
 much 
 
Part I. concerning the Hc/jiTrinitp 45 
 
 much canvaffing, he approves ^ and the Image of 
 that Trinity in Man, Immortaliter immortal'nati eJHi 
 infita. 
 
 f^eflions concerning the Trinity y or the Divine 
 Perfonfy refohed bj St. Auftin. 
 
 It is a Queftion among the Modern Divines^ whe- 
 ther the Apparitions of God to the Patriarchs^ were 
 indeed fo many Apparitions of God himfelf, in the 
 Perfonof the Aoy©^ or WORD^ oronlyof Angels, 
 who refrefenting God on thofe occafions, are therefore 
 called the LORD, or as 'tis in the Behrem JEHO- 
 V AH. The Reafon of the Doubt is, becaufe in fome 
 Texts of Holy Scripture, particularly in divers of 
 the New Teftament^ thofe Apparitions are called 
 Angels, Thus, the appearance to Mofes in the burn- 
 ing Bu(h, is by Mofes called Jehovah : he faith ex- 
 predy, when Jehovah faw that Mofes turned aftde to 
 fee •, Cod called to him ont of the midfi of the* Bhpj, 
 Exod, 3. 4. But St. Stefhen incerpreteth this ap- 
 pearance of Jehovah to have been, not immediate* 
 ly by himfelf, but by his Angel. ACts 7. 30. 
 There appeared to Mofes (in the Wildernefs of Sin a J 
 an Angel of the LORD \ ina flame of Fire ^ inaBH[h. 
 He not only fays, it was an Angel; but he denies 
 that it was the LORD. Therefore to this difficul- 
 ty, St. Auftin anfwers, by faying. Scriftum efi^ dix^ 
 it DOMJNVS ad Mofem*, non qjero, dixit Angelns 
 ad Mofem .* qnia cnm verba Jadicis Pr^co pronuntiat 
 non fcrihitur in geftis, ille Prseco dixit^ fed iHe Judex 
 dixit. '^ It is written (in the Book of Exodus) the 
 '^ LORD faid to Mokst, not the Angel f aid to Moiks: 
 " becaufe when the Crier of the Court pronounces 
 '' the Sentence of the Judg 5 it is not regifter'd in the 
 ** Rolls, the Crier faid, but the Judg faid. Lih,2. r.i i. 
 
 Ic 
 
44 T^l^^ Opinion of St. Auftin 
 
 It (hould feem, this was the Manner of the Courts 
 in St. Juftinh Tinie : and he thought it a fufficient, 
 either Example, or Comparifon, to fhow that what 
 an Inferior fays or does by exprefs and immediate 
 Order of his Suj^erior, it is to be reckoned, not to the 
 Sent^ but the Sehckr ^ n6t to the IVteflengef, but to hh 
 Principal ; and accordingly in the Cafe now before us, 
 not to the Angel, but to the LORD that fent him. 
 
 He is troubled with that Text, MarK.i^.^i. Of 
 that Day and Hour knowtth no Mun 5 no not the Angels^ 
 nor the Son^ hut the Father. Or as St. Matthew has it, 
 the Father only. Did not our Sayioiir know that 
 time, of the lafi Judgment •, or as others here inter- 
 pret, of the Exctfion 0/ Jerufalcm ? U not -, how was he 
 God ? If he did *, how ihall we defend his Veracity ? 
 When he faith fo exprefly, the Son knoweth not that 
 Day and Hour^ bat the Father '•> nay the Father only^. 
 Matth, 24. 35. The Father anfwers^ our Saviour 
 knew the ^reeife Time, the Day and Hour^ of the 
 Event concerning which he was asked : but his An- 
 fwer is fuch a form of Speech, as that of St. Paul to 
 the Corinthiansy I Cor. 2. 2. 1 k^evf nothing (or I re^ 
 folved to know nothing) among yon^ but only Jefns 
 Chriftt and htm crucified. Or as when God fa id to 
 Abraham^ Gen. 22. 12. Nofolknow^ that thou fear ef^ 
 God j feemg thou haft not mtholden thy Son^ thy only Son^ 
 from me. It appears by thefe Texts that, in the Phra- 
 feology (or manner of fpeaking) of the Jewifh Nation, 
 to ks^ofp a things or mt: to %(?ip it, implies fometimes 
 only that, we make it known ^ or do not make it %eip», 
 to others. For when St. Paul fays, He knew nothing 
 among the Corinthians, but only Jefus Chrift ^ and 
 him crucified : he means only, he made nothing elfe 
 known to 7 HEM, he fpoke to them of no other 
 thing. Of all the Learning he had acquired at the 
 Feet of Gamaliel^ or at the Univerlity of Tarfm^ he 
 faid nothing to the Corinthians-' Among them he 
 
 knew 
 
Part L concermn^ the Holy Trimty, 45 
 
 kn^w nothing but Jeftis Chrifi:, and him crucified ; 
 thothey were curious and eager of other Knowledg. 
 And when God fajd to Abraham^ Now 1 know thai 
 thoa feareft fne *j it. is certain, he as much knew ic 
 before: bxit nov^ he ' made it k^own to Abvdhzm h for 
 it was by this high Trial, that Abraham was made 
 to know with certainty his own Heart towards 
 God. Therefore To alfo it was that our Saviour 
 h^ew^ and did not k^ow^ that Day and Hour: he knew 
 it as to himfelf^ or perfonally knew it i he did not 
 know it with reffeA to his Difciples^ from whom he 
 thought fit to conceal it : as the Apoftle knew no- 
 thing with refpe5l to the Corinthians^ but only Jefus 
 Chrifl: ; and hira, crucified. Lib, i. c. 12. 
 
 To the Qiieftion, Whether the Holy Spirit pro- 
 ceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Fa* 
 ther only ? St. jiiiliin anfwers \ The Holy Spirit is 
 the Spirit both of the Father and the Son : He pro- 
 ceedeth from both i but not as from two Principles, 
 bat as from one. He faith however, the Spirit pro- 
 ceedeth principally from the Father ^ and he well ex- 
 plaineth this dangerous Spying, by adding that; 
 " The Son dcriveth from the Father Being and God- 
 *' head *, and herewith he alfo deriveth necefTarily 
 *^ from the Father this Power, if we may fo fpeak, 
 *' of communicating (together with the Father) 
 " Being and Godhead to the third Perfon.inthe un- 
 " divided Trinity. Lib.i'y. c, 17, In fhorr, the 
 Holy Spirit proceed eth from the Father and from the 
 Son \ but from the Father principally^ in regard that 
 it is from the Father that the Son hath this Power 
 of communicating Being and Godhead to the Holy 
 Spirit, both equally and as one Principle with the Fa- 
 ther. Befides the Texts ufually alledged, to prove 
 the Proceflfion of the Holy Spirit from the Father 
 and the Son, St. J^nflin alledges alfo that ; if the 
 Spirit proceeded from the Father only, and not 
 
 from 
 
46 TheOpinion of St. AwKin 
 
 from the Son, then the Son could not have given the 
 Spirit*, but ^^ breathed on his Bifci^les, andfaidj Re» 
 ceive the HolyGhoji. John 20. 22. He faith here- 
 upon, the Difciples ( or any other Man or Men ) 
 had no power to give the Holy Spirit •, but only to 
 pray that he might be given to thofe Perfons upon 
 whom they fhould lay their hands. Upon this he en- 
 largeth much •, I fhall only repeat one Paragraph, as 
 being very remarkable, ^amus eft Defti ille^ qui 
 dat Deumf Nee ernm aliqm Dtfcipdornm ejtu dedlt 
 Spirittim SanUum: Orahant Ht vtniret in eos^ ^iiihtiS 
 tnantu imfoHehant\ non ipfi earn dahant, Atque hunc 
 morem in fuU Pr<epofetis etiam nunc fervat Ecclefia : nos 
 4ccipere qnidem hoc donum pojfumWj fro modulo nofiro i 
 effnndere ant em in alios nonpoffumm. Vt hoc fiat^ De- 
 um (a qno efficitnr) fnper eos invocamui, '* How 
 " great a God is he, who can give God ? For we 
 " are to be aware that, none of the Difciptes gave 
 ** the Holy Spirit*, they prayed^ that he might 
 " come upon thofe, on whom they ihould lay their 
 ** hands. And this Cuftom is ftill preferved in the 
 " Church, by the Bishops : We can receive this 
 '' Gift, according to our Meafure; he^ow it ono' 
 ** thers^ we cannot •, that it may be given to others^ 
 " we pray over them, to that God who alone can 
 " dothisthing. Z/zKiS. cr. 25. 
 
 Why do we fay, the Son is %cff^;/, but the Spi- 
 rit proceeds? As we fay, the Son is begotten by tiie 
 Father : why not alfo the Spirit is begotten^ by the 
 Father and the Son 5 but he proceeds from both ? 
 The Sainf anfwers *, befides the Reafons known to 
 God, who himfelf maketh this diftindion in his 
 Word : we may fay, with refped to our felves, we 
 are taught this Myftery in the diflindt Terms of 
 begotten and proceeding •, to preferve the Propriety and 
 Significancy of Himan Speech * if begotten and proceed- 
 ing were indifferently ufed, we could not underftand 
 
 what- 
 
Part f. co^cenmfg the Holy Trinity, 47 
 
 what was faid. For we never fay Son or begotten^ 
 but only where there is to one begetter ; no Son ii the 
 Son of two Fathers. Non difcitar Nafci^ fed fotim 
 Procedere Spirits San&M ^ quoniam fi & i(te Filita 
 dicer et fir ^ amhorttm mtqtte Filias dicer etur : qaod 
 eft abfhrdijfimftm 5 nam Filim nullns efi dnorHm^ nifi 
 Patris & Matris, *' The Spirit is not faid to be 
 *' begotten, but rather to proceed*, becaufe if he 
 *' alfo were called a Son^ he fhould be the Son of 
 " the Father and Son : Which were fnoft unproper, 
 " and even abfurd in Speech •, for we never- fay the 
 ** Son of two^ but only when we mean it of Father 
 ^^ and Mother, Lib. 15. c. 27. He obferves how- 
 ever that, tho we mud not fay^ the Spirit was be- 
 gotten i which were to contradid the Holy Scrip* 
 cures, which fay, he doth froceed : yet neither doth 
 the Catholick Church fay, he h unbegotten \ left any 
 fhould fufped, that in the Trinity there are two Fa- 
 thers^ or two who are of None. In his own words, 
 Ne vel dues Patres in Trinitate^ vel duos qui non funt 
 de Alio, qhifpiam ftifpicetnr. Lib. 15. c. 26. No 
 doubt St. jifiliin would have declined this, and fome 
 other Queftions, if he could ; but he faith, there 
 were great Enquiries and Difputes about it in his 
 time, by all the Seds of Chriftians : So tljat it was 
 neceflary to fay fomething to it, for appeafing aa 
 untoward Curiofity, that has grown up among the 
 generality of Chriftians. His anfwer, tho ic doth 
 not unfold the Myftery *, it fatisfies however the 
 Enquirer thus far, that he needs not to ask or look 
 any farther, but be contented with the Words of 
 God: who hath ufed terms of diftindlion, becaufe 
 there is a Diftinftion ;, but hath not declared where- 
 in the Diftindtion conlifts, either becaufe it was not 
 necejfary for us to know it, or becaufe (at prefent) 
 \ve are not capable to know it. 
 
 Concern- 
 
48 The Opinion of St. Auftin 
 
 Concerning the Queftion, lately controverted be- 
 twe'en fome eminent Divines among us •, Whether as 
 there are three Divine Perfons, thefe Perfons are fo 
 mm^i ^iflinll Sprits^ or only one (Infinite, Eternal, 
 AHperfedt) Sprit f This Father hath fo explained 
 the Myftery of the Trinity, ( as we fhall fee here- 
 after ) that there can be no manner of Doubt, that 
 he underftood the Trinity of Perfons to be only a 
 MO DAL BifiinUion in God \ not fo many Sub- 
 ftances, Beings, or Spirits. And wherever he un- 
 dertakes to define or defcribe the Divinity, it is un- 
 der the Charadler of a Spirit^ not three Spirits, De 
 Creatore neceffe efi credere^ enm fumme vivere^ cunQa 
 fentire & inteUigere •, — «— - effe Spiritum omnitim po- 
 temijfimtm^ jujiiffimimy optimnm^ beatiffimnm, '^ Con- 
 " cerning the Creator^ it is neceiPary to believe that, 
 "he molt perfectly lives, perceives* and under- 
 " Hands all things •, that he is a Spirit^ of all others 
 " the mod powerful, julc, good, and happy. Lib. 
 15. C.4. But he hath alfo fome Paragraphs, where 
 he exprefiy denieth that, God is more than one Spi- 
 rit. Et Pater Spirits efi^ & Filins^.& ipfe Sandns 
 Spiritus : nee tamen tres SpiritHS^ fed mm SpiritMs j 
 itt non tres Dli^ , fed unus Deus. *"' The Father is 
 *'^ Spirit* the Son Spirit, and the Holy Ghoft Spirit : 
 " yet not three Spirits, but one Spirit ^ as not three 
 '*' Gods, but one God. Epifl. 174. He faith not, 
 the Father is a Spirit, the Son a Spirit, the Holy 
 Ghoft a Spirit j but the Father is Spirit^ and fo of 
 the reft : As the Father is God, not a God y 
 the Son and Holy Ghoft, each of them God, 
 not a God. For if each of thefe was a Spirit, and 
 a God ^ there muft be three Spirits, and three Gods. 
 The Father Spirit^ the Son Spirit^ the Holy Ghoft 
 Spirit^ is no more but this ;' the Father Spirimal^ the 
 Son SpiritHaly the Holy Ghoft Spirit ual Whereas 
 he cautioas us at laft, Non tres Spiritw^ fed mti$ 
 
 Spiritm > 
 
Part t concermng the Holj trhiiy, 49 
 
 Sfiritus i ut mfi trts Dii^ fed mus Veus. '' There 
 *' are not three Spirits, but one Spirit , as there 
 " are not three Gods, but one God. ^Tis as much 
 as to fay, we mull no more affirm three (Divine)' 
 Spirits, than we would affirm three Gods. He 
 could not have declared more plainly, and diredl/, 
 againft the Explication of thofe who make the three 
 Divine Pcrfons to be fo many Spirits ^ than by fay- 
 ing, ]Ve rnn/i m little own three Spirits^ m three 
 Cods, 
 
 Parallel to this, is that PalTage, Lib, 5. r, 11. de 
 Trinit^te. *^ The Trinity nbay be called One Godj^ 
 " but not be called One of the Perfons. We may 
 '^ not call the Trinity, ihe FATHER^ except ini 
 " thisrefpedl, that we are his Children by Adoption, 
 " Nor may we call the Trinity^ the SON, in any 
 *' refpedor fenfe whatfoever. but we may fay* 
 *V the Holy Trinity is (San(hs Spirit us) a Holy Spi" 
 ^^ rit'j becaufe the Scriptures fay, GOD IS A SPE- 
 ^* RtT. As for that i^oly Spirit^ which is not the 
 **; Trinity, hot i« the Trinity •, it is called Spirit, r^- 
 *^ lativety only : i. e. As it is a Sfiration from Fathet 
 and Son, and therefore related to them v as Princi' 
 fiHm and Prinei^iatitm. He often difcourfcs in this 
 manner, in the xv Books: and he excufeth his fre- 
 quent Repetition of ic, by faying \ \ ofceij come over 
 with the fame things, in thefe Books, to rix them int 
 my Reader's Memory^ and becaufe if there be af 
 miftake, ic will be more eafiiy difeovered.by coming 
 fo often under confideration. 
 
 But the mod important ofall the Ql^.eftions, that 
 concern the Myftery of the Trinity, .is; of the 
 Terms EJfencey Sfibftatjce^ and Perfons: whether thefc 
 are to be ijfed, concerning God ; and in what Senfe ^ 
 On this, it vyill be necellary to cite always the Fa- 
 ther's own Words. Ejfemiam dico^ qna *ouitix gr^ci 
 dicitHf \ & qnam ncs titini Hptatius fubfimtUni voca- 
 
50 The Opinion of Su Auftin ; , 
 
 mus, DicHnt quidem & Graci Hypoflafim •, ^ nefcio quid 
 *volmt inter ejfeinter Vpam & Hyjoftajim i'^ii^d^ &fkriq\ 
 noftri Latini^ (fui h<sc Gtdco tra^ant eloqmo^y dicer e con^ 
 fueverunt fxuxv ovcfixVy Tpefs \^o^(Teis ; quod eft Utine^ 
 mam Effemiam & tres Suhftantias, Sed quia noflra lo' 
 quendi confuetHdojam obtiMt^ ut hoc intelligatur curri di^ 
 cintHs BjJentiAm^ qnod intelligitur cUm dicimus [nh^ahti- 
 am ; mn mdemm dicer e^ unam Ejfentiam & tres Subpart* 
 tiasy fid unam Effemiam vel Suhflantiam &tres Ferfonas* 
 In (liort thus i '' The Greeks fay, one Effenceof God, 
 ^' and three //jz/J^y^^/fi: becaufethey diflinguilh/^- 
 '■^' pfiafts and Subfiance -^ l^in the fame mniler as 
 «^' the i^^^/>?idiriinguifh between Subfiance iMEer*. 
 **. fin^^ But the Latins 2\^2iY% ufing E^ence arid 
 •' Stibfldnce in the fame fenfe, or to denote the fame 
 *' thiii^ y therefore we dare not fty, 'one*Eflence of 
 " God, arfd three Subfidiii^sY b)Xt opQ/EiTGnc^^ 
 *;[SHh fiance^ 2in^thred Perj\)Hs: \J^':^J (^^'^'^^^\ *., 
 ViXiV\% Perfons theft 'a proper Jermto oe'iifed-J in 
 defcrrbin^ the temal Dipihttion in God'? St. Aufiin 
 thinksv it is not ^ unlefs ■the, very equivocal dpbi- 
 ^«o/^>Senfeof this wordbe'fiked: He obfefves, 'tis 
 uftd of Men ; for We call three Men, three Perfons : 
 but God is not fo three P^rfons, as three Men (dt 
 three Angels) are three Perfons. Three Men aire 
 threeTuch Perfons, as have diftind Suhflance^^ three 
 individual Natures ^ with fo many diftirid ' VnAer- 
 :fiaridingSi and Powers of Willing : And one of thefe 
 Human Perfons is not fo much as all the three ; as it 
 is in the Divine Trinity, where any orie;of • th^ Per- 
 fons is equal to al) the three •, the Father to himfelf 
 and to the Son arid Spitit, the Son to himfelf and to 
 the Father- and Spirit, the Spirit alfo to himfelf and 
 ■ to the Father and Son. ' Each of thefe Perfons having 
 the whole Divine Effence or Subflancey together with all 
 Effential Attribntes and PerfehioHs ihereof^ U perfe5i 
 God\ and therefore not more or lefs than the whole Tri*- 
 
 nity. 
 
Part I. concerning the Holy Trinity, 5 1 
 
 nity. There being this immenfe difference betwcwn 
 the term Pferfons,-wheii intended of three Human 
 Perfons, and the fame Te^m when meant of the 
 Divine PerfonSo St. v^ft«^/?/«ofteri concludes that, this 
 Term is too ambiguoo^, and not ftridtly proper in 
 the Myftery of the Trinity. Ciim qiurknr^ ^Id 
 tres ? Aiagm frerftu inopia labor at elo(^Hinm hnmanHm ^ 
 diSiiim efl 'trej^ PerfonAy non Ht illad^ diceretur^ fed ne 
 taceretur, *' When it is asked, Whafi-three? Hu- 
 *' man Speech is too barren to anfwer •, we fay three 
 ** PERSONS, not that we ihouid fay it, but left 
 " we fhoald fay nothing at all. Lib, j. c. p. And 
 again, Licuit loqpcendi (^ dtffntandi mceffitate tres Per- 
 Jonas d'tcere ; non quia fcriptura dictt^ fed qnia non con- 
 tradiCtt'y Siautem dicerehiM tres D^os^ contradiceret 
 Script Ur^i- qHadteit^ ^^ Aitd't Ifrael^ Domifim DetU 
 '' tuHS Deks uniis efi. — -^ — - ^mdigunr rcflat^ nift ut 
 fateamur^ loqttendi necejjitate parta hSc vocabuU \ cum 
 opus effetdlfpHtdtione contra Injtdios^ vel Errores^ /i/a>- 
 reticorum t /*■ In fpeaking and arguing concerning this 
 '• Myftery, it hath become nfu^l and lawful to fay 
 " three Fe^yo;?;*, not becjJufe the Scriptures fay it,biic 
 " becaufe they do not gainfay ic. But if we faid, 
 " three 6^0^/, the Scriptures would gainfay it*, for 
 " theyTay, Hear O Ifrael^ the' Lord thy God is one 
 
 " God, What remains then but that, we con- 
 
 *' fefs that thefe words [[Perfons and Hypoftafes] 
 
 ** have been introduced by a certain NeceHTityi to 
 
 " repel the Sbphiftries, and confute the Errors of 
 
 ^-^ Hereticks ? Lib,'], c,^. He repeats the fame 
 
 Thought, in another place, in thefe 'words ^ Non 
 
 ^inajor Ejfentia efi Pater & Viliiis & S^'in^^ Spirit us ^ 
 
 ^)^ttamf vim Pater ant folus Filim . fed tres ill£ ftblian* 
 
 ti<£ five Per fafi<t^ fi ita dicenda fnrK^ diqitalcsfmt (in^ 
 
 gnlif. *' Father Son and Spirit are not a greater 
 
 *' Effence, than the Father alone, or the Son alone 5 
 
 " but. thefe three Subftarices, or Perfons, IF WE 
 
 # E 2 '' MAY 
 
5 2 The Opinion of St. Auftiii 
 
 ll" MAY SO CALL THEM, are but equal to any 
 one of their own number. Lib. 7. c. 6, 
 It appears by all this, that, St. udi^ftin would wil- 
 lingly have fet afide three Sub fiances : becaufe in La- 
 tin, and the Languages derived therefrom, Ejjence 
 and Subftance are the fame ; fo that to fay three 
 Subftances, is the fame as to fay three Effences^ which 
 in God ( by confeffion of All ) were three Deities, 
 or Gods. Nocwithftanding, becaufe the Greeks fay, 
 one EfTence, three Hypoftafes; and that by Hypo- 
 llafis they do not mean Snbfianee properly fo called, 
 but mean only what the Latins intend by Perfon : 
 therefore he is not abfokitely againfl: faying three 
 Hypoflafes, or three Sdfiances ^ when by Subftance 
 we mean only ( as the Greeki^ and fome Latins that 
 follow them) Perfom, Secondly, That, Perfons it 
 felf is but too equivocal and ambiguous •, and has not 
 been introduced by any Example from Scripture ; 
 But the Senfe of that Term being once rightly fixed, 
 it is by all means to be retained \ as of excellent ufe, 
 nay as almoft necefTary, againfl Heretics, Againfl: 
 thcTritheifisy who would introduce three Divine Ef- 
 fences, or Subftances^ properly fo called. And againfl: 
 the Sabellians^ who aflign to the Perfons no Subltance 
 or EfFence at all, either in particular or in common; 
 but reprefent them as only fo many Oeconomiits, or 
 Manifefiations of the Divine IFill : namely under the 
 I»4ir,then under the Gofpel by ChHfl: •,[and again when 
 after our Saviour's Afcenfion, the JpojiUs v/ere far- 
 ther inflrudted in all Matters, by the Effufion of the 
 Holy Spirit^ or Infpiration of God. The Holy Fa- 
 ther having faid thus much, one may wonder that 
 himfclf has not defined the Term Perfon r as applied 
 to the Myfl:ery of the Trinity. It had been agree- 
 able to the Accuracy that he ufes through his whole 
 Difputation, in xv Books, to have diftinguifliM the 
 feveral Acceptations of Perfon : wJiich, taken for 
 
 Sub' 
 
Parti. coneermng the Holy Tritjiiy. 55 
 
 St^fiartcfj hath occafioned the Trirheifiick Herefy ; 
 taken for Oeconomy, or M^nife fiat ions ^ begets the 
 SabellUn Herefy \ taken for a Mode of Extfitng^ or 4. 
 Property^ that includes in it the Divine E (Fence, is //;« 
 Catboitck DoBrine, But he hath left it to the o^fer- 
 vant Reader, himfelf to form the Definition or De- 
 fcription of Terfon^ in the Divine Nature ; from the. 
 Explication he gives of the Trinity it felf. From, 
 that Explication, the Divines of the Schools defcribp^ 
 a Perfon in the Holy Trinity, to be *' the Divine' 
 ** EITence, or Qodheady uader a particular (intel- 
 *^ ledtual co-eternal ) Mode of Exiting, Of which 
 ** Modes, they note, there can be but three *, ori?^ 
 '^ ginal IntelleUy reflex StK-KnowUdgj and the Love, 
 " or Self complacence that proceeds froni both. 
 
 That thefe Dodtors have rightly underftood Sr; 
 yi^Hin^ we Oiall fee > when we con^e tp his Explica- 
 tion. 
 
 Some Expofitiom of the Trinity^ that St, Auftia 
 rejeSs ; fome LikeHeJfes of the Trinity^ that 
 he fnds in the Works of the Creation : The 
 true Exflic^tion^ ^nd the Imjige thereof in 
 Man. 
 
 Certainly we mud fay, this Father was a righj: 
 good Man : he argues on the Article of ;:he Trinity, 
 with a jnoderationand fweetnefs, that would obr 
 lige the"ideft Difleater from him \ oblige one, to 
 confider well what he fays, and to be forry if per- 
 haps one cannot agree to every thing that he fays. 
 He begins his Difqnifitions, concerning this Myfte^ 
 ry, with faying ^ gnifquU hac legit ^ ubi pariter cer^ 
 m cfiy fergat mecuvt •, uhi pariter ha fit at ^ qnarat ntc- 
 ^ifm: hH frrprcm [nnm cogmfcit^ redeat ad me\ uhi 
 
 E 3 mm 
 
54 Tie Opinion cf St. hudm' 
 
 tneum^ revocet^ me. " I defire my Reader that^wbere- 
 ^^ ever in thefe Books he is fatisfitidwith vOb'at I fay* 
 " he would go forwards' with me^ to what rehiains •, 
 " where we doubt, let us together feek farther con- 
 *' cerping the Matter : If he-fiiids that himfeif has 
 " rni'ftakcn, let him come.ovet'tb m<?5 where he fees 
 ^* I have miilaken, let hiiti cailme over to hitn. Lib. 
 I. C. •3. ^^ another places Citm Homines iyeitmqM£.' 
 rum^ C^ ddinte indent idni Tritptatis (pro -c aft h infirm' 
 talis Humane) animum'ThefidHnt \ fac'tllime Ment i^- 
 nofccre errantihuj in tanti -pervefit^atiom ficretu 
 '<• When M^wfeeksafter GOD ^ when the Human' 
 *' Frailty feeks to find out the Trinity^ ^s far as *tis 
 *'' able : ' fnch a one ong*hc to be very facile in Ibr- 
 *' giving' others, that have perhaps erred in their 
 ^^ feaiches concerning fJ great a Myftery. Lib.- 2. 
 c. I. He"'conciudes yet bMeri he er;ds his Books 
 with this Prayer. Domne^ pern Vnm^ Detts Trini^ 
 ta6\ qudicunqtte d'lxi in his Librvs de tuo, agfiofcant Sc 
 Tui-, fii^mde m^eo, i^nofce Tq, jgmfcam Tui, ," O 
 "^ Lord, One God ^6od the •Trinity •, what I'Kave 
 " faid in thefe -Books /rc77;r%f, let it be owned by 
 ''' all Ihine \ if I have fa id ought from my feif^ do 
 *^ thou pardoa' it, ^nd may Tmne, alfo forgive it. 
 Lth. 15. c. 2$. 
 
 But come we, as we propofed in the Title of this 
 Section, to^ome Expolltions that this Father notes, 
 and reje(ft^. /'/''' 
 
 Some Crff^ Divines, in their Books on this Artide, 
 had faid. ^''' There isontqT^w^ of Goi^,^^ 
 " Bwdftafes ;'and it i? tb be thus yderftoia.; One 
 *' Divine EITence, ot dn(^T>i'Vi»^ N^tUre^ ^snntHti* 
 ^^;j^an Nature^ Or one Jlngelicd^ Nature : itidi three 
 *^ Bivins 'fiMafes^ as in the Angelical Nature thiere 
 ^^ 2iXt divers \Aitgels'^ and In the Human Matute^*- 
 ^^ vers Menl for infl^nce, Titer., ^ames^ '^x^dj'otin, 
 ^'^ A;id olaiiijliiiuijV J^^^'^'^^^w bf O^W^thef ^fe 
 
Parti. coficermngthe HolyTrintt}', 55 
 
 •^4 three Statues and but one Gold : as we fay tbree Di^ 
 '*• \\n^ Perfons, each of thera God, and aU but one 
 *' God, According to thefe Dodors, God is noo- 
 therways oneGod^ than Veter James ^xid Johmrc one 
 Man^ or three Statues (all of them Gold) are one Gold', 
 and the Divinity is as truly three Gc^j, asthe Huma- 
 nity is three (or more) Men^ or three Golden Statues 
 are three (jd^/^ji if we might have their leave fo to 
 fpeak, which we (hall argue by and by. Sl.Aulhn was 
 fo moderate,as not to {2^ exprefly thar,thefe Explica- 
 tions neceflarily and immediately infer (or fuppofe) 
 three Gods*, tho all the Moderns fay it : he contents 
 himfelf to ihow that, they are not only, not juH: Ex- 
 plications; but not fit Similitudes^ or Comparifons. 
 '• Wedo not fay, three Perfons,and one Ellence or one 
 .'' Godi in fuchfenfeasif aSubftanceor Mafs were 
 '' made into any 3 t\\\r\g%StatHes (fuppofe) or VelTels. 
 '' We do not fay,rrf j Perfona ex eddem Sttbfiantia^ three 
 'V Perfons formed out of the fame Subftance : like 
 " three Statues out of the fame Gold ; or like three 
 " Men, in or of the fame Human Nature. For there 
 ^' are more than three Men in the fame Human Na- 
 ^^ ture, and may be more than three Statues of Gold ; 
 " and one Statue is not fo much as three, . or one 
 *^ Man as three Men: but contrary in the Trinity, 
 '' for in the Trinity there are no more than three 
 *' Perfons ; and all them are not more than one 
 '^ of them is. This is the Sum of what he faith. Lib, 
 7..f-<^. I have abridged that Chapter j becaufe his 
 Latin. vjQwld be obfcure to thofe that are not accuf- 
 toraed to the Latin of Barbary •, fuch as ail the j^fti- 
 can. Fathers, btiG only SuCypriany wrote : I will fub- 
 join however his very Words, becaufe fome will ex- 
 pedi and defire them. 
 
 ^on fie Trimtatem dicimm tres perfonas^ unam Ef- 
 fentiam & unum Deum ^ tanquam ex una materia tria 
 ^Ui^edam fubfijier.entj^ etkmfi' q^uic/imd iilud efi\^in\his 
 
 E 4 trihm 
 
^6 The OpwioHof St, Auftin 
 
 trihus expUcatum fit, Non enim ali^uid aliud ejus Ef 
 femia efi prater iftam Trinitatcm. Tamen tres Perfo- 
 nas ejufdem EfTentia^, v^l tres Perfonas unam Eflenti- 
 am dicimus : tres tamen ex eadem EfTentia non dm- 
 fnus^ quafi aliud ih'i fit quod Ejfentia efty aliud quod 
 Perfona\ ficut tres Statuas ex eodem nmo pojfumus 
 dtcere^ aliud enim illic eft effe aurum^ aliud effe Sta^ 
 tuas. Et cum dicuntur tres Homines una Natura^ 
 fuel tres Homines ejufdem Naturie^ poffunt etiam diet 
 tres Homines ex eadem Natura -^ quia ex eadem Natura 
 & tres alii Homines pojjunt exifttre. In ilia vero Ej- 
 fentia Innitatis^ nuUo modo alia qu^libet Perfona ex 
 eadem EOentia poteft ei^tiftere. Deinde^ in his rebus^ 
 non tantum eft unus Homo^ quantum tres Homines fi- 
 tnul ^ & plus funt Homines duo^ quam unus Homo •, & 
 in Statuis aqualibus^ plus auri funt tres fimul^ quam ' 
 finguU Statute '^ & minus auri eft una^ quam dua. 
 At m uno Deo non ita ^ non enim major Ejfentia eft 
 Pater Filius & S. Spiritus^ quam folus Pater aut folus 
 Filius, 
 
 He thinks it neceffary, often to repeat this laft ^ 
 for (befides other places) we have it again, Ltb, 6. 
 C'^r, Nee quoniam Trim as eft^ idea triplex tftj alio- 
 quin mimr er it Pater folus ^ qnam fimiil Pater & Filins, 
 ^^ Tho it be a Tnmty^ it is not threefold-^ for the 
 *'• Father alone is not lefs, than the Father and Son 
 ^^ together. The fhortis, he advances twoReafons, 
 againil thofe Explications by three Men and three 
 Statues. Firft that, in'the Human Nature are more 
 than three Men, and there miy be more Statues of 
 Gold than three-, but the Divine Perfons can be no 
 more than three : therefore the Coraparifon is not 
 ^d^qnatf. But it would lead us alfo into Error, and 
 therefore is not Jnff ^ for one Man is left than three 
 Men, and of equal Statues one is not fo much as three ; 
 bm in the Divine Trinity, all the three Perfons are 
 Koi greater than any one of thf ra is. pacb of them 
 ;\ i .. .. -. -^ ' ., . ■ is 
 
Part I. conatmng the Holy TrinHy, 5 7 
 
 is ferfeEi Cod, to whom nothing can be added \ he is 
 therefore as much as thi whole Trinity : and if each 
 were not ferfe^ God^ he fliould not be God at all > for 
 no definite nuniber of Imperfedts, can make up an in- 
 finitely Perfed. 
 
 The Moderns have treated thofe Explications much 
 more rotighly, than did Sr. yinTHn. He confidered 
 them as the honeft Endeavours of Orthodox Writers ^ 
 to explicate (that 1 may ufe his own Words) what is 
 more tafily n?jd^r(iood by the Mind^ than expounded in 
 words to others: but nov\r they are judged to be fo in- 
 tolerable, that forae pronounce them a broad- fac'd 
 jitheifm^ others an implicite Jritheifm. The jithe- 
 ifm confifts in this, that thefe Expofitors fuppofe the 
 Divine Nature (or Godhead) is juft fuch to the Divine 
 Perfons^QS the Human Nature (or the Humanity) is to 
 Human Per fans. This, fay fome, is an open Acheifm : 
 for the Humanity (or Human Nature) is nothings 'tis 
 only a Metaphyfical or <j^iifr^^^ Notion i 'tis but on- 
 ly the general Idea that we form in our Minds, when 
 we confider what is proper and peculiar to Man, as 
 he is Man. The Properties, and natural Incidents, 
 that belong to Man as he is Man, we give to them the 
 general Name of the H^iman Nature : but this Human 
 Nature is not a real thing, a Bemg, or aduglly exif- 
 tent^ but only a notional Colledion made by our 
 Minds, of certain general Properties that are common 
 to all Men, and peculiar to Men only. If therefore 
 the Divine Nature or God be but fuch to the Divine 
 Perfons, as the Human Nature or Humanity is to par- 
 ticular Human Perfons: it is only a Notion, not a 
 Being, or a Subftance, whether bodily, or fpiritual 5 
 no more than the other Chimera (Human Nature) 
 is. Then for the? Tritheifm ; fay others', if one Di- 
 vine Nature and three Divine Perfons have juft fuch 
 rcfpeifl to one another, as hath the Human Nature 
 10 Human Perfons ; befides the apparent Advantage 
 
 of 
 
58 TheOpmon of St. Auftio 4 i \,m 
 
 of the Human Nature above the Divin^^ mvtha4!J i^ 
 tomprireth an infinite numbtr of Human Perfon^ 
 anfi thfe Divine but only three Perfons > it will follow 
 thfitv as three Human Perfons in the HuaianNature 
 are three Men^ fo the three Divine Perfons in tlie Oi* 
 ^Ine Nature Jire/^?'ff 6" (?^j. . '? 
 
 ! The Explication, or rather Cohiparifony :of;the 
 ihree golden Statues*, which are ^hree St at mj^ arid 
 but one Gold*, they reckon, it is fcarce confiderabk 
 enough to be confuted. The Stren^h of it confifts 
 ift this, that we cannot fay three golden Status are 
 '4hree Golds \ chey fuppofe it to be rapnitroufly im- 
 proper, to fay r/?)^<f(? Gij/^-v tho themf€lvesv-.that 
 they may make three golden Statues an Explication 
 (or at leaft an lllultration ) of the Trinity, fay 
 three Statues and one Gold, \t is asked > Are three 
 Bnrs^ or Rods^ of Irorj^ three Irons f It fs certaiti 
 they are called fo in common Speech. • But if ir^r^/r 
 Jro7is ^ which is raoft common : why xiotthr^e Golds? 
 If three Rods, or Bars of Iron, are three Irons: 
 three Rods, or Bars, or PJates, or StatHesi^i^Gold^ 
 win be three Golds. It is not ufual ? indeed,' to fay 
 Golds'^ but it is proper, and Grammatical, and 
 therefore may be ufed whenever there is occafion, 
 or when any one fhall pleafe. But it is as little ufual, 
 and 2\togQthev V»gramf?iatic^ly to call fhree Bars, Or 
 Statues of Goldy one C^/^-, as they, who ufe l;his 
 Compariibn, are forced to do: 1 us:; , . -i/ i = > ; 
 
 Come we now to the /^/teV/^i' of therTriDity, 
 thatSt. ^upn finds in the Works of the Creation^' : He 
 fo propounds them,as to fliow alfo their DifAgriemem 
 to the Divine: Trimty^ and that^' they are infi- 
 *'' nitely fjjort of an Adequate; Reprefentation (;0^ 
 '' Image ) of the Trinity in Goid v yet fome of them 
 '^ cortie nearer to it, than bthers do. He difcourfes 
 largely of them, from the gtb to the 14?^ Bopfc^ I 
 ifliaU comeAt f5iy felf, fatrthe mbfl:^rt;,t(j ifeport them 
 
 a^ 
 
Part I. corcernmg the Hcly TrtvHy, 59 
 
 as they (land abridged in the i '^th Book. Prdmilliig, 
 and'admoriidiing, only thus much in generalj-tttatj 
 ^-^ all of them fuppofe, and imply that^ the Divine 
 " Perfons are not fo many diltincft Beings^ or Sfi- 
 ^^ riti: but that the Divine Edeoce, Godhead, or 
 '^ Godi h the Being*, the Perfons are iht Moduyor 
 ^' Properties^ or J4^s of that Being; as the Reader 
 ^^ will immediately fee. ^'-^w;:/. s^ir :. 
 
 /« iffo Animoj ex its qU£ ptm'^extrmpcus imroduCla^ 
 eft' 'qnxdam Trinitas. Nemve Imaginatio [] legendHrn 
 fitto lAlAGO^ corf oris qn^ in Mcmoria tsi ^ & indi 
 Informatio, CHtn ad earn convert'nur acies cogitantis : & 
 deniqne HtrHrnqne Q /^^€ utramque] coKJangens \v\X.tX[XX(y 
 Voluntatis. '' The ObjecHis that enter into the Mind, 
 " make there a kind of Trinity/ As firft, the I- 
 « MAGE of the Objecl:, that is impreffed (as it 
 " were) on the Memory i^ then the Information or 
 ^' KMOWLEDG caufed thereby in the Mind,- when 
 *' icdiiedls its Sight to the Treafure of Obj€(fts and 
 *''' Images florcd in the Memory, and laftly the 
 **• WILL that joineth together the 'ocher two. Lib. 
 
 Me»s meminit fe. intelligit fe^ dlligit fe : hoc fi cerni" 
 mus^ cernimHs Trinitatem \ non qnidem Dsnm^ fed Ima- 
 oin^m Dei. '' The Human Mind FVEMEMBERS it 
 '^' felf, KNOWS it feif, LOVES it klf: if we fee 
 ** this, we lee a Trinity -■> not indeed the Trinity 
 '' which is God^ but which is the Image of God. Lii\ 
 14. €. 8. 
 
 - Sicttt Juo [urn Mens & Amor eJHs-^ ita duo qujedam 
 pititM^ns^ Notkh eJHs^ CHtn fe novit, Mensvero^ 
 & AmoT.^ & Notitia ejus^ ita tria qmdam /««?, Ht 
 h<zc tria nmmfiht, jimor & Nmtia non tanquam in 
 S^jetio in f tint Menti*^ fed/nhfiantialiter ifta fitnt^ ftCHt 
 & Mens if fa : quia etfi relative dicnntur ad wvicemy in 
 fmtamen fnnt qHxqtte Suhfiantia* > Vnius igitur 
 
 ejHfdmqfte Eff'ehtik vecfffc efi h£€ tm (mt. *' The 
 
6o The Ofifjwn of St. Auftin 
 
 *' MIND, and its LOV-Eto it felf, are two-, fo are 
 ^ MIND, and its KNOWLEDG of it felf. But 
 *^ MIND, its KNOWLEDG, and LOVE, are (ap- 
 *• parently) fo three -^ as that alfo at the fame time 
 ** tbey are but one. ^For KNOWLEDG and LOVE 
 *' are not in the MIND, as Occidents in their Snbje^i ■-, 
 ** hut rather zxefHbftamialy ns the Mind it felf is : for 
 *' tho thefe three are Relatives^ yet all of them are in 
 
 *' their prof er Shhsiatice. Theref:)re all three (of 
 
 ** necefficy) are one nnd the fame ElTence. Lib, 
 9* c, 4. When he fiith, they are alt m their proper 
 Sfibfiamey he means in the Sold. P'or in this, and all 
 fuch like Comparifons^ by MIND he doth not mean 
 the SOUL, but its prime Facftlty^ even the Intelledl 
 or UNDERSTANDING-, as appears plainly by 
 thefe words, at Lib. 15; c. 7, Non minima ^ fed qmd 
 excellit in Anlma mens eft, " By MIND we do not 
 *' mean the SohI it felf, but the Faculty that is moll 
 ^^ excellent in it. But let us hear him difcourfing 
 thefe things more largely, and more explicitely, in 
 fonie other placJfe^. 
 
 Jfiatria {^Mens Notitia yimor'] irff^arahilia fnnt 4 
 femetipfis ; eorttm qnodqne fuhfiantia efl^ 0^ fiojhl om^ 
 nia una Snbftamia vel EJfentia. '* Thefe three, 
 '' CMIND KNOWLEDG LOVE] are infeparable 
 ^^ from one another s every one of them is SUB- 
 '* STANCE, and all of them but one Subfta ice or 
 *^ Eflence. Lib.<), c. 5. When he fays, every one 
 of them is Sabfiance-^ he uies the word Subftance 
 adjetlively: for the meaning only is, they zxQ fnh- 
 fiantiaL And he calleth them fubfiantial^ becaufe 
 they are always in the Subltance of the Soul : Not as 
 Accidents in their SubjeEi.^ but abfolutely infeparable 
 from it, or rather are one with it. But he goes 
 on. 
 
 MENS cum feipfam cognofcit^ fola PARENS tji 
 NOTITI^ fm > <^ Ccgnitmn hig ^ Cognitor ipfa eft. 
 
Part [. coficermffg the Holy Trinity. 6t 
 
 _. Quod ergo cogmfcit fe^ farem y?^* NOTlTlAM 
 fui GlGNlT, (jtita mn minm fe novit <iHam efl'^ nee 
 alteriHs e[fe>7tU efi PROLES five NOTITIA cjns. 
 Nic minor AMOR, ^itia tamnm fe diligit MENS^ 
 qnantum noVtt^ & quanta efi. " MIND knowing .it 
 ^ felf, istlie PARENT of fuch its KNOWLEDG-, 
 
 *' and is the Knower^ and thing Known. And 
 
 *^ in that MIND knows it felf, it BEGETS fucha 
 " knowledgof it felf, as is e^jnal to it felf 5 for it 
 ** My kiior/s it felf, and its Knowledg is not of 
 ^'another EOence. — — This OFSPRING (the 
 *' Sdfk^ovDledg) Is not lefs than MIND, becaufe 
 *' Mind has an adequate knowled^ of it felf: Nor 
 *' is the LOV^£» lofs, becaufe MiadToves it felf as 
 " adequately and ptrfedly as \t knows it felf 5 even 
 " with a juil Equation. Lib. 9. r. il. 
 
 The fum of all thefe Arguings, is 5 MIND 
 KNOWLEDG love in the Human Soul, are a 
 Trinity that is the Image of God the true Trinity. 
 For Mind ox IN^TELLECT BEGETS (he faith) 
 a SELF-KNOVVLEDG, that is equal to it felf, or 
 equal to Mmd^ and is the O F S P R I N G of Mind ; 
 and froaubefe two naturally fprings a LOVE, that 
 is equal to either. Ai.d farther, they have ad the 
 fame EJftPice^ btini^, zW oi them fthfiantially (and 
 tiOl^% filtting Accidents) in the Soul 5 v^hicb is their 
 common Subllaiice. 
 
 St. Aiiftm thinks, this is that Image of God in the 
 Soul of Man, that was iiiiended in thofe words, Let 
 M make Man in our Image, He fiith, it is indelible -^ 
 Immortaliter Immortalitati ejta infita^ ** I ill mortally 
 '' impreired on an Immortal Subjed. Neither Sin, 
 aor Death, nor the (future) BleOednefs, hath or 
 willeiTaceit; the Soul win always be Mens confcia^ 
 & feamansj :An Intetle^f thaf KNOWS and LOVES 
 i^felf. 
 
 Having thus wade his way, to the true Trinity ; he 
 
 faith. 
 
6^2 ThQfinjonofSt,h\x^m 
 
 faith, -^« ^ h4^ fafientia^ qtfk Bern dkitHr^ nonfe intelli* 
 git^ nonfe diligitj, Quis hoc dixerit f An ftitandum efi^ 
 fyfcntiam illam qi^a peus efiy^ fcire alia ^ nefcire feip- 
 fim f Qna fi dki^ &' flultHm^ & impinm efi ^ ecce 
 trlnitas^ SAPlENttA fcUicet, & NOTITIA SUl, 
 <^' DltECTjO SUI. " May we think that, the 
 t'lWiSDOMwhich is called GOD, doth not i^«ojp 
 ^' itfelf, or not/ot'^it felf? Whowillfay it? That 
 V, Wisdom that knows all thiags, is it ignorant of 
 ^f itt^lit But if fo to fay, is as foolifh as it is im- 
 *'• pious, -then fee here the Trinity, Underftanding 
 "or INTELLECT, SELF-KNOWLEDG, and 
 <' SELF-COMPLACENCE. He doth not pro- 
 pound this, as, a SiraiU;tude, Comparifon, or Like* 
 ^efs ; but as t)ie very Trinity : IJe tnfifls on it large- 
 ly, in this and otherChapters, that; to fee the Tri- 
 nity; p-f Intellect -linGwledg and Lox/f in our felves, 
 ;who areGod*s !n)^e'*i,and not to fee ^,the true,Xci- 
 nitjy,; ox the trinity 'which is 6^(7*?/, is too much either 
 SlQwuefs^ 01: iKegljgence •, the Trinity within- us, 
 ^pes evep p(^int,io the Trinity without us, we be- 
 ing that part ".6ff the Creaj:idn in which efpecially 
 'as faith the'^Apoftle ) the invifibU things of God may 
 \ clearly fetr^m^ Hnderjiood. Lib. 1 5 . c. ^. 
 
 We ought'.. ii9t to omit that Paflage, atX*'^. 15. 
 C.14. Sciiintinvlcem Tater & Filipts '^ ille Gignendo^ 
 ifie'Nafcendo. '**^ The Father and Son KNOW each 
 *' other .^ the Father ^j' begettingy the Son by being 
 *' be£ot. He intends hereby ^in the Holy Trinity, 
 Father and Son, or IN T E L L E C T and S E L F- 
 XN^WLEp.G, are what we fliould mean when 
 we fay fo ^^ic^ and be begotten-^ and vice ver fa. 
 This is a farther aflurance that, he underftood the 
 Xer,o^sfa^/f?f, and be begot y in the My fiery of the 
 :Triiiity ^ not, , as Terms that caturally or properly 
 exprels what we ought to conceive ♦, but as figurative 
 Speeches : To beget in this My fiery, is to know', to 
 
 be 
 
 \ 
 
Part L conc^^:n'wgih BolyTrintiy^. 63 
 
 he}fCjloty'\% thp Reflex pr,5^/-^«ou?W^ in God y andt 
 
 this ilar^e.^M^P^V'^f ^^^ ^^^FiV^'^f i^^- r^ 
 j^/;2^^ jV^pprehend, will not be ,^n\(<ieleQ[^e to 'tba 
 
 (inqui^Viyfe) Reader^ .^^caufe ,0!" t,la,s ;g^^^^ 
 
 deter tnining) Au,thoruj^ of this Fatji^V, in the Ca- 
 
 thoiic 'Church. : W^!^' it is, ataoR;, neceilary, ta Me, 
 
 ^s there is nothing To abfurdly jealous as a fuperltii 
 
 tibus Ignorance v ^it^i^'.conia^onl)^ as barbarous aj^id 
 
 ni^^e, aS| it is |u(piq6u$ : And from h^nce^re, the 
 
 fcompyints, or ip)]Fmurs pf fope, ^^ Sn my.^<)/<r 
 
 %e'U€rs concerning .^^ T^ilnky,, 1^ tfav^'"been t90^cu- 
 
 ripus and particular j;' I., have "priLeyded' to .fii^uf 
 
 Cliie for ' th^t M'^jlifih^'t into w}i|cjvl: ^Ughr Jl6tV||i^ 
 
 h^ye eiiter'd at all, fejt'ftiould hav^/cOtfider 'd if^^ 
 
 'it^Cixd imper^ioiis't?la(:e. I fiiould have contented 
 
 my fel^ wjthtKe^pQtg^^^^^ of th? .Trinicy, as,:l|l^,i3 
 
 cfimmpnly propQun4ed. i.p tfee. Church;^ a Trwitji^in 
 
 XJnifyy and Vpity^^'in/Yf-ipi'ty : .\wjcho,Ut any (,pfq- 
 
 tended ji Explica^cjps^' that. ml^^tVjfaci^fy the yain 
 
 (i^r^h^t rather th,e'prf/^«5>) jCi^Kilify, pTt^i6fe,Uh^c 
 
 will not Ajbrnf^ ^9 the c^qly .fafe.gyi^^j^c 
 
 men^ are ide- 
 
 vifed CommeMgfie^ ^, by yvf^ich,/ Yor fhe ,ff?ofl' 
 *•} part,,; the Churcji'^s DoiftriVeiU^e^^pQunded awg^ 
 "\ They ferve Infl^dd-f^fT^^^ zndQmprm/^- 
 
 ^ ^?^i tp feU|ve tl]Vi^fr-?(;Vi^ ^n;^ 4i^*y«?^5ff^^ V and 
 *V coles tljiofe i;i^p'^tbe,ChWcl)*' w.l|Qjfi our\^r(^/f^ 
 " apd Creeds vifqre, pjirpofely aefigned to i exclude. 
 But ip is* ^ilev\($ i;q m th^t pufvCf ^^^i and vfr^ii^Z/x 
 ^hL4yHnihs j^^ni'xh^^ enter, in^o 
 
 themi brwha^ is the fame, mnfl notfi/iderjiandtf&m, 
 'Tis as furpri^ing thjat, thefe, Qeptleraen affeA to 
 fee^. 2:ea[oq§..fort th^.jC'h^urch v v\j[fi^}e, they openly 
 C9ntend&r'Ciqn^nipfy^ttr^ her 
 
 F'aitfi, iH taf^ei away tj^a difiiri^h^ of Hmtic and^ Or- 
 thodox, 
 
64 ^^^ Opinion of St. Auftin 
 
 thodox. Nay they vend thetfifelves for the only 
 ( Faithful and Dutiful ) Sons of the Church, while 
 they proclaim to every body, that they are afraid 
 of nothing fo rtluch, as that the Church fhculd grow 
 like to the Tree iw the Prophet Daniel j the height 
 whereof reached to Heaven^ and the fi^ht thereof to th^ 
 ends of all the Earth > all the Birds of Heaven fang iti 
 her Branches^ and her Fruit wot Meat for all Flejh» 
 Dan.4. II, 12. Explications, they fay y will let 
 every body into the*Church ^ and the Delign of 'eni 
 (too often) is, to expound away the Faith of the 
 Church. I (hall confefs that, I think, it were well 
 if our Explications could C as they fpeak J let every 
 body into the Church : But it is certain, their De^ 
 fign^ and their EffeCt^ has always been ^uite contra- 
 ry to that Fear of fome •, namely, to limit the Senfe^ 
 and thereby exclude Herefy^ and Heretics, Ther^ 
 could be no need of ExflicatiottSj if the Senfe were 
 clear^ add withal not Equivocal or Amhiguom : He 
 therefore that determines the Senfe by an Explica- 
 tion, excludes all pretending Parties but one only ', 
 he is at the fartheft Remotion from the Accufation, 
 of opening ourDoors too wide. If the Explicatioa 
 deftroysthe Dodtrin^, it is a Fault indeed : and that 
 fome fuch Explications and Expofitions (of the Ar- 
 ticle of the Trinity ) have been advanced, I not on- 
 ly do not deny, but I profefled it was the principal 
 occafion of the Four Letters. But fure the Expofi- 
 tion of St. ^hfiin^ fhould not have been fufpeded 
 by any body : when they were told, in my firft Let- 
 ter, it is St. Jufiin% and ! have gone no farther 
 than that Father jed me ; they fhould haVe confi- 
 dered me, only as a Relater, and the Father as 
 the Expofitor, I am fatisfied with being of that 
 Catholic Church, of whichSt. -/^«j?wwas a Father^ 
 and a Saint : They that have accufed the Explicatic^n 
 in my Utters^ as too particular and curious, I wifli 
 
 they 
 
Part I. coptcernwg the Holj Trinity, 6$ 
 
 they would tell us , which and xohere is their Church > 
 who are the Fathers, and Saints of it ? If it be a 
 Church, that does not profefs the Dodtrine of St. 
 Jnfiin •, 1 believe, it may be good difcretion, to keep 
 it private to themfelves. 
 
 I think, I ought to mention here a Letter, fent 
 me from Camhrtdg j my Friend the bringei of it, in- 
 timated that it was from the Head of a Collie there^ 
 but defired to be excufeS from! naming him, becaufe 
 he had fubfcribed only N. N. This Anonymom tells 
 me, I have quoted St. An^in in the firfl; of my four 
 Letters, as Author of the Explication of the Holy 
 Trinity given in thofe Letters: But, faith this Ad- 
 vifer, M. D« ?m gives a very different account of 
 St. Anftln% Dodtrine concerning the Trinity. M, 
 Dh Fin faith, when the Father accounts for the 
 Trinity in God, by INTELLECT, SELF- 
 KNOWLEDG, and LOVE i he doth not pretend, 
 this is the very Divine Trinity, but an Image of it, 
 and a very imperfsQ One. St. Anflin faith that, all 
 our Notions of the Trinity, are infinitely f>iort of 
 it *, and that, we fee it now but only in a Figure^ and 
 enigmatically or darkly. This Letter faich farth^, 
 that divers have found fault, that I (hould fay in 
 the fame firft Letter s *' The Prayer, O God the Fa- 
 *' ther have mercy upon hs, O God the Son have mercy np^ 
 *' on us J O God the Holy Ghofi have mercy upon m mi" 
 '^ ferahly Sinners^ being the firft Invocadon in our 
 *' Litany, has been difliked by divers Learned Meni , 
 *^ in particular, by Mr, Calvin, My Admoni/her 
 finds,Mr. C^/x/i« did diflike it •> but he thinks "-^ John 
 ** Calvin's Authority ought not to be laid in the Bal- 
 " lance againft the Liturgy of the Church of England, 
 
 To begin with thi^ laft 5 neither do I put Mr, Cal- 
 ving Authority into the Ballance,againft our Church : 
 But after I had incidentally, and as they fp-ak en 
 f<*Jfantf mentioned Mr. Calvin % dlQike of a difiinci 
 
 F Invo- 
 
66 The OfhioH of St. Auftin 
 
 Invocation of the Divine Perfons together^ as if they 
 were fo^many feveralObjedsof Worfhip*, I (how, 
 in what Senfe our Church intends this Invocation. 
 Not as Mr. Cdhm kerns to have taken it, as if we 
 had three difHnd Objeifts of Worfhip^ but ad one 
 Jiich Ohjdl^ irjvocated under its fever at DlflinBions : 
 Uf Words are thefe. ' '^ The Church doth not in- 
 *^'tendi cannot intend, by that Form *, to ackriow- 
 ''• kdg more Divine Objeds of Woi'fhip, thano'rie: 
 ** for fhe profelTeth' the coritraty. She intend^ 
 **■ therefore here, only to invocate GOD, by ck 
 '^ under the kvzr^l Drfim^ions, that "fhe acknowledg- 
 •' ethtobe in him. But thefe Vi^inUions-^ tho for 
 *^ good R-ea fens named Perfons^ ^nd Father^ Son^ 
 •^'* and Holy C^^c/ •, are underftood by her, as only 
 ^'^ ihe dtjfercnt MUDES'of the Divine Exiftenfce, pr 
 *' Exiftence of God ; and therefore as often as the^ 
 ^'bccpr in the Prayers, fhey are to be taken in the 
 " Tlieological Senfe,not in the Vulgar and Cooimon, 
 But! wonder, it ihould feem a new thing to any 
 at Qamhridg^' that ;" fb'me Learned Men have diiliked 
 i\\t di^inU fTmr) Inv^6cation of the three Divine 
 Perfons : When there is no Learned Man but doth 
 diflike it, except with the Interpretation I have gi- 
 ven. No body will queftion the Orthodoxy of J, 
 TorhefiiiS : His InftraUiones Hifiorko-Theologica have 
 been received by all learned Men,with great Acknow- 
 ledgments of the Author's excellent Erudition, 
 judgment, and Exadlnefs. He fays ; , Non efi ido^ 
 ntm Adoratlomi modm^ ft tribus diflintiii InvocationibHS 
 tres PerfGfi£ veluti Jeorfim Adorenttir. SuffUcatio fa* 
 ' ^a pmi Perfo'/iiCj nofi e(t iteranda ad aliam immediate ; 
 r^e in imum fmpHcijJlmHm Religiofi chlttu objeUHtn ali^ 
 quam Separationem.. vel Sfparationlr f^eciem^ inducer e 
 videamur,' — ^Francifcm a SanUa Clara^ ^' DoEiores 
 commHiilter^ ipfis Bivinis Perfonis (pr^cife fumpti^) ne^- 
 gam [kbeffeterminHm farmMcm adorations Latrf£y fed 
 
 hoc 
 
Parti. comernwgtheHolyTrimtj, 67 
 
 hoc Veitati folhn frimo competit, Rclatiomhui vera 
 front Idemificantur cum Efferaia. Lib. I. C 25. 
 " It is not a proper manner of Worfiiip, when the 
 " three Divine Perfons" are feverally adored, by 
 *' £/i/?i«(rHn vocations. The Invocation made to one 
 '^ Perfon, fhould not be repeated immedmely to ano- 
 *' ther Divine Perfon -> left thereby we make, or Teem 
 " to make, a reparation in the Object of Religious 
 
 *' Worfhip \ which U moll: Itri^^ly One. Fran^ 
 
 '* cifcw a SanUa Clara^ and generally the Dodlors 
 *' of the GHurch, deny that, the Divine Perfons^ 
 " Perfons^ are the Objedsof Divine Worfhip: thac 
 *' belongeth only to the Deity it felf *, and to thefe 
 *^ Relations ( the Divine Perfons ) but only as they 
 '* are identified wich the Divine Eflence. That is, 
 as each of thefs Relations^ Properties ^ or Perfonali*' 
 tiesy includeth (in its full Notion) the Godhead^ 
 ox God, But of the Invocation and Adoration of the 
 Divine Perfons, more fully by and by. 
 
 As to Mr. Du Pln^ he hath accounted for thefe 
 Books of St. Apsftin, with too much brevity '-, his 
 Abftraft or Abridgment of them is comprifed in 
 one Page : As Brevity has alvvaysfome Obicurity, 
 my Camhridg' kdw'xizv might (excufibly) rtiiftake 
 M. I^ Pin ; tho that Critic ( to do him right ) batii 
 perfe(^ly well underftood St. ^nflm, 
 
 Mr. Du Pin fajth ; '^ St. ^wH« tells us, tho we 
 *' have here below feveral Reprefentations of the 
 *' Trinity, yet we (hould not 190k for it but in Im- 
 '' mnt able and Eternal things : And that, we cannot 
 *' fee it in this Life, but in a Fignre^ and Enigmatic 
 *' call). And thus he pretends that, we have anlde4 
 *^ of the Generarion of the Son, by the Produdion 
 '' of the WORD of our own Underftanding v 
 '^ and an Idea of the Proceeding of the Holy Spi- 
 *' rit, by the LOVE that proceeds from our WtH, 
 *' But he confeir<ith that, tbefe Noiiorts ^re very im-. 
 
 F 2 [' ferfe^}; 
 
68 The Opimon of St, Auftrn 
 
 '' pcrf(5t i and that there is an infinite difference betwixt 
 '' thefe Cowfarlfotif^ and the AifyHery of the Trinity, 
 Hill, of Ecci. Writers, Cent,<^. p. 15^4. 
 
 As I faid, he hath truly reported St, Juflin ^ 
 but only too briefly ^ that one cannot readily under- 
 lland his true meaning, without alfo looking into 
 Sf. >^«y?/>7 himfelf. 
 
 He faith, Sr. u^ufiin teaches. *' We are not to 
 •^^ feekfor the Trinity, but in Immutable and Eter- 
 *' t^al Things. Right, St. >^//y?/> often fays it *, We 
 are nor, fays the Father^ to expert a true Image of 
 the Trinity in the merely fenfible Creation: but as 
 God himfelf is Eternal and Immutable, his Image 
 (or Likenefs ) muft be fought in fucha Being; and 
 the Soul of Man, faith he^ is fuch, it is Immutable 
 and Erernal. Again, he faith *, 
 
 *' We do not fee the ( Divine) Trinity, but in 
 *' a Figure^ emgmatically and darkly. He fpeaks of 
 the Image of the Divine Trinity in the Soul of Man : 
 Our Intellecft, faith he^ our Self-Knowledg, and 
 Self Love, i< but 4 Figure-^ and that too, an enig- 
 matical or obfcure Figure*, of the like Trinity in 
 God i and yet it is in this only that we can (at 
 prefent ) fee that Divine Trinity. The enigmatical 
 Figure of the Divine Trinity in the Soul of Mtn, is 
 as much (hort of that Trinity, zsonr Nature isfhort 
 of the Divine Nature. 
 
 Laflly, He maketh St. Aufiin to fay; ^-'Thefe 
 '• Notions are very imperfed: : there is an infinite 
 *'^ difference betwixt r^f/e Co/»p^n/owj, and the My- 
 ^^ fiery of the Trinity. But St. jiHftin fays- not 
 that. Divine MIND, Divine SELF-KNOWLEDG, 
 Divine LOVE, are Co??ij'mfons of the True Trinitys 
 much lefs that, they are imferfeCl Comfarifons: for 
 he faith often and often, that they are the very Di- 
 vine Trinity. But thefe Notions, and thefeCompa- 
 rifons, of tinman Intellei^ or MIND, Human SELF- 
 KNOW- 
 
Part I. coneertiitjg the Holy Trinity, 6g 
 
 KNOWLEDG, ^n^ Human SELF-LOVE; or Hu- 
 man MEMORY, KNOWLEDG, and LOVE, and 
 others of that kind i tho we find them in the Soul, 
 sn Eternal and Immutable 'things are Comparifons 
 and Notions infinitely Ihort of the Myftery of the 
 Trinity. This is what St. j^ffflm faid, snd what 
 Mr. Dh Pin (if his words be heedfuUy obfcrved ) 
 makes him to fay •, but this latter could not pofTi- 
 bly fpeak as clearly and accurately in a Page, as the 
 Father in fifteen Books. 
 
 We have faid enough before, of the Deference 
 of the whole Latin (or Weflern) Church, to the 
 Perfon and Dodrine of St. Aitjiin'^ the Gretk^ 
 Church, or the Orient, have not lefs refpeded 
 him : The Greeks account for the Faith of the Tri- 
 nity, in the very Words and Notions of St. Auftin, 
 In the Year of our Lord 1453. Gennadius SchoUrius 
 Patriarch of Conftantinople^ prefented to the Grand 
 Signior Mahomet^ who had then lately taken C<?w- 
 ^ntinoflej a Confejfion of the Chriftiaa Failh v in 
 tfie name of himfelf and of the Greeks Churches: 
 You. have it in the Turco-Grmaoi M.Cmcws^ Lib. 
 2.: and in Chytr£us^ Or at, de Statu Eccl. in Grt&cia-^ 
 and in the laft Edition of the Bibliotheca Patmrn. k 
 faith, firft, in general ; 
 
 " We believe, there are in God three PRCPER- 
 '* TIESi that are the Principle and Fountain Cas 
 ** it were) of all his other Properties: We call 
 '*• thofe Properties three HYPOSTASES, or PER^ 
 '* SONS. ^ But in that the Properties do not divide 
 " the Divine Effence i therefore is God but one God, 
 '' tho endued with thefe three Properties. ^ThePj 
 more particularly i • • 
 
 *^ We believe that, in the Nature of God is the 
 *' LOGOS and SPIRIT j as in the Fire is Light and 
 " Heat. ^ And as Fire, tho there be no Objesft 
 -' which it may cither enlighten or wftrm^ yet aj- 
 
 F 3 '^ways 
 
70 TheOpimofiofSt,hui\m 
 
 Hi** ways hath both\.^|Light and Heat, and emits 
 "" both; in like manner, before the World was, 
 *' there were in God the LOGOS and the SPIRIT, 
 *' as ihQ natural A^s of God. Thefe three, MlND 
 " the WISDOM and SPIRIT, are one Goa •, as in 
 *^ one and the fame Soul of Man there is MIND 
 *' REASON and WILL, which tho three, are yet 
 *•' but one Soul in refpe^t of EJfeme, We call the 
 " LOGOS the WISDOM, and the POWER> and 
 ^' the SON of God •, 'becaufehe h generated of the 
 " ElTence of Gcd, as a Mans Thought is the Of Hiring 
 *' of the Hiw^sn Soi,L The WILL of God, we call 
 ' " the SPIRIT, and L O V E ^ but M I N D it felf 
 " we call the Father^ becaufe he is neither begotten, 
 " nor has any Cauie that is prior to him j and be- 
 *''- caufe he is the Caufe of the Son and Sfirit. Be- 
 *^ caufe God undeiflands and fe/on?/, not only the 
 ** Creatures made by him, but himfelf-^ therefore it 
 *•' is plain that, he hath a Logos or WISDOM by 
 '' which he knows himfelf properly and diftindly 
 *' from all other things. In like manner, he noton- 
 " ly Willeth, which is to fay LOVETH, whatfo- 
 «' ever he hath made ^ but Himfelf much more. So 
 *^ that, 'tis hereby evident thati there proceeds 
 " eternally from God, both his LOGOS and SPI- 
 '^ RIT, and yet that they are eternally in him : and 
 '* farther that, the one God is the Father and thefe 
 ^' two. As 1 laid , the Thoughts, and very Words 
 
 1 perfwade riiy felf, there are not- many but will 
 be fatisfied, by thefe Authorities. Notwithftand- 
 ing, i (hall add alfo ^ Scholafiic Dijfertationy that 
 will explain the Myftery more particularly ^ and 
 which contains the Authorities of the other F^- 
 ibersi the SvhooLDo^ors^ and the Divines of the Re- 
 firmaticr]. Only firft touching briefly on feme Que- 
 
 ftions, 
 
PartF. copjcerningthe HolyTrwHy, y.l 
 
 ftions, and ControverHes, that are warmly argued 
 Con both fides) by the School- Dodors. 
 
 Of^ fpme Queftions md Controverjies 
 of the Schools, 
 
 The Four Letters excited the Curiofity of many ^ 
 a great number of Learned Perfons, of all Orders 
 in the Church, thought it worth their while, to fig- 
 nify to me their Approbation of^ or their Excepti- 
 ons to, what I had publifhed : But the mod: agreed, 
 in telling me that, fomething (hould have been ^^i<^ 
 in thofe Letters, to divers Q_uefl:ions, and Dilficul- 
 ties \ that are there wholly omiced, or but lightly 
 touch'd. As, 
 
 When we fay three Divine ?erfons\ are w^e to un- 
 derfland it, in the cocnrete^ or abilrad Senfe, of the 
 Term Pcrfons? If in the abftract, thacis, for the 
 Ferfond Froperties i ic may be anfwered by fome or 
 other, Per fond Proper tits are not proper Per fans. If 
 in the Concrete, that is, ^ox an Effence (or Sub fiance) 
 and the Property together •, fo three Perfons will be three 
 Suhftances or Eflences : which implies Tritheifm, 
 Scheibler fays, '^ To what the Photinians for Socirii^ 
 *' ans) ailed g, that a Per [on if an intelligent Subfiance 
 '^ or Effence^ therefore three Divine Perfons -muji be 
 ^' three Ejfences or Si*hj}ances'y the true Anfwer 
 *' (I think; is. The word Perfon is fometimes ta- 
 " ken complexly or concretely^ for the Property and 
 '^ Subltance together •, as when we fay a Perfon is an 
 '^ inteUigent Sahftance: or only for the Property, 
 '^ that is added (as it were) to the Subltance or 
 " Eflence, as whea we fay there are three Divine 
 *' Perfons •, for the meaning of that is, the one Ef- 
 *' fence or Stib(tance of God fubfiftefh under three difiM' 
 ^^ Properties, MetaphyH Li/c. 2, n,6i. And a la- 
 
 F 4 ter 
 
72 Jl Sckolajiicli Drjfertathn 
 
 ter (very Learned) SchoUHic^ J, Pofewiiz in his 
 Theologia Scholaftica^ and his Metafhyfica Scholafiicay 
 •fays ; " Three Divine Perfons taken concretely^ feem 
 *** to imply three Eflences or Subftances : and there- 
 '*• fore ^tis the more common Opinion of the Dodors 
 *^ that, thefe words three Divine Perfons iignify ab- 
 *' ftraEily-j they denote the Sublillences or Properties. 
 Metaphyf. Schol, p. 30. 
 
 Ic is a QpeflioTi alfo, whether the Divine Perfons 
 are Infinite^ or Finite? If we fay, they are Infinite *, 
 there will be three Infinites : but as there is hut one 
 Eternal^ and but one Incowfrehenfible^ as faith the 
 jithanafian Creeds fo neither can there be more than 
 one Infinite. But if we fay, the Perfons are but Fi* 
 nite •-, nothing Finite is God, or in God. 
 
 Whether the Perfons of the Trinity are Objeds 
 of Divine Worfijif^ and Invocation ; efpecially of 
 diftincTt Invocation, and Worfbip, at the fame 
 time-, feems another hard Queftion, and neceflary 
 to be refolved. For on the one Side, there feems. to 
 be the Fracflice of the Church oiEnaUnd^ in the firft 
 Invocations in the Litany •, nay of all Churches. On 
 the other, befides the Canons of fome Councils*, k 
 xnay be faid, feeing the Perfons are not Beings^ or 
 SfiritSy but the Modes and Properties of a Sptrtt and 
 Bein£^ only the Deity or God ( who is that Spirit ) 
 can be* the proper Ob]tCt of Latria^ or of Invoca- 
 tion. 
 
 And finally, as to thQ manner of our Saviour's Di- 
 vinity s it confifts without doubt in the Hypoftatical 
 Cor Perfonal) Union of the Logos to the Humanity 
 cf our Saviour : but what is this Perfonal Vnion? Is 
 it fuch an Indwelling of t\\tLo£Qs in the Humanity, 
 that the Humanity is always under the Condudand 
 Direction of the Divinity? as a Learned Prelate af- 
 ter divers Fathers and Schoolmen has lately explain- 
 ed it. But they object to hijn, that JSleBorius faid 
 \^ '■ • as 
 
Part I. comernlng the Holy Trinity. 73 
 
 as much : and it may feem that, this differs from 
 the Infpiration and Indwelling in the Prophets 
 and Apoftles, only in time ^ in them it was ccca- 
 fional and temporary^ in our Saviour con (Ian t and 
 forpetual. Or is it fuch an Indwelling, as feems in- 
 timated in the four Letters •, that Divine Perfedlions, 
 Properties or Attributes, (as Omnifcience and Om- 
 nipotence) are exerted >« and ^jf the Humanity? But 
 this is very obfcure. For what means by the Hnmanu 
 ty j can Divine Properties (or Perfedlions) be exert- 
 ed hy the Hnmanity, if they are not communicated to 
 the Humanity ? But how can Infnite Properties be 
 communicated' to a Fwite Subjed ? Or how can tbe 
 Properties of one Being be communicated to another ? 
 for it is by their Properties that things are diflinguifh- 
 ed from one another. If therefore Properties can be 
 really communicated, the Natures of all things are 
 confounded^ they are no longer dirtin(n: but Identifi^ 
 ed. Or if you fay, not Identified ;, you incur this 
 Contradidlion, that they are the fame by a Commu- 
 nication of their diftindive Properties, and yet not 
 the Same, And a Property, fay the Metaphyficians, as 
 it is a Property is incommHuicable ^ elfe it were not a 
 Property : for proper and common are diredly contra^ 
 ry, and therefore inconfiltent with one another. 
 To thefe (^ue[lions,and Arguings upon them, I fay, 
 
 I. It is needlefs, methinks, to ask ^ Whether /^re^ 
 Divine Perfons is to be underftood in the Concrete, 
 or Abftrad ? For they that mean concrete Perfons^ in- 
 tend no more than others do. They intend not that, 
 as there are three Properties and Modes, fo there are 
 three Eflences and Subftances: they mean only, (as 
 Fofewitz. and Scheihler and the reft, who fay three 
 Perfons in the Ah!ira{^) each Perfon is a Property and 
 the Divine EJfencey and otherways it Jl]ould be a mere 
 Property (Per finality qt M9de) and not a Perfon. In 
 
 fiiorr, 
 
74 ^ Scholaftkk^ DiJJertaiion 
 
 ihort, the Modes of exifting are three ^ and each tcith 
 the EJfence, is a diftind Perfon: but the EfTence being 
 but One ^ therefore the Divine Perfons are not, as 
 Human and Angelical Perfons, i^o many diftinft.Be- 
 ings ; but one Being, fubfifting after a threefold man^ 
 ner: That is, as original WISDOM, reflex KNO W- 
 LEDG, anfl SELF- LOVE \ or, as UNBEGOrTEN, 
 BEGOTTEN, and PROCEEDING: becaufe tbe 
 reflex, or SELF-KNOWLEDG is the A^, andtbere- 
 fore (ho-manly fpeaking) the Generation or O/- 
 y>Ww^ of Original WISDOM or Intelledv and the 
 LOVE or Self-Corn placence neeeflarily proceeds from 
 JmelleEi 2r)d Self Knowledg. This being the whole 
 meaning of both Parties •, it is a mere verbal Comenti- 
 cn^ whether we are to fpeak and mean in the con- 
 crete^ or ahflrali way. 
 
 To the fecond Qiieflion, Are the Perfons Finite^ or 
 Infinite f If we fay Infinite, there will be three Infi- 
 nites-, which is impoflible, and contrary alfo to St, 
 AthanafiHi. If Finite-, nothing Finite is God^ ox in 
 God. I fay upon this, 
 
 llv To avoid this Dilemma^ 'tis ufually anfwered i 
 neither Finite nor Infinite is to be ufed of the Divine 
 TerfonSy but only of the Eflence: Infinity is an Effcn- 
 tial, not a Per fond Attribute. 
 
 But in my Judgment there is little danger, from 
 the firft Horn of the Dilemma: for 'tis no more in- 
 convenient, or contrary to Athanafitu^ to fay three 
 Infinite Perfons ^ than to fay, three incompreheniible, 
 or three Eternal Perfons, When Athanaftu^ denies 
 three Eternals^ three Incomfrehenfibles^ three In^nites'^ 
 he means three Infinite ( Eternal Incomprehenfible ) 
 Stibftances^ EfTences, or Beings^ not three Infinite 
 Eternal or Incomprehenfible Perfons : for by three 
 Divine Perfons he means only the Divifle Eflence or 
 Subftance^ Httdet its three Properties. '-^^ 
 
 But 
 
Part I. concerning the Holy Trinity. 7 5 
 
 But if we (hould take Ferfon^ not in the Concrete, 
 for Property and Shbfiance •, \)nt in the Abftraft, for 
 thcProferty only: I fee not, why we may not fay, 
 each Perfon is Infinite, and there are three hfinites. 
 For certainly the Divine InteilleB^ Self- Knowledge and 
 Self-Complacence^ 2^vt each of them Infinite j in their 
 formal Conception, abftrsdly from the EiTence, they 
 are Infinite. 
 
 in. The third Controverfy ; Whether the Divine 
 Perfons are Objedts of Latvia, and of Invocation -^ like 
 the firft, it is but Verbal For whether they are invo- 
 Gated fingly, or conjundly ^ it is not the mere A^ode 
 or Property that is invocated, or is worfhiped \ but 
 the Mode or Modes as including the Divine EfTence, 
 Godhead, or God. When they are invocated fingly ; 
 'cis the Property with the Ejfence^ or rather the ElTence 
 under fuch Property:, when conjundly, God is (in- 
 tended to be) invocated as diltinguiihed after a tri- 
 ple manner. 
 
 But occafions of fcandal, or miflake, ought to be 
 removed by careful^ and often explaining the Public 
 Forms, in our Sermons^ and Catechifms. 
 
 IV. The fourth Qiieftion, concerning the n^anner 
 of our Saviour's Divinity. It confifts, without 
 doubt, in the Hypofiatical Vnion of the Divinity, to 
 the Humanity of our Saviour ; but what is* this 
 Hypofiatkal Vnion ?* ■ 
 
 If we fay, 'tis fuch an Indwelling of God in Mart^ 
 that the Divine Perfedions which are the Properties 
 of the Divine Nature (fuch as the Omnipotence, Om- 
 nifcience, and the reft) are exerted #*», and by the 
 Humanity. 
 
 Firft, if only f« the Humanity, it fhould feem, 
 Chrift fhall thereby be no raoreOodj than the Pra- 
 phets and Apoftks wcre^ 
 
 Second- 
 
7 6 '^ SdolaJiu\ Differtatjon 
 
 ^Secondly, If ^/the Humanity, it Ihould-feem ; the 
 Divine Perfedions, which 2iXtx,ht diftingmjhifjg Pro- 
 perties of the Divine Nature, cannot be exerted hy 
 the Humanity, except they be communicated to the 
 Humanity: againft which there are many Excepti- 
 ons ^ and the Catholics and Calvinifts impute to the 
 Lutherans the Entychian Herefy, on the account that 
 they maintain a real Communication of fome Di- 
 vine Properties, (as namely, Omnifcience, and 
 Omnipotence) to the Humanity ofChrifl. Of the 
 Calvinifisy Francifc.THrrettinus^ Inftit. Theol. par. 2. 
 loco 13. qua^ft. 7. p. 345, &c. L. Ryffemus^ Com- 
 pend. Theol. loco 11. Controv. ^, p. 106^ &c. Of 
 the Lmheram^ J, Pofewitz^ Theol. Schol. &c Metaph. 
 Schol. p. 30. and Chr. ScheibUr^ Metaph. Lib. i. c. 
 23. Of the C^rW/f/, M- Becaniu, Theol. Scholaft. 
 par. 3. and Card. Bellarmin^ de Chrifio Ltb. 3. c, 8, ^ 
 10. have perplexed this Enquiry, with extraordi- 
 nary Difficulties. Yet there feem to be but two 
 Opinions : the Cardinal and the Calvinifis well a* 
 greeing > I fhall however propound their Dodrine, 
 in their own Terms. 
 
 The Cardinal J after propofing and rcjeding divers 
 Forms, and Explications, of the Fathers and Moderns^ 
 acquiefces in this *, " The Humanity of Chrift hath not 
 ** a proper Subfjftence, or Subfiftence of its own, 
 ** but exifts in the WORD^ as the Jrm (for inflance) 
 *^ in'ihe Body : the Divinity fo^ fuftaineth the Hu- 
 " manity, (ut totum fuftentat Partes fibi intime con- 
 ^ jundtas & unitas) as the WHOLE fuftains its 
 *' PARTS, de Chrift. L. 3. c. S. With due reve- 
 rence to his ParfU ; the Union is greater,or we can- 
 not fay Chrift is God : for hereby no real Advantage, 
 but only an Honorary^ is given to the Humanity. 
 The Humanity becomes hereby a kind oiMJHnUj 
 or Afftndix^ to the Divinity, but receives nothing 
 from it, but only NminsBy: and as the Arm is nojE 
 
 the 
 
Part I. * conctrning the Holy Trwitji. 77 
 
 the Bod^^ nor any part may be called themW^-, fo 
 neither may Jefa^ be called God, by fuch an Union 
 ro God. 
 
 The Calvinifts fay, there is a Communication in- 
 deed of Idioms or Properties *, but it is to the Per/on 
 of Chriftj a\ God-Man-, not of the Divine Nature 
 to the Human Nature, or vice vers^. The PerfelH- 
 ons or Properties of the Divine Nature are no more 
 really communicated to the Human Nature, than the 
 Imperfedions of the Human Nature to the Divine. 
 The Humanity is no more Omnifcient, Omnipotent, 
 Self-living, Adorable *, than the Divinity is faff^ble^ 
 that is, Hungers, Thirds, Grieves, Dies. We fay 
 indeed, God died for the Sins of the World, Cod was 
 horn of the Virgin Mary^ and divers fuch like : but 
 we mean, he who u God was born and died ^ but not 
 as be isGody or according to his Godhead, hx^tashe 
 is Man^ or in his Manhood. So we fay alfo, the Man 
 Chrilt Jefus is Eternal, Creatbr of Heaven and 
 Earth, knoweth all things, can do all things : but not 
 as Man^ or according to his Manhood, or by the 
 Manhood \ but as he who is Man^ is alfo God, or 
 according to his Godhead, or by the Godhead. In 
 (hort, the different Properties of each Nature, 
 are afcribed rightly to the Ptrfon who is made up 
 of thefe two Natures : but they arc not commu- 
 nicated from one Natnre to the other Natnrey or 
 may be afcribed to the other Nature *, for that were 
 to confound the Natures, and introduce Ehtychiamfm, 
 They fay moreover, the Hypoftafis or Subfiftence of 
 the WORD is not communicated to the Humanity 9 
 but only the Humanity is fo affumed into the 
 WORD, as to be fnflained by it, as a Part is fuftain- 
 ed bythQlVhole. The Rcafons of this Opinion, are 
 thefe. 
 
 What is a Property of ( or what is the fame, is 
 frofer to) one thingi cannot be communicated Co ano- 
 ther; 
 
yB \A Scholajikk. Dijjertation 
 
 tber ^ for fo, it would lofe its Nature : it would 
 ceafe to be pr(?pf r, and become (the contrary) com- 
 tnon. 
 
 Again, the Divine uncreated Nature cannot be 
 communicated to SLuy. created Nature^ for then it 
 would no longer be created, but uncreated. There- 
 fore neither can the Fro^erties o{ ^^DWrnt Nar 
 ture be communicated ^ for the Properties are iden- 
 tified with the Nature,, and are- but fo many inade- 
 quate ( or partial J Conceptions of the Nature. 
 > Farther. The Properties of the Divine Nature 
 are infeparable V they are re^//> oae, and more but 
 only conceftively^ for they are the fame with the 
 EfTence : But now it is granted, fome of the Di- 
 vine Properties arenot communicable i as the Pr^e- 
 eternity, Omni-prefence, Independence. 
 
 And, the Union between the Divinity and Hu- 
 manity is reciprocal: Therefore, if in virtue of the 
 Upion, the Divine Perfedions and -Idioms are re- 
 ^//y communicated to the Humanity ; the human Idi- 
 oms, which areall of them I m perfedions, are com- 
 municated to the Divinity. Such as to be paffible, 
 .to Hunger, Thirfl, Grieve, be Fallible. 
 
 The Lutherans fay, thefe are Finenefles, very 
 proper to defend Nef^orianifm ; and the Dodrine it 
 felf is no better or other: They fay therefore 
 roundly, the Hypoflatical Vnion and manner of our 
 Saviour's Divinity, confjfts in the CommHnication ofDi- 
 vine Properties^ to the Humanity of Chrifl, Or Chrifl: 
 is God by fuch an Indwelling of the Divinity, in 
 the Humanity •, that the Divine Properties ( or 
 Perfedions ) are communicated r<?, and are exerted 
 i^y the Humar^ity : And the Humanity is formally 
 united to the Perfm o( xh^ WORD $ and not only 
 affumed into it, or fftfiained by it. They expound 
 this, by fome Comparifons i taken out of Origeny 
 St. Athanafins^ St» Bafilf and other Fathers: The 
 
 Com-* 
 
Part L cottcernwgthe Holy Trwity. 79 
 
 Comparifons are (ufuaHy) thefetwo. 
 
 As fire communicates its Property of Heat^ to 
 /r^/2 and other Metals j while ftill Fire remains Hrr, 
 ana Iron Irdn r So are the Properties of the Divi- 
 nity, communicated to the Humanity, only with 
 this difference, they are in the Divinity (pv^naEd^ or 
 natiiraBy, in the Humanity x^<^f '•'^M^'^^S or by 
 graimous Commumc4tion t, in, tlje piviniljy primarily^ 
 
 .'The ottier Comparifon is better, rand is hinted in 
 'i\\Q :Athanafian Creed. As the S014I communicates 
 its. Properties of Life, Senfe, ajid Underflanding, 
 to the Body, without communicating to it Spiri- 
 [tHality; fortheBodyfef J, fees, tails, and (in the 
 "Brain) underftands, and not the Soul only in the 
 Body : So the indweliing Divinity communicates to 
 Chrill's Humanity, tne Divine. Properties of which 
 it is capable, Ommfcience, Omnipotence, and fome 
 more > without communicating to it Prae-eternity, 
 Infinity, or. Independence. " If, fay they, as the 
 '*• Reasonable Sonl^ and Human Flejh is one Man, 
 *^ fo God and Man is one Chrifl: v which are the 
 words of the Athanafian Creed, received by all 
 Churches : as the Soul communicates its Properties^ 
 ,Life, Senfe, and Intelledion, fome of them to the 
 whole Body, others to fome, part gf it ^ fo does the 
 Divinity communicate its Prcptrties^ that are com- 
 municable without a Contradidion implied, to the 
 Humanity of our Saviour,, or to the Man Chrift 
 Jefus. And by lefsthan this, 'tis nlanifeft, Jeftis is 
 not 0£cs, God\ but only oeocpop©^, a Man in whom 
 Cod U ' which is the Herefy of Neftorius. 
 
 The Church of England not having defined, that 
 I know of, in thefe Matters \ I am not willing to be 
 too forward : I fhall only fay, 
 
 I. The Properties of a Being are fo called, be- 
 caufethey are»-*«r4/ to, and are primarily in, fuch 
 Being; not becaufe they are abfolutely rnQmrnmi- 
 
 cable 
 
8o J^ Schola^ich^ Dtjfertation 
 
 cable.' This is clearly proved by the Inflances of St. 
 Bafil and Athanafim^ namely of Fire and the SohI^ 
 that communicate their Properties to Iron, and to 
 the Human Body. 
 
 2. It does not feem fo impofTible that, the In- 
 dwelling of God fliould communicate Divine Proper- 
 ties, the commnnication of which implies no Contradith* 
 on^ to Chrift's Humanity > as that the Soul ( that has 
 but a finite Power ) fhould communicate its Proper- 
 ties of Life and Sen fe to the whole Body, and Intel- 
 ledion to the Brain. It may be, thefe two Confi- 
 derations do anfwer all the Reafons (before-men- 
 tioned ) of lYiQ Calvirjifts and CzrdimlBeSarmineZ' 
 gainft the real Communication of Idioms or Pro- 
 perties. 
 
 3. It implies a Contradidion that, Tr a eternity 
 or /«i/z«iy> fhould be communicated to a Man, or to 
 a Human Nature, which had once a beginnings and 
 is circHmfcribed in a place : therefore thefe and fuch- 
 like Properties are not communicable to a Human 
 Nature. 
 
 4. The fole Difficulty feems to be this-, Whether 
 it imply not alfo a Contradidion, that a Finite Be- 
 ing fiiould receive Perfections that are Infinite^ fuch 
 as Omnifcience^ Omnipotence^ and the reft ? And I 
 make this a doubt^ becaufe tho there feems an inca- 
 pacity in the Recipient^ by its being finite in its Ex- 
 lenfion 5 yet, are we fure that the Incapacity of a 
 Finite Extenfion^ may not be furmounted by the In- 
 finite Power and Wifdom of the Giver f For is it 
 more impoflible, than to make aQ things out of No- 
 thing ? And hath not God all infinite Perfections, in 
 thQleafi (affignable) part^ of hisimmenfe and in- 
 finite Nature ? Nay, hath no finite Recipient, any in- 
 finite Property, or Properties : are not eternal Du- 
 ration, and infinite Divifibility, fuch Properties i 
 and are they not adually communicated to fome 
 
 Crea- 
 
Part I. concerning the Holy Trinity, 8r 
 
 Creatures, in particular to Matter or Bodies ? And 
 would it not better anfwer to the Scripture-ExpreP 
 lions, concerning our Saviour's Knovpkdg and Tower ; 
 to fay, the Divine Indwelling is fuch in him, as to 
 communicate to him Divine Properties : than to fay, 
 all was meant of God in him ? 
 
 But I determine nothing in the cafe *, the more 
 knowing may be more adventurous: Ifubmit my 
 felf to Information. 
 
 G Infti- 
 
(82) 
 
 Iriftitutions^ concerning the Holy 
 Trinity, and the Manner of our 
 Saviour's Divinity. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 A Scholajiick ViJJertation^ concerning the 
 Trinity of Principles ^ or EJfentialities * 
 and Terjons. 
 
 1^ H AT I may not confound, rather than 
 edify, the common Reader *, or leave 
 him mad^ whom I found only ignorant v 
 I refolve to fay nothing of divers bold 
 and overcurious ^eftions^ of'which the Scholaftics 
 ( or Divines of the middle Ages ) largely treat. 
 
 Q^uefi. I . The Trinity being a tremendous Myfte- 
 ryi and not only Heretics, but even the Scholaftics^ 
 having been fo unfortunate in their Enquiries and 
 Determinations concerning it ^ fhall we not prefume 
 too much, if we undertake to difcourfe accurately 
 and clearly of it ? 
 
 J»fw. Thofe Confiderations fhould caution us, a- 
 gainft a proud or profane Curiofity and Boldnefs ^ 
 and Strifes concerning Logical and Metafhyfical 
 Terms 5 or fuch things, as being above us, and not 
 
 revealed, 
 
Part II. concerning the Holy Trinity, 83 
 
 revealed, muft therefore be unknown Co us • but 
 they may by no means difcourage us from a fober 
 enquiry and fearch of Truth revealed. 
 
 For, I. the Dodrineof the Trinity, is the very 
 Foundation of all true Theology \ and is ( as ic 
 were) the Life of the other fubfequent Doc- 
 trines. 
 
 2. There are every where many Adverfarles of 
 this ( firft and chief; Article of our Faith : feme 
 of thofe diredly oppofe it h others, yet worfe, tak- 
 ing Scandal and Offence at this Doftrine,^ do there- 
 upon deny and renounce the whole Chriftian Reli- 
 gion. . 
 
 Againfl tbefe, that every Mimfier^ nay that eve* 
 ry Chriflian^ be well inflructed ^ Souls, the Church, 
 Chriftianicy, and even Ck//J ( our Head and Lord ) 
 are moft deeply interefted. For when Infidels and 
 Heretics (Dei/is siid Sociniam) difpute with any of 
 our Clergy, or Laity, that are not well informed 
 concerning thefe Qjieftions 5 they go off with a dear 
 Vidory 5 to the great damage and difgrace of the 
 Chriftian Verity. 
 
 Q^efi' 2. How much of the Doctrine of the 
 Trinity, is necelTary to be believed by allChriitians^ 
 as a Condition of their Salvation? 
 
 Anfxo, So much as is the true, clear^ snd nccef- 
 fary Senfe of our Baftifmal Vrofeffion and Paith v 
 when we fay, / believe the Father^ Son^ and Holy 
 Ghofl^ Namely, i . That, we believe Father, Son^' 
 and Holy Spirit, Cd be the one, true, co eternal 
 God ; one in Efleace, three in a manner th^t U incom- 
 prehenfible by Mortals. 2. That we believe alfoy 
 Chrift is God-man^ the Saviour of the World; 
 3. Whereas in this Sacrament, as in a Holy Cove- 
 nant, God offers himfeif to us, under the Relatioii. 
 of our God, ( of Creator, and recenciUd Father, of 
 
 G z rtdoH^ 
 
84 -^ Scholaftick^ DjJJirtaHon 
 
 recmciling Mediator, and fanUifylng Spirit 5) that 
 we profefs on our part, we accept this God with a 
 cordial fiducial J^jfent^ and fratiicalConfent^ and as 
 h were Oblation and Surrendry of our felves to 
 him. 'This Faith in the Holy Trinity is necelTary, 
 chiefly as pra^kal ^ that is, as we devote our felves 
 to God (under the aforefaid threefold Relation) to 
 befandified, faved, and perfeded in Love by him. 
 
 When St. jiftfiin fets himfelf to difcover and ex- 
 plicate the Myfteries of the Trinity *, not to dif- 
 courage thofe Chriilians who were not capable of 
 ftch Depths and Subtilties, he anfwers to the Que- 
 ftion, that Haft propofed, in thefe words. " Nei- 
 *-' ther let us unfaithfully doubt, of what we ought 
 '* to believe ; nor determine rafhly of what may be 
 '*" learned : Intht firfi let us hold to the Authority 
 * of Revelation 'j in the Other, let us enquire out the 
 ^^ Truth, with diligence. Therefore to the Quefti- 
 *"' on, I fay j let us believe, Father Son and Spirit 
 '*■ is one God, Maker and Governor of the whole 
 '' Creation : That the Father is not the Son, the 
 ^' Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son ; but 
 ^- a Tririity of Perfons related to one another, and 
 *' an Unity of equal Eflence. But let us endeavonr 
 " to Hnderftand this y begging help of him, concern- 
 '' ing whom we enquire ^ and as he [h;all enable us, 
 '' explicating it to others, with that heedful regard 
 ^'' CO Piety, that if by mifhap rve fay that of one Per- 
 '^ fofj which belongeth to another^ we fay not however 
 " whatii unworthy of either. As, if we fay that of 
 ■*' the Father, that properly' belongeth not to thq 
 '^ Father, but to the Son, or the Spirit, or the 
 *' Trinity •, or of the Son, that appertaineth not to 
 ^' him, bnt appertaineth to the Father, or the Spi- 
 •' rit, or the Trinity j or iaftly, of the Holy Spi- 
 ^* rit, that doth not exphcate the Character and 
 ^' Property of the Spirit, but is found intheFa- 
 
 '^ ther 
 
Part II. comermng the Holy TrinUj. 85 
 
 " ther or the Son, or the one God the Trinity. 
 " And fuch is the Queftion I would nextanfwer, 
 *' V/hether LOVE bQ properly the Holy SPIRIT; 
 *' or whether the Father be LOVE, or the Son, or 
 « the Trinity itfelf be LOVE? For the Word of 
 *' Tmi[» faith, GOD IS LOVE. i7o^«4.8. De 
 Trin. lib. 9. 
 
 Reader, allow me this Latitude of StAnflin'^ 
 confine thy Cenfures, and Faith, in thefe Bounds i 
 and both Faith and the Fence will be fecure J. 
 
 Quefl, 3. Whether there are not fome Traces (if 
 we may fo fpeak) of the Divine Trinity, in the 
 External Creation •, and alfo the Image of it, in 
 Man ? • 
 
 Anfw. Almofl: all the Fathers fo thought; efpe* 
 daily St. Jfifiin, de Trin. lib- 10, & n, 6c 14. 
 And well near all the Scholaftics, chiefly P, Lgmhard, 
 0111.3. and r. Aqmnasy i. qu. ^3. ar. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 
 6, 7, 8. This laft: ( in the place here cited ) proves, 
 the «^f«y*-«/ Image of God is in all, his ^o/y Image in 
 the Sandificd, his gloriotu in the Glorified ^ that 
 this Image is in the Mind only, but fome Traces or 
 StrillHresoi it, in the inferior Faculties, as alfo in 
 the other Creatures. To which the greateft part of 
 thofe Doctors agree •, tho I do not cite here their 
 Words, or refer to the Chapters or Pages in their 
 Works. 
 
 Quell, 4. What is that in Man, that is the natn- 
 ral Image of the Divine Trinity, and what Tri-* 
 nity in Man, or other Creatures, is chiefly obferva- 
 ble ? 
 
 Anfw, We mufl: diftindly confider thefe three, 
 things. I. What Traces, and what Image of the 
 Trinity, in Man, are certainly and plainly difco- 
 verable by Reafott^ and common Senfe.' 2. Doth this 
 
 G 3 Image 
 
85 AScholapc\ Difertation 
 
 Image confift inihc FacuUies^ or their uiSls ; and in 
 which foever of thefe, whether as they refped onr 
 felves^ eras they refer to God^ 3. That, St. j^u- 
 fiin miftaking about this, mifled the Divines of the 
 Schools. 
 
 T. I omit the three Pajftve NatHrej ; Air, Wa- 
 ter, and Earth. The A^ive Natures ( whofe Form 
 tends to Adion, as the Paffive do to Reft ) are three •, 
 the re^ttuttve^ ^enptivej and Rational j and have 
 fach a t hreefoU Firtue • 
 
 The Vegetative Nature ; which I take to be lirey 
 incorporated, and working, in Matter rightly dif- 
 pofed to Vegetation •, its Virtue radically and cen- 
 trally is but one^ but Exemter (or in the EffeCis) is 
 threefold* Viz,. Aclive, or Motive --y DifcretivCy by 
 which it diltinguilhes Foods proper and apt for 
 Nourifhmenr, from thofe that are inept and impro- 
 per*, and u4ttraBive, that (as it were) defires, 
 drairs and aflimilates the Nourifhmentr, and anfwers 
 to the natural Affctitein Arjimals, Which fofar de- 
 ceived Campanelia and others, that they thought all 
 things were indued with Senfe-^ becaufe (as 1 
 faid ) there is in Vegetables fomething Analogous to 
 Senfe, 
 
 The Senfithe Nature hath alfo its formal Firtue 
 certrally and radically (in its Subltance, whether 
 tha- be Corporeal^ or as I rather think SpjritMal) but 
 one: but in the Efeds, or operative! y, threefold. 
 Viz. vitafly-A^ive^ j^fpnhenfive^ and j^ffetitive^ in 
 the way of Senfe. 
 
 The Inteliedive or Rational Nature alfo hath 
 centrally one Formal Firtne eflential to it *, which 
 cperatively and externally is threefold, A6tive-Vital, 
 or vitallyABive, JnteUeUive^ and Folitive, This Na- 
 ture, as renewed by Grace, has likewifea certain 
 Trinity 5 a holy Vitality or fomr^ a hcly Wifd9m^ 
 and holy Love^ AU 
 
Part I r. coficermng the Holy Trinity, 8 7 
 
 All thefe meet in Man. He has the three ( mate- 
 rial) ?ajfive Natures V alfo the Vegetative, Senfi- 
 tive, and Rational Natures; with the trine ?omr 
 (or Virtue) in each of them. As renewed by 
 Grace, he hath the moyal Image of God, or the Tri- 
 nity, viz., in his Vital Power, Spiritual Dfe j in his ■ 
 Intelledual, Spiritnal Light^ or Knowledg , and his 
 Volitive, Diving. Love, We are not to look far- 
 ther or elfewhere, for the natural or the moral Image 
 of God in Man, as Man •, or as renewed: This is the 
 Image intended by Aiofes^ and by God, Gen:i, 27. 
 and p. 5. 
 
 There is fcarce any Controverfy concerning thefe 
 things •, faving that, T. Aqninas^ and fome that fol- 
 low him, have unhappily faid, the Virtues or /'oaxrr/ 
 (before-mentioned) of the Rational Nature, are 
 jiccidents: but the Scorifls and Nominals have clearly 
 proved the contrary. And he that fhall read Zaha- 
 rel^ and the more moderate Thomifls, will plainly fee 
 that, it is a ftrife about Words and Terms only. 
 Jor they confefs the Soul operateth (at lead fo far 
 as it produceth thefe Powers ) hy its EJfence •, and 
 that thefe Virtues and Powers are proximately and in- 
 feparably in the Soul ; or ( what is the fame) emane 
 from it, by a natural and conft.tnt Nceeffity. 
 
 II. As to the fecond Que&ion, I fee not the leafl: 
 reafon, why we (hould think \ the Divine Im^ge in 
 Man is in the Firtne^ or Power^ or Faculty on\)'^ or 
 in the j^tl only. It is radically in the Faculty or 
 Power, aflively or operatively in the Afts. For as 
 our diftind Notions of the Power (or Virtue) and 
 the Ad in the Divine Nature, are but inadequate 
 (or partial ) Conceptions of the fame thing •, for 
 the Ad and Power are in God the fame thing, the 
 u4{]^ being nothing elfe but the Power aUwg: ^o \i is 
 neceffary that, the Conception of the Objsdtive Vir- 
 
 G 4 tue 
 
88 \A SMaJlicli Dijfertaiion 
 
 tviQ or Power, and the J5i^ do concur to the form- 
 ing of the Image of God in w. 
 
 To the fecond part of the Queftlon j Whether 
 the Image of God in the Soul confifts in the j4ds to- 
 wards it felf^ and the Creature^ or towards God f 
 I anfwer *, T, Aqninoi will have it to confift only, in 
 the Ads towards God, But we mull diflinguifh, be- 
 tween God's Natnraly and Moral Imagg in us : And 
 again, between the prim^ry^ and inferior part of the 
 natural Image. And hereupon I fay ^ i. The pri- 
 mary and more eximious part of the Divine Image, 
 is in ihQ Faculties of the Soul, and their Ai^s towards 
 God'y as to k^nowGod^ and to love God, &c. The 
 inferior part is in every A^ of the Mind or Soul, as 
 it is an A^. 2. The wThole Nature of the Holy or 
 Moral Image, is feated in the Inclination, Ads, and 
 Actions towards God-, 2nd towards the CreatHVe^ as 
 dignified with the Image of God^ in fome degree *, or at 
 leail; for God's fake. But our Qiieftion is only con- 
 cerning the natural Image. 
 
 IIL St- Auftin h2LS not rightly named the triple 
 POWER, and ACT, in the Soul ^ he puts Memory, 
 infteadof adtive Vu^lI-Pow qv ov Fital-A^ivity, We 
 are not however to wonder that, in thofe firfl: and 
 ruder Ages, they underftood not fo well the Nature 
 and Powers of the Soul > for St. Auftin was the firfi^ 
 that difcourfed and argued accurately, of Theologi- 
 cal Matters. He formed, as it were, and perfed:ed,the 
 too general and confufed Notions of the Antiems *, 
 eftablifh'd, and fixed, their loofe indetermined 
 Thoughts. Being a Man of a penetrating Wit, and 
 clear Head -, untaught by any, he laid thofe Foun- 
 dations of the methodical Scholaflic Theology^ on 
 which Boethim and Damafcen^ and after them P. i^om- 
 hard, built more regularly and fymmetrically. Few 
 Philofophers will allow that, Memory is a Faculty 
 
 dillina: 
 
Part II. conarmngthe Holy Trinity. 89 
 
 diftinta from the Phantafy, and InteUeEh ^ all Memory 
 is an Adt of the Intelleifl, or Phantafy. . See BHran- 
 dw^ Lib. I. dill. 3. qu.3. where you will find, they 
 underftood by Memory, the Intelled oiaaing-^ or 
 , they diftinguifhit from Intelled, only in Power, that 
 is, as capable of ading. And Scotus^ with others 
 that follow St. Anfiw^ do not make Memory a diftinft 
 Faculty^ but the IntelhEt its pregf7ant'-^ and in this re- 
 fped, give it a place in the Trinity of AO:s : and 
 thus it is only Mind, 
 
 Divers SchoUflics confefs in exprefs words, that ^ 
 they acknowledg Memory to be a part of the Image 
 of the Trinity, only out of regard to St. An^in^ 
 from whofe Dodrine we mufl not depart in the 
 leaft. But as it is certain. Memory and InuUe^ are 
 not diftind Faculties of the rational Souh fo 'tis 
 mofl certain that VitaLA^hity^ Jntelle^^ and Will 
 are, and that there is no fourth, 
 
 Que[i,^. Is there a Trinity of PRINCIPLES 
 ( or Effemial Attributes) in God ? 
 
 Anfw. Yes, out of Controverfy. I will not how- 
 ever litigate about the Name : whether you will fay 
 Principles^ or ( as Campanella) Primalities ; or Ejfen' 
 tiditiest or Attributes^ or EJfentiai Properties, But 
 the other Attributes are. to be dillinguilhed from 
 thefe, which are the Formalities (as it were ) of the 
 Divine Nature, -and do efientiate it. 
 
 X,. All fober Men mufl confefs, the Life^ the/«- 
 telk^ and IVill of God, are not formally the fame 
 with ours: Thefe Words are not ufed of God and 
 Men univocdly^ bat equivocally ; or not in the fame 
 Latitade,'and (precife) fenfe. And tho fome fay 
 here, they are ufed of God and the Creature, nei- 
 ther Univocally nor Equivocally, but Analogically : 
 Yet the *?c-of/y?i are in the right, who prove there is 
 nothirdh but what is faid Analogically, isfaid Equi- 
 vocally. 
 
^O ^ Scholujiick, Differtation 
 
 vocally. See on this, P/?//. Faber^ Meurijfe^ Rada^ 
 TrombetHS^ Lychetw^ and the reft of that School, 
 [^Buc fee alfo on the contrary (the judicious Meta- 
 phyllcian) ScheibUr^ pag. 8<5^ 87. of the Oxford 
 Edition.] 
 
 2. It mufl: not be diflembled here that, God is no 
 otherwife known to us Mortals, but (as faith the 
 ^pojfle) in a Glafs : which Glafs is the Creature^ and 
 th^ written Word '^ of the Creatures, chiefly the ///<- 
 nan SohL Therefore we are necefTitated to think> 
 and fpeak, of God ^ after the Likenefs of the Soul : 
 only removing from our Conceptions of God, our 
 Imperfedions*, and acknowledging the equivocal- 
 nefs or impropriety of our Idea4 aud Expreffions, 
 But to fpeak better or otherwife of God, we can- 
 not •, we muft thus fpeak of the Trinicy, or not 
 at all. 
 
 And I pray, why is this Trinity of Faculties in 
 the Soul, confefTed (by all) to be the Image of God 
 in us^ if we are not to conceive of God and the Tri- 
 nity, according to r^ Image^ rather than any other 
 Ways? 
 
 If any doubt, whether Onnipotence Intelled and 
 Will, are to be attributed to God^ let 'em read 
 ^qninOA^ the SchoUfttcs^ the Fathers^ or the Scriptnret 
 themfelves : for 1 would not fpend time, in proving 
 what is almoft univerfally acknowledged. Some in- 
 deed have faid. there is no Power in God; tho they 
 confefs his Omnipotence : as Petavita^ and fome 
 more. As if Omni-potence were not Power. ' But 
 the reft explain themfelves better, and fay, there 
 is no pajfive Power in God, atHve there is : and 
 that, this ad:ive Power is always in Ad,- never qui- 
 efcenti in (horr, they own an adive Omni potence, 
 that always sdteth, at leaft immanemly^ tho not excHft' 
 ter or externally and terrainatively on the Creature. 
 
Part II. concermng the Holj Trwity, 9 1 
 
 ^cH. 6. In whaty and how many things, doth the 
 Trinity of PRINCIPLES in the Image, agree with 
 the Divine Trinity of PRINCIPLES, or of PER- 
 
 soiss? 
 
 Anfvp^i. In the Human Soul, or in an Angd^ Ef- 
 fence and Vtrtne or Power make no Compofition. 
 But becaufe we cannot well conceive of a Spiritual 
 Subftance, but only by inadequate ( or partial) Con- 
 ceptions,after the manner oi Matter and Form : there- 
 fore we are conilrained in fpcal^ing of the Soul or 
 other Spiritual Being, to ufe the Terms Subftance and 
 Formal- Firtue^ intending them in the analogical way •, 
 that is, fo as to anfwer Matter and Form in Bodies, 
 But by thofe Tenrs and Notions 1 intend no Conpo- 
 fnion^ in the Spiritual Beings. 1 would have th s to 
 be applied alfo, and more efpecially, to the Prin- 
 ciples, and the Divine Ferfons^ of the Trinity in 
 God. 
 
 %, The whole ForT^al EJfenoe of the Soul, is con- 
 tained in this triple rtrthe-, neither is there any 
 fourth. But even ihefe, Vital- Adivity Intelka: and 
 Will, have many Names^ connotattvdy ^ that is, as 
 acting and terminated on External Objeds. And 
 the fame is to be underllood of the Divine Trinity, 
 whether oi Principles or Per fins, 
 
 3. The triple V^irtue (or Power) is not an Jc^ 
 cident in the Soul ^ but is its very EJfence. And the 
 fame is to be confefTed by All, of theWvine Triniiy 
 of Principles, and Perfons. 
 
 4. This triple Virtue is not divided, as if one 
 part of the Soul were the Aftive^vital Power, ano- 
 ther part the Intelletlaaly and another the Foli^ 
 five:, but the whole Soul is vitaUy-Adtive, the whole 
 Intelledtivc, the whole Volitive. And fo alfo in 
 both the Trinities; the whole Divine EiTence, not 
 part of it, is Mivt-Lifc^ the whole JnUlU^^ and 
 
 the 
 
92 v// Scholajiick^ Dijjertatiott 
 
 the whole Will-^ the whole is Father^ the whole Soff^ 
 and the whoJe Holy Spirit, 
 
 5. But the whole Soul is not wholly Adive-Power, 
 or Life-, nor wholly Intelled, or wholly Will. That 
 is, each of thefe denotes or (ignifies the Soul, not 
 wholly^ but inadequately ^ all of them together^ as 
 conceived alfo with the Subftance and all Modalities 
 and Relations t are the Soul adequately and wholly. In 
 like manner the whole Divine EfTence is exprefled, tho 
 mt wholly^ by Adive-Life or Power *, or by Intellei^ or 
 Will : or by the word Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit. 
 
 <5. As to immanent ji[is of the Soul '-, ( i . ) An im- 
 fnanent Kd properly fo called, is when, not only this 
 Ad efFedeth nothing externally *, but the very Objed 
 of it, is nothing that is external^ but the Soul it felf. 
 (2.) Or more generally, and lefs properly and 
 Uridly, when the Ad h on fome external Objedi 
 but abide th in the Soul, and (as before) effedeth 
 nothing externally. The former of thefe is not any 
 thing different from the Soul \ but is the Soul it felf, 
 knowing or loving it felf, or as in Vital' Ad'ton, In 
 fhort, it is only another State, Mode^ or Manner of 
 the Soul, differencing it from the fame Soul, when 
 confider'd as not thus ading, or as not in the Ad of 
 knowing it felf^ or loving it felf^ &c. And tho fome 
 call thefe Ads, Occidents of the Soul; yet they in* 
 tend that Term improperly : namely, on the ac- 
 count that (as they think) thefe Ads are not al- 
 ways in the Soul, but die away fometimes, without 
 the Soul's dying *, but not becaufe they are adventi* 
 tiom things, fArr^r^^^i^jf-adventitious, but fo many fe- 
 veral Modes or States of the Soul. 
 
 If it be true, which 1 much doubt ; that the Soul 
 doth not always underfiand^ and always love'^ no 
 not by a profound and unobferved Ad : this hap; 
 neth only by occafion of its un per fed and dependent 
 Nature, which is finite and limited. Ithapnethnot t^ 
 
 the 
 
Part ir. concerning the Holy Trinity. 93 
 
 the uncreated Divine Nature, which is Infinite and 
 Perfedt. It feemeth truer that, thefe Acts q£ the 
 Soul are permanent and conltant , they are a ^t of 
 Habits^ that are^ not (fenfibly) perceived by the 
 Agents, but only when the Effeds are alfo perceived. 
 As a Traveller, tho thinking or talking of other 
 things, continues his Journey, in the right way, and 
 by all its windings or its turnings off from the direct: 
 Line:^ or as the Mudcian plays his Tune, .without 
 refleding or perceiving what he doth, but wholly in- 
 tent upon other Matters. So perhaps may the Soul 
 perform always its Eflential Adts, of Intelk^ion and 
 Love^ as well as of Vitality •, without Notions, or 
 Obfervation of thofe Ads. 
 
 The Soul Htidtr^anding and loving it felf, may be 
 conlider'd not only, as A^ing or in ASi ^ but alfo, 
 with its Objed •, that is, as ading on it felf. And thus 
 it has a double Refped, of Agent^ and of Obje^ ; 
 from whence a fpecial or particular Denomination 
 arifeth. While its Ads are toward it felf, and with- 
 in it felf*, they are nothing but the SohI it felf^ nor 
 can it be called any thing but a mutual Relation. 
 But when its Ads are towards external Objeds, tho 
 they do not operate on them i thefe Ads, as Ads, 
 for fo much as the Agent is concerned, are nothing 
 elfe but the Soul in a particular State Mode or Man- 
 ner : but as they avcfpecified by thofe external Objeds, 
 they ought to have (and they have) another Name i 
 for they are now of a mixt Nature^ viz. as they are 
 ihs AGs of the Agent ^ and Oi terminated on external Ob- 
 )eUs, Again, when the Faculties of the Soul have aa 
 External Objed or Objeds, and do operate on them $ 
 fuch Adion as it is the Agent's^ 'tis t)ut a mere Habi- 
 tude or Mode of fuch Agent 5 or as Scotns fpeaks, it is 
 not any thing different from the Soul, butaa it is 
 fpecifed (or fpecifically denominated) by its Objed, 
 Term, or EfFed ^ 'tis to be conceived of as diftind 
 from the Souh How 
 
94 ^ Scholajikk^ D/Jprtation 
 
 How thefe things iii the Image, are to be applied 
 to t^e Divine Trinicy of Principles or Perfons, I 
 need not particularly explain •, the Reader will do ic 
 in his own Mind, and 1 would not offend by an un- 
 neceflary Prolixity. 
 
 7. The Order and Conjunction of the three Fa- 
 culties of the Soul in their acting, is really admira- 
 ble. We perceive a diverlity of the Adtion 5 but 
 what or how great that diverfity is, we can fcarce 
 tell, or rather cannot tell : for our Faculties have 
 fuch a mutual dependence, and conjundlion, that 
 whenever one Faculty is frincipal in ading, the 
 other co-operate •, as much as the capacity of the 
 terminating Objed will permit. And all Divines fay 
 the fame thing of the Principles and Perfons in the 
 Divine Trinity. 
 
 S.The 6rft of thefe Faculties,in the otder of Nature^ 
 is the AUive^Jf^ital-Power '^ this we may fay is the 
 Foundation and Principle of the other Powers, in 
 all their Adions : for we muft conceive the Sout 
 as ading, before we can conceive it as Ming intel- 
 leUudly-i or in the way of Volition : and the SohI's thus 
 ading is its Living 5 I do not mean,ics living as it ani- 
 mates or vivifies the Body, but its Ejfential Life, From 
 hence fome have taken occafion to fay. Vital- Aftivi- 
 ty or j!^n:ive'FitaUty is not one of the three Tomri 
 of the Soul, but is their Genw •, they are only Bran- 
 ches of this Power: but this I fliaU fully confute in 
 its proper place. And tho we have no particular 
 Name or Word, whereby to difcriminate the Life, 
 or ABivc'Power of Man, from that of Brutes ; yet 
 that they are of a different kind or fort, their Ope- 
 rations and their Effects (how. 
 
 By the Fital- Power is firfb GENERATED the ///- 
 teiuatial AB^ and from both PROCEEDETH the 
 Folitive'/iCt, 
 
 1 don't think, thatl^ieed teach my Reader, to 
 
 ap- 
 
Part If. cof7€ernif7g the Holy Trimty, 9 5 
 
 apply or accommodate thefe Notions to the Divine 
 Life^ Intelleti^ and Will-i CO the Father, the Logos, 
 and Holy Spirit. 
 
 ^. The formal Virtue or Power of the Soul is ont 
 and threes fingle, and yet triple. One centrally, 
 radically, or with refped to the EfTence •, trifle, vir- 
 tually, proceOTionally, and by connotation and re- 
 fped to its trife J5i, 
 
 And certain it is, ihQ Divine TrincipUs are radi- 
 cally one,as they are the Eflence *, but virtually,conno- 
 tatively, and relatively to the Ads, they are three : 
 and the fame is to be held of the Divine Perfo?is. 
 
 lo. But to make a juft Dillindion of the Faculties 
 or Powers of the Soul, and to adapt to them Names 
 that Ihall accurately exprefs their Nature and Diffe- 
 rences, is fit may be) what a mortal Wit fhould 
 attempt in vain: and otherways there would not re- 
 main fo many Controverfies about it, among (the 
 mod fubtle and diftinguilhing Heads) the Divines of 
 the Schools. Who v/ill think that, he can explicate 
 (whether in more or fewer words) that abftrufe 
 difference, that recondit arcane Diftindion •, fo as 
 to fatisfy others: that difference^ I fay, of the Fa- 
 culties of the Soul, that has efcaped the clear and pe- 
 netrating fight of Aquinas^ Anreolu^^ Cafreolus, Ca* 
 jetan^ Ferrarienfis'^ of Scotm^ Trombet^ Mairo, Fa- 
 ber^ Rada \ of Ockam^ Gregorim Ariminenfisy Harta- 
 diu \ and fo many more ? And much more (hould 
 we fay the fame of the Principles^ and Perfons, of the 
 Divine Trinity. 
 
 II. But the leaft Difference that we can (with 
 reafon) affirm of them, is a Virtual Relative ^ ^V[A 
 Denominative by connotation from their Ads : The 
 whole Controverfy is. Whether 'their Difference 
 be realy and formal in the natnre of the thing. Ap- 
 ply this alfo to the Trinity of Principles, and Per- 
 fons. 
 
 12. What- 
 
96 ^A Scholaflick^ Differtatien 
 
 11. Whatfoever diverfity of Adlion there is in 
 the Human Life, ic all arifes from this Tower ( of the 
 Soul) which radically is one^ and proceffionaDy 
 three. And ( in like manner ) all the Diverfity in 
 created Beings, is wholly owing to that (Divine 
 Eflential) Power or Virtne^ which (as we have 
 faid ) is three and one 5 or the Trinity of Perfons in 
 one EfTencei 
 
 13. As the Trinity of Faculties and P^JiP^rj in the 
 Soul, are known (with certainty) that they are*, 
 but fcarce can we exprefs, or conceive, what they 
 are : We mull: be willing to acknowledg the fame, 
 of the Divine Trinity of Principles, and Perfons. 
 
 14. The Powers (or Faculties) of the Soul al- 
 ways Ad, their not to AB v^^ere not to Be ; but they 
 do not dwaji aft on outward Objedts, nor by the 
 Spirits of the Body : They do not always animate 
 or vivify the Body ; as namely, not in a State of 
 Separation, or when the perfonal Union of the Soul 
 and Body is dilTolved. Nor do they always know^ 
 or will this or that particular thing j nor even, thera- 
 felves, fenfiblyy by the bodily Organs, 
 
 The Divine ^W«^ alfo always- afts, to AEh and 
 to Be are the fame in God 5 but* it doth not always 
 create, or govern the World, or operate on exter- 
 nal Things. The Divine Perfons do not always 
 Create, Redeem, or Sandify ^ thothey always ^r^, 
 and a&^ immanently, or internally, 
 
 15. The a^ive-mtal' Power ^ IntelleEt^ and iVill^ 
 in the Soul, are centrally and radically one formal 
 Virtue or Power •, yet we mull not fay, the Soul lives 
 or aEls by the Intelleft, or mderflands by the Will. 
 But we mull fay, (i.) Formally th^SaxA a6ls by its 
 vital- Adivity, nnderftands by its Underftanding, and 
 willeth by its Will. (2.) And effeBivelythQ Will 
 willeth by Intelledion, and the Intelled underfiand^' 
 eth by vital-Activity. The Soul adetb it felf, by its 
 
 Vitality | 
 
Part II. concernwg the Holj Trinity. 97 
 
 vitalityi underftandeth it felf, by Intel]e<^> willech 
 it felf, by Will. And tho it be truly faid, the vital A- 
 Elivity uDderftandeth and willeth, by it felf with the 
 Intelled and Wil]^ and the I«fW/f(^ willech, by ic 
 felf with the Will ; Yet 'tis better faid, and more 
 properly, the Soul aUeth^ under fiandeth^ and willeth^ 
 by its Virtue or Power > as was noted before. There- 
 fore 'tis not properly faid, God formally \hzt\\ (or 
 vitally adeth ) by his Intelkdt, or nnderftandeth by 
 his Will 5 or that the Father vitaBy-aBeth by the 
 Son, or the Son (eternally) under flandeth by the 
 Spirit. But it is rightly faid, God acSieth by his 
 vital' ABivity, and under ftandeth by his intelle^ive- 
 Power ^ and prodnBively by his vital-Adivity 5 and he 
 wilhth by ^Is P^elitive- Power ^ but frodnBively by his 
 Adive and Intelledtive. By this the Reatler fees 
 alfo, how he is to fpeak of the Perfons in the Divine 
 Trinity. 
 
 1(5. Saith Hfirtadns de Mendoz^a^ de Anim, Bifp, 5. 
 S. 5. ** A thing is faid to be ffecified^ when it hath 
 *^ its EfTence ii> order to fomething elfe ; as Forna in 
 *^ order to Matter, and Matter in order to Form: 
 ** And every Power receiveth a Specification imme" 
 '* diately in order to its own Ads, and remotely in or- 
 " der to Objeds. From hence then it is that, the 
 Faculties of the Soul are to have names that exprefs 
 a Dillinction and Diverfity i and from hence alfo the 
 Divine Principles zvQ diverfly named- Whether it be 
 fo in the Perfons too, 1 leave undetermined : But cer- 
 tain it is, the Father is thus named ; for he is called 
 the Father, i. Refpedively to the Ad of Gene- 
 rating. 2. With refped to the Son as generated. 
 Therefore I ask, Whether *aIfo the Lo^oi (WIS- 
 DOM, or S O N ) is not named, i . From the Ad 
 of Intelledion. 2. From the Deity as the Objed 
 underflcod. And in like manner the Holy Spirit, 
 
 H I. From 
 
98 A Seholaftick^ D'jjfertaiion 
 
 I • From the Ad of Stlf-kving. 2. From the, Deity 
 as'theOBjed loved. ' ■ -^ "^ ^ 
 
 17. The trifle Virtue or Power of the Soul, is 
 not on\f ihQEffence oi theSouh not ^n Accident^ as 
 Aquinoi miftook : but we -are aifo to conceive thofe 
 Faculties sl^ diftinB^ thn not as divided-^ if we will 
 have an adequate Conception of the Soul. The firfi 
 fart of this Affertion has been ( long ago ) proved 
 by Ockbam, Gregory of AriminHm^ Htnr. Gandavenfis^ 
 Gabriel Biel^ Hartadm de Mendoz^a^ Scotus znd all the 
 Scotifts, Dttrandti6 affirmeth the fame, Difl. 3. qn. 4. 
 n. 8. of Angels. Gregory of ydentia faith, it is 
 probable > Suarez and Vafquez. fay, the contrary 
 cannot be eafily proved. The fecond fart clearly 
 follows.^ 
 
 What'in this Matter is faid of the Triple Power 
 of the Soul, is to be underitood aifo of the Divine 
 Trinity. 
 
 18, Tho to conceive adequately of the Soul, we 
 niuft think of it under the Notion of a Sfirit^ or 
 purcfl: Subltance, as well as of a formal Virtue -^ yec 
 it is more known to us, under this laft Conception, 
 than under the other. For we know but little, if 
 any thing, of ihQ ftihfiamiallty of a Spirit 5 or as 
 others fpeak, the Metaphyfical Matter of it : But we 
 clearly apprehend what it is to Will, Vriderftand^ and 
 vitally Aki, and from thence, what Vital Power, In- 
 telledive and Volitive Power, are ? And from hence, 
 CartefiHs and his Followers argue, Cogito^ ergo fum-^ 
 iThw^^ therefore I am : Flereby making the A5t of 
 Cogitacion the lirft part of Knowledg, and from 
 whence our Exiftence (or Being) it ielf is pro- 
 ved. 
 
 1^. As to the AthafiafanCvtQd, I would fay that,- 
 all thofe thin2,s are to be faid of the Divide Principles 
 (and air>j in its meafure, of the 5WJ that are 
 
 com- 
 
Part rr. ci)nceYm^g the Holy Trhity, 99 
 
 fcommoniy faid of the Trinity of Divine Perfons. 
 " The Catholick Faith is this, that we worlliipone 
 " God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity *, neither 
 " confounding the Principles^ nor dividing the Suh- 
 '^ flance •, for the vital Mtve-Power is one, tlie In^ 
 ^^ reZ/p^m another, the /^V/ri-z/^ another : But the 
 '' Deity of the Life, of the IntelU^, and Wtll^ is 
 ^' the fame; tlie Glory equal, the Majefty co-eter- 
 " nal. As is the life^ fo is the Underftanding, and 
 '' WilL The Life nncreate, the Intelleduncreate, 
 *• theJWill nncreate ; the Life incomprehenfible, 
 ** thelntelk&incomprehenfible, the Will incornpre- 
 ^^ hendble ^ the Life eternal, the Intelled: eternal, 
 " the Will eternal : yet not three Eternals, but one 
 " Eternal i as neither three InGomprehenfibles, nor 
 '' three llncreate, but one Uncreate an3 one Incom- 
 
 '^ prehenfible. -and fo of the reft. All the Que- 
 
 ftion is, Whether Omnipotence may be afcribed, ia 
 proper fpeaking, to each of them difiinUly arid fe^ 
 verally\ concerning which fee the Author, whether 
 AthmafiM^ or Anaftafius^ or fome other. For my 
 own part I fcruple not to fay, the DWm^ aSlive- 
 Life is intelligent, or wifei and the Jntelle^ (or 
 Wifdom) is vital 5 and the Love is vital and Intel- 
 ledive. But 'tis not properly faid in the JhflraG^^ 
 the aBivs P^ital Power, is a Power formally intel- 
 leftive *, or that, toliveoradt, is to ttnderfi and-, or 
 tounderftand, is to xvHl'^ or the Wifdpm \s Love, 
 or Love is formally Wifdom or Life. And the like of 
 the Perfons in the Trinity. 
 
 20. As the moft adequate Conception cf the Soul 
 is that; 'tis ^' a created Spiric (or moft pure Sub^ 
 ** fiance) endued with a format, vitally- Adiive, In- 
 '^ telledive, V'olirive Power j frl^ and necejjarily to- 
 ^^ ward it felf, then towards external Objcds. So 
 v;e cannot have a truer Conception, in the prefent 
 Life, concerning God 3 than this, *^ He is one, in- 
 
 e 2 ^'depen- 
 
100 A ScholaUkk Dijjeriation 
 
 ** dependent, infinite, neceflary, immutable Ef' 
 *' fence ^ a Spirit ( that is, Life, Intelled, and Will ) 
 *' moit perfed-. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit i 
 ^' Self- living. Self-knowing, Self-loving: of whom, 
 " by whom, and to whom, are all things. And 
 from this, inferring his Relations to his Creatures 5 
 Creator, Redeemer, Sandifier. 
 
 Qt*eft. 7. Is the Trinity of Principles ( Adive- 
 Life, Intelled, and Love) and of Ferfons^ the 
 fame ? 
 
 Anfw, To anfwer this, I (hall firft propofe thefe 
 Points to be confidered by the Reader. 
 
 L What doth the term Logos ( which we render 
 WORD) lignify in the Context of John 1. 1^ 
 2> 3, 4> ^c. ^ 
 
 II. What is a P^r/^» .^ 
 
 III. \Nh2X'nz Relation? 
 
 IV. What are the Grounds or FoHndations of the 
 Relations ? 
 
 V. Wherein, or how, do the Divine PrincifUs 
 ( or Virtues ) differ from one another ? 
 
 VI. What have the Fathers faid of this Matter ? 
 
 VII. What fay the Scholaftics^ or Doctors of the 
 ( Academical ) Schools •, that lived in the mid* 
 die Ages, between the Fathers and the Divines 
 of the Reformation ? 
 
 VUL What is the Dodtrine of the Moderns^ or 
 thofe fince the Reformation ? 
 
 I. Of the LOGOS. 
 
 The word LOGOS, in Ecclefiaftical and Pro- 
 fane Authors, is varioufly ufed > fometimes for Rea^ 
 fin in general, fometimes for an Argumnt^ fome- 
 ^ times 
 
Part I f . conctrniftg the Holy Trinity. i o I 
 
 times for a Defimtion^ for a Speech alfo and Word^ 
 and many more > as may be feen in Lexicons. But it 
 being ufed by the Spirit of God, in the Context of 
 St. John before-named *, therefore its Theological fig- 
 nification is there chiefly to be fought. And tho in 
 the beginning there, is by moft Interpreters rather 
 taken for in the beginning of the Creation • than as St. 
 Cyril interprets, in the Father : And tho in that Con- 
 text the- Evangelifi fpeaks of the Creation of all 
 things by the WORD. It will not thence follow 
 that, Chfift had then his firft Original or Beginning, 
 or was then created : For 'lis there alfo faid, on the 
 contrary, thslY^^^ was with God\ which inti- 
 mates his Eternal Co-exifience, Nay it is faid there, 
 the IVORD was Gad: therefore, not a Creature; 
 much lefs, then (irft originated. But from hence it 
 is evident, firfi that, this name the WORD, has 
 refped: to the Work of Creation \ when God SAlD^ 
 Let there he Light^ and fo of the reft. And there- 
 fore it is, that the Works of God are often in Holy 
 Scripture afcribed to his Word^ Pfal. 33. 6. and 148. 
 8. I Bet, 3. 5, And Solomon (Prov,S, 22, &c,) fays 
 almoft the fame thing of WISDOM, for fo we ren- 
 der Lcj^w in that Context, 'Viz, that, '' It was from 
 '^ Everlafting, from the Beginnings before the Earth. 
 *' When there were no Fountains, or Depths *, be- 
 *' fore the Mountains, and Hills > when he prepa- 
 '* red the Heavens, I was there. Secondly^ We 
 muft underftand St. John as fpeaking of the Word as 
 prse-exifting, even from Eternity *, tho named the 
 iVord in time, with refpe^t to the Creation. So the 
 Logos is both the eternal WORD, or inexi fling 
 WISDOM, of the Father ; and thztcreating WORD 
 and WISDOM of the Omnipotent, that won forth 
 to make all things. The Context it felf teaches us 
 to underftand the LOGOS, neither as only the eter^ 
 rial inexifting WISDOM J nor as only that proceeding 
 
 H 3 WORD 
 
I02i \A SchoUfiicl^ Dijfertation 
 
 WORD and WISDOM that went forth to create \ 
 but fo as to comprehend >cr/? thefe Senfes. The 
 Philofopher Zem h defervedly commended. both by 
 lertHiUaH and LaEhantim^ for faying-, ihtLogos is 
 the maker of the World. See their words at length 
 in the Annotations of Grotm on this context. 
 
 At the 4tb Verfe icisfaid. In him was L I F Ey 
 as 'tis faid elfewhere by Chrift, '' As the Father 
 *' hath LIFE in himfelf, fo hath he given to the Son 
 " to have LIFE in himfelf. By whichisn^eant, not 
 only that, Ghrift is the Caufe and Author of our 
 Life ; but is chat Radix or Root of Life, or Eternal 
 WISDOM, that, was generated by Ihe Omnipotent- 
 Divine LIFE : and therefore ^is here faid of Chriit, 
 both as eternally inexifiing^ and as proceeding to 
 give Life to Men. 
 
 The LIFE vra* the LIGHT of Men, It was faid^ 
 
 to fjgnify the Property of the Perfon •, for it is not 
 
 meant only of the A^ of illuminating the World, 
 
 but of the eternal Vroferty of the Enlightner : 
 
 ^ Lights the fecond Property of the Sun, is always 
 
 likened to hnelleti the fecond Faculty of the Soul. 
 
 So the fenfeis, '^ The Logos or INTELLECT, the 
 
 *' Eternal WISDOM of God, being Incarnate, was 
 
 *^ the Light of the World \ The Eternal, Inextft- 
 
 " ing, Intellecftual Light, "is our Teacher or Pro- 
 
 *' ceffiond Light. John ).i, lo. and 12.35. ijohn 
 
 I. 7. Rev, 21. 23. 
 
 Crotita oblerves here that, Seneca and the Stoics 
 fqy, the creating REASON ; and Chdcidins^ '*• The 
 *• REASON of God, is God taking care of human 
 *^ Affairs'^ and is the caufe that Men live well and 
 *' happily, if they negled not the Gift of the moft 
 '' High God. 
 
 I do not oppofe the Expofltion of Vecdati^ and 
 fome others, that fay 5 Chrift is called the Ltgk of 
 Men, bscaufe he created the ReafanMe Soul : and 
 
 bccsufe 
 
Part If. concermf7g the Holy Trwiiy, 103 
 
 becaufe he enlightens it,' ' after it hath been d^'rkried 
 
 by Original Sin. 'Nor would I contradift thofe, 
 
 that have faid, the WORD is fo called ; becaufe 
 
 in all Ages he hath declared the Father to Meh> as a 
 
 Word or Sjieech doth the Mind'. But I yvdiild have 
 
 thefe to pafs but only ^i ficimdary Kti^oti^ of this 
 Name. '..-f. :..... ■ ^ ..■- . 
 
 The Bdgic ATinotattoh? have rightly faid, " The 
 '' Logos^ thatls,the fubftantial ^^or^ and REASON • 
 " as Reafofi (tgnifies alfp,., both the Internal Keafcn or 
 *' Intelleftof Man, njid'thsit external iVor J by which 
 " the Internal Reafon is exprefled. Arid bn the 4th 
 VcrCe^ The Light of Men^ i.e. '^ The Author and 
 " Caufeof Light, riarilely of that Reafon 2nd Vn- 
 *' derfianding with which the human Kind was en- 
 ^' dued and ennobled,, when created. 
 
 See^ft^, Calvin^ janfenm^- Lyra^ and Others on 
 this Context. The ]t{mt Jtkaldoriat^ after obferv- 
 ing and cenfuring divers impertinent and inept In- 
 terpretations here, faith 5 ** A great number of the 
 *^ Antients\ and almoft all thQ Moderns j think the 
 *' SON is called the LOGOS, becaufe he is Noti- 
 *^ tia Patris •, the Knowledg ( or Wifdom y of the 
 '' Father. This Opinion hath been received with a 
 *' marvelloiis Confent and Agreement o( Divines -^ 
 " and hath obtained fuch an Authority, that it 
 *' would be rafhnefs to depart from it : Notwith- 
 " ftanding, there may alfo other Reafons.(and 
 *^ true on?s ) be given of this Appellation. Yes, I 
 will give, two Reafons ; that will comprehend all 
 the reft. i. By the Word of God, the World WcS 
 made ^ God faid^ Let there he Light', and fo of the 
 reft. 2. Becaufe the Son declares to Men the Com- 
 mands and Will of God. And I am wholly of O- 
 pinion, we ought' here to take the mbft compre- 
 'iienflve fenfc, rather than any narrower. 
 
 H 4 Lyra 
 
104 AScho!a}lic\DijJertatton 
 
 X^r^ notes that, the Word or Conception of the 
 Mind, not which is-unformed and confufed, but 
 which is determinate and ferfeEt^ and therefore cal- 
 led Definition^ is the Image of the Divine Word in 
 us 5 becaufeGod underftandeth himfelf^ and all 
 things, by one AEt of Intelledion : And thus there is 
 in Gcd but one W^or^, becaufe in him there can be 
 bht one ( moft prf$U and campleat) Conception. But 
 he difagrees here, in part, from the generality of 
 the School' Divines, who fay \ ^^ The Son or WORD 
 *' is not God's KNOWLEDG of other thines, but 
 '' only of Himfelf. 
 
 II. Of the mrd PERSON. 
 
 Or, What is a Perfon ? We ask, i» concerning 
 the Name or Term, Whether the Term Perfon be 
 neceflary in explaining the Trinity ? 2. Of its fig- 
 nification ? 
 
 1. If Necejfary be taken in a large fenfc, for what 
 tends to preferve the Faith pure and entire, the 
 term Perfon may be called NecefTary : becaufe its 
 fignification is fo determined and fixed by Ecclefiar 
 llical life and Cuftcm, that he that rejedls this 
 Word, is fufpeded to rejed the true Taith it felf. 
 Otherwife no lerm whatloevcr is neceflary, becaufe 
 no one Language is neceflary to Religion i much lefs 
 is the word Perfon neceflary, which is not found in 
 Scripture in this fenfe. 
 
 2. To the fecond •, Boethim and j4qmnas define a 
 Perfon^ to be an individual Sttbflance in the Rational 
 Nature. AqninaSy much perplex'd and difl;refl:, o- 
 pens the whole Matter, thus. *^ Perfon in general 
 **" fjgnifieSj an Individual Shbflance^ of the Rational 
 '^ Nature, Individual is what is difiinU from all o- 
 *•' thers, and indifiinEI in it felf. Perfon in what- 
 
 " foever 
 
Part II. concerning the Hclji Trinity. 105 
 
 *« foever Nature, iignifies what is dtftin[i in that 
 " Nature ; and in the Human Nature, it fignifies 
 *^ this Soul, this Flefh, thefe Bones : for thefe are 
 
 *^ the individuating Principles of a yj/^w. . 
 
 *^ But the dillindion in the Vivine Nature^ is not 
 
 '' made but by Relations of Origination ^ /. e, Gene- 
 
 *' ration, Spiration, Proceflion. Relation in the 
 
 " Divine Nature is not an Accident inhering in its 
 
 *' Subjed, but is the Divine Eflence ic fcif ; and 
 
 " therefore fubfilleth, as the Divine ElTence JithjiB^ 
 
 " eth. Therefore as the Deity or Divinity is God -, 
 
 *' fo tlie Divine Paternity is God the Father^ who is a 
 
 '^ Divine Perfon, Therefore a Divine Perfon figni- 
 
 *' fies a Relation od fuhpfting^ and this Ca Rela- 
 
 ** tion as fubfifting) fignifies a Relation after the 
 
 *' manner of a Subfiance^ which is an Hyfoftafis 
 
 " fubfifting in the Divine Nature : though a 
 
 *' Subfiftence in the Divine Nature is not any 
 
 '*• thing different from the Nature, but is the 
 
 *• Nature. And ^efi, 30. when upon this Que- 
 
 ftion, Are there more Divine Perfons ? He is pnzled 
 
 with this Objection, There is bnt one Perfon, becanfe 
 
 there is but one individual intelleEiual Snhfiance or Na^ 
 
 ture ', which hath llnce been the Objection of the 5a- 
 
 cinians'^ He anfwers thus. '' In the Definition of a 
 
 " Perfon^ the word Sithftance doth not denote Ef- 
 
 '* fence^ but Sttfpofitfim, And in Qm, 39. Is Effence 
 
 and Perfon the fame in God f He anfwers, '* In God, 
 
 *' Effence and Suppofitum is the fame •, and S^ppofi-- 
 
 '' turn in all Intelie«ftual Subflances is the fame as 
 
 '^ Perfon. But it feems to be a Difficulty, that tho 
 
 " there are three Divine Perfons, there is but one 
 
 '' Divine Eflence. To this, fome have faid ; Per- 
 
 *' fons and Effence differ in God, as the former are 
 
 " affiUing Relations -, confidering Relations only as 
 
 " they refer to one another, and not as they are En- 
 
 \[ titles or Things. But in truth, Relations in 
 
 '' created 
 
.Io6 \A ScholaJiii\ Dijjertation 
 
 •-* created Beings are only Accidents, in God they 
 ** are the Divine EOence V fnoni whence it follows 
 ••■ that, in God Perfon and Effence differ not quoad 
 *^ rem^ Or really. And yet the Divine Perfons rc- 
 •-* ally differ from Oneanother; for a Perfon figni- 
 ** fieth a Relation^ a^ fubftUing^ in the Divine Na- 
 '' ture. A Relation, withrefped to the Elfence, 
 *' differs from* the Eflence ratine tantumy i,e, only 
 '^ by an Adt of qdr Mind, or in onr manner of con- 
 ** ceiving *, but a Relation, with refpe(^ to its Cor- 
 ** relate (or oppddte Relation) differs from it >*^- 
 ** ^//y, for it is oppofed to it. The Sum is, iri the 
 " felffame Elfence or Subflance are three Retationsy 
 *^ that are really diHind : Which "Relations are yet 
 " really the fame with the Subftance or Effence/, 
 '' not as it is an Effence, but as a SHppofjtum^ or Per- 
 ** fon. See g. 3^. a. i. ad 3, I fhall take leave 
 to hope that, all (ball not be damned, that do not 
 cnderftand thefe things-, or underftanding them, 
 cannot reconcile them. 
 
 Cajetan faith, God (precifely confldered) is a 
 SuffofttHm : but Fonfcca, Snarez^ and others blame 
 this. According to Scheibkr^ a SitpfofitHm is a Singular 
 (cr individual). Subflance^ comfleat^ and incommuni' 
 cable 5 and therefore is more general and comprehen- 
 iive thzn Perfon^ which is defined ^«/«^f///^^«f Suffo- 
 fitum^to diftinguifh it from a Snppofitum (or individual 
 Siihftanct) not intelligent. According to Falla and 
 Scaliger, a Perfon is not a Subflance •, but a Quality. 
 The ObjeQ:ion o{ Falla (and the Socinians) is better 
 anfwerM by Scheibkr^ than by Aciuinas, The Objec- 
 tion is, if a Perfon is a Subflance^ then three Perfons are 
 three Sub fiances ^ he denies the Confequence. " B?- 
 *' caufe Perfon is fometimes taken complexly oi* eon- 
 *^ cretely^ that is, for the Subflance and Property toge- 
 *' ther; it is thus, taken when a Perfon is faid to 
 ^' be a Subftance, and when'we fay the Father is a 
 
 ''Perfon. 
 
Part II. concermngthe EolyTrifiity. ic-f 
 
 '^ Pcrfon. But Perfon is alfo taken ahfira^lyy or 
 ** for what it figiiifies above or more thaft the mere 
 " EfTencc : it is taken thus, when we fay there are 
 *- three Divine Perfons-^ for the meaning oithat^ is, 
 ^ there fuhffieth one Divine Ejfence^ mder three (Per^ 
 ** final) Properties. He means, the Holy Trinity 
 h three Projerties^ added (as it were) to the Divine 
 Eflence, Godhead or God. And he explains it, by 
 the Trinity of Affections in every JEns or Being i ve- 
 rttm^ honHm^ mum *, and by the Vnity of a Being, as 
 itis a Being. 
 
 ^ But a Difficulty flill remains •, What are thefe Pro- 
 prties? Are they the Relations y or their Founda- 
 tions 'j or their Antecedents, or their Confe^ stents? 
 Do thefe Properties differ from the EJfence^ and how ? 
 Left I fhould rather confound, than edify, my Rea- 
 der •, if I undertook to difcufs all the Opinions of the 
 ScboUfiics, concerning the difference between Nature 
 and Su^pofitum : therefore I will refer him only to 
 Scheibler, Metaph. /. 2. r. 2. n. 74, &c), and to ^/<^- 
 rf^, Metaph. ^.345 and Fonfeca^ 5 Metaph, c. 8. 4. 
 6. And if he would fee the Matter treated more co- 
 pioufly, he may read (and tire himfelf in) the Tho- 
 mifis^ Scotifls^ and almoft all the Nominals, But if 
 we might have leave to fay, '' Perfonaliy in the Deity 
 '' is radically the Eternal Trinity of Principles, Life 
 *^ Imelle^^ndlVill'^ nextthe formal Exifience of ih\% 
 '* Eternal Trinity of Principles, as in immanent Ali 
 ^* in God himfelf, that is, as Self-living Self-knowmg 
 ;" Self-loving, with mutual Relation of k(X to Ad, 
 ' *' and of each Adt to its Objedt •, and laHIy with re- 
 " fpedt to the Creation, (or procejfionally) firft obje- 
 '^ dively, and then effedively. I fay, if it were fuf- 
 ficient, thus to fpeak ^ which I do not, here, or now, 
 determine 5 the whole Matter would be certain, 
 and clear, fo far as the Divine Nature is compre- 
 henfible, by us Mortals. 
 
 III. Of 
 
lo8 \4 Scholajikk^ Differtation 
 
 IIL Of ^RELATION. 
 
 We have often occafion to fay, a Terfon in the 
 Trinity is a Relation ^ which is therefore ofctfcure, be* 
 caufe the Entity or Nature of a Relation is obfcure* 
 ScheiUer has faid well, Metaph, Lib, 2. c. ^ n, i. 
 *^ Becaufe the Human Underftanding hath but a tnid-- 
 ** die Perfection, therefore it doth not readily under- 
 ** (land fome things on the account of the Excefi of 
 " their Perfedion, and again others as hardly on the 
 *« account of the Defe5t of their Perfection ^ for in 
 ** both Cafes they are difprcportioned to our Un- 
 •* derftandings. Our Intelled is almoft blind, in 
 *' the Knowledg of Gpd, the moft perfedt Being-, 
 " and but weak in the Knowledg of Relations, be- 
 " caufe their Beings or Natures are fo imperfeft as 
 " to be fcarce difcernable. It is asked, is Relation a 
 leal things or only a Notional, that is, a Concep- 
 tion ? Is it any thing diftind from its Subjed, Foun- 
 dation, or Term? And if it is, what is it? In 
 good truth, the Order of things, as dillindt from 
 the things themfelves, occafions great Trouble and 
 Puzzle to the Human Underftanding ^ and notional 
 Entities are innumerable, and take up a great part 
 of our Life : fuch a Play, fuch a Dream, is the Hu- 
 man Life. Yet all Notional Beings are not to be 
 thought little Matters, for it was the Divine Wif- 
 dom that was the caufe of ORDER ^ and not only 
 all Relations do refult from the Order of things, but 
 ( if I miflake not ) all Morality is formally in Order 
 and Relation, and materially in the Mode or Manner 
 of it. God, as Maker, is the Caufe and Foundation 
 of Nature •, ^szWikGovernour^ of Order » as I»ox^, 
 of Perfcdion. But what the Order of things is, and 
 what their Relations (thereupon) to one another, 
 is better known by the things themfelves j than by 
 artificial ftudied Notions, The 
 
Part II. coffcernwg the Holy Trtmty. 109 
 
 The Foundation of Relations is in the Order of 
 things > this Order is found in Subftances, Quantities^ 
 Qpalities, Adtions, Paflions, and even in Relations; 
 for Relation is the comparability ( or if you wiU, the 
 comfaring of things ) that arc in Order ^ with ene an9^ 
 ther. The Underftanding is endued with a Power, 
 of comparing things \ and thence that paffive*Gapa- 
 city of things* by which they are Objeds of the com- 
 faring Art^ is called their Comparability or Relation: 
 which is not fomething really different from the Order ^ 
 nor the Or^^r fomething diverie from the things in 
 Orders nor (infhort) is it^any way more clearly 
 or better expreflcd, than by*the bare Names of Or- 
 der and Relation, affifled by our Sight or other Sen- 
 fes. From Order^ and the Relations, rcfulteth all 
 that which we call Beauty, and Harmony. Ordtr 
 and Comparability are only between things that arc 
 diverfe from one another. I know nothing farther 
 of the Relations of things, tho I have been oftca 
 wearied with the Difputations concerning them. I 
 don't think that we ihould enquire or ftudy for new 
 or other things, concerning the Order of things, or 
 their Relations. Tho they are not real things, or 
 real Entities : yet one may fay, an Ordinal is Non- 
 nihilj or fomwhat confiderable i as being found in 
 €very part of the boundlefs Field, or Champain rz- 
 ther of Nature. We may fay, it is a World that the 
 Human Underftanding hath framed or created^ as it 
 were ont of nothing : and with how much Noife, and 
 what Conflict, have the moft Learned Metaphyfi- 
 cians and Logicians contended in it, and about it ? 
 
 The Logicians hitherto, for the moft part, di* 
 ftinguifh Relation^ from its Foundation. And other- 
 ways why have they feveral Names ^ and why 
 do we fay that. Relation refulteth or arifeth 
 from the Foundation ? Bnt what the difference be- 
 tween 'em, iS) they are not fo well agreed. Some 
 
 dream 
 
I io \.^ Seholaflick^ Differtation 
 
 dream of a r^^/ Diflkdion, fuch as is betweeti one 
 Thing or Being arid another •, ^s Cajetan, i. p. q.iSi 
 a . 2. FerrarUnfis cbnt. Gent. L. 4. c. 1 4. Capreolnti 
 I, d,30. q. I. But Hnrtadm is for a mere mo- 
 dal Diftin6iion. Some contend for fuch a modal 
 Diilindlion, 2i% btVN^^n QuantUy2Xid.Figi*^e\ others 
 (as !^otni 2ind Fonfec a ) are for a for r^l Diflindlion, 
 at leafl where Relations are feparaoie from thei^ 
 Foundation. The Opinion of Dnrandf^ may be feeii 
 in himfelf, i. D. 30. ^2. and that of Suarez:^ in 
 his Metaphyfics, Vifp. 47. SeB. 1, n. 4, 5. 'Yet 
 otliers tell us, Relation is diftinguifhed from the 
 Foundation* only raiione rauocinata^ by a mere A<ft 
 of Gur Reafon V lb Of^^?;^, i, d.qu. i. and d.jiiq. 
 
 I, j^nmmen[is6.2%.ci,2,2,2, fiy£gidm l/i^,'i6, 
 g, 4. ) Herv£m : and SnareZj Melaph . d ifp. 2 7. §. 2^ 
 
 II. 22. . And Scheihler Lib. 2. c.p. pun<^. 2. n. $0, 
 Thpfe that are for a Modal Diftinftion, differ frottt 
 thofe that maintain a /<?ri«4/, moft commonly only 
 in th$ Name; Albertinus who defends- the F(7r;w^/, 
 inflances in Quantity and Figure: what difference 
 they pretend btiv^t^n Modal and Forma! ^ {ttinAl- 
 hmwm d^ Rel. Q; 6. p. 387 ^ and Q; 13 *, and in 
 the Formahfls, They ^lledg the Authority of AqHi~ 
 nasj^n^Q Hart adm J Mctaph. d. i j. p. 898, 899. 
 
 And verily -there is nothing but is the Effedt of 
 fome Caufe, except only the fir ft Caufe ^ and ReU- 
 tion requireth no efficient Caufe but the Foundation, 
 the Term, and Snbjed. This Egg (for inftance) 
 is like to never fo many thoufands of new laid Eggs, 
 without any change in it felf. And if Relation were a 
 realF-ntity, how many millions of Entities muft there 
 be in dvery Perfon, nay in every Duft and Sand ? ^ 
 
 F. Eurtadm has moft ftilly proved that. Relation 
 is diftinguifhed from its Snbjed, Foundation^ and 
 Term, only by mental Conception ; not really, for- 
 mally, or modaliy, unlefs by Formality and Mod^ 
 
 yoti 
 
Part II. concerning tU Holy Trr»ify. Ill 
 
 you mean only mental Conception, Alfo that, the 
 Term is eflsntial to the Relation ; and tho the Relati- 
 on is denominated from its- Foundation, and Subjed;,i6 
 hath eflential reference to its Term : for it is the Cow- 
 farMity cf one thing to another,, and therefore belong- 
 eth to both, or is between both. When Scota^ fays, 
 'tis afalfe Conception, if Reafon diftinguiihes where 
 ihQ thing is not diverfe: Alhertin rightly anfvvers, 
 it is no. falfe Conception > for while Reafon conceives 
 one thing without conceiving another, it doth not 
 affirm^ but only abftralis negatively i as the Sight doth 
 not err, while it perceives Colour^ and doth not per- 
 ceive Tafi. j4lbert. de Re/, ^^.12. p. 400. 
 
 IV. Of the F V N D A T I N S 
 of the Divme Relations. 
 
 The School-Divines fpeak obfciirely of the Fom* 
 
 dations of the Divine Relations. They fay enoCigh 
 
 indeed of the twofold Procejjion^ the Pi-oceffion of 
 
 the IVord or W I S D O M by an Ad of the InteUdl^ 
 
 and of the Spirit by an Ad of the fi^^ll: In God, 
 
 fay they, there is no Procejfion but by an A^, Thomat 
 
 ( I. q, i-j, 3. c.) faith 5 " In the (irft ProceiHon^ 
 
 *• the thing under flood is. in the Vnderfiander^ ia the 
 
 '' other the thing toved in the Lover, But whether 
 
 they would have thQ A^s^ or the Trocejfions to be 
 
 the Foundations of the Relations ; I know not how 
 
 they will be able to diftinguilh the Relations from 
 
 one another. FOr they fay, the Divine Intelu^ ?rA 
 
 W^/// are, the fame, and to Vnderfland and iVtU (in 
 
 God) are the fame*, fo are to Spefk^and IVilL and 
 
 to Beget and Breath, But if thus the FoundMionsz^c 
 
 the fame, and the Terms the fame j what MG*-:al can 
 
 underftand but that the Relations alfo nrj: be the 
 
 fame? >^^«w^ indeed fays, i.^. 27. a, 3. ad ^m, 
 
 "Tho 
 
112 \A Scholaftick Diffirtation 
 
 •* Tho in God the Intellea: is not another thing than 
 *' the Will; yet it is of the nature of the Will and 
 " the Intellect, that the Proceffiom that refult from 
 *' the Ads of thefePowers, (hould have a certain Or- 
 *' der. But we cannot underftand Order^ but only 
 between diftwB things, as neither Relation, If there 
 be no re^/l diver fity in the Divine Ad, no Modal or 
 Formal in the nature of the thing ^ it feems uncon- 
 ceivable that an A6i in all refpeds the fame, fhould 
 be related to it felf by diftind and oppofite Re- 
 lations. 
 
 They make four real Relations, in the Deity ; the 
 words of Aqninas are thefe, i . q. 28. a. 4. '' There 
 " are four Relations •, Paternity, Filiation, Spira- 
 " tion, and Proceffion : T hey fay moreover, Rela- 
 " tions cannot be in God but only as founded on 
 *' j4Siiony and fuch Adion too as is Immanent or /»- 
 *^ ternal. Of fuch Proceflions there are only two > 
 ** one by the Adion of the Intelkd, which is the 
 " ^rocefrlon of the WORD ; the other by the Adi- 
 •* on of the Will, which is the ProceflTion of LOVE : 
 *' But in each of thefe Proceffions, there are two 
 *' oppofite Relations 5 ouQof that which proceeds (torn 
 " the Principle^ the other of the Principle it felf. 
 *' The Proceffion of the WORD is caUed the Gene^ 
 *' ration-Relation of the Principle Patetnity-j the Re- 
 *' lation of what proceeds from the Principle, is 
 *' called Ff7^W/o/7. The Proceffion of LOVE hath 
 " not a particular Name, nor yet the Relations ari- 
 *' ling from it : but the Relation of the Principle 
 *' here is called Spiration •■> the Relation of what pro- 
 " ceeds from it, Proceffion. So far the Angelical 
 Dodor ; but if ,j:he real Relations are four, either 
 a Perfon and a real Relation in God are the fame, 
 or not the fame : If the fame, there are four Di- 
 vine Perfons -•> if they are not the fame, we mull 
 find fome other definition of PERSON, fuch a 
 
 one 
 
^art If. concerning the Holy Trinity. 1 1 g 
 
 one that real Relation (hall riot be the formal Reafofi 
 of it. And again, if there be four Relations inl 
 God, let 'em give a Reafon -^ why both the Relati- 
 ons arifing from the lirft ProcelTion are Perfins^ and 
 ifot the Relations from the Second ? Laltiy, Seeing 
 the Proceflions arc from one Mt, how can either the 
 Procefllons or Relations be diver fe ? The Reafon of 
 the Queftion, is, as Dnrandtis exprelTes it, i.d, 5. 
 f . n. 8. f. dy. *""• It is impoffible, when things are 
 *' perfectly the fame, that one fhould differ (or be 
 '* diftind) from the o^/^fr- when this other doth noc 
 *' differ (or is not diftind) from that. For if it 
 *^ be a true Rule that, things that are the fame ia 
 *^ fome thirds are neceflariiy the fame with one ano^ 
 *^ ther : It will follow, by a ftronger Reafon, that^ 
 " things perfedly the fame with ««tf 4«(?f^fr, are the 
 " fame in refped of whacfoever Third. And what 
 Faber has faid of Novity, is another Objev!^ioa a- 
 gatnftthediverfity and real diftindion of Relations, 
 " Real Relation, properly fo called, neceffarily fol- 
 *^ lows on the Pofition of Extremes ♦, and fo there 
 " can be ilo new Relation, without fome Novicyid 
 ** the Extremes. I ask, Can the Relation be diverfe* 
 '' without diverfity of Extremes ? As D' OrkHes 
 ** faith^ I. ^. 32. the Relation of the fame thing to U 
 *^ feif^ is not a real Relation, Theor. 98. c 2 . 
 
 [Note here, the Learned Author often fets hirri- 
 felf to perplex the Doctrine of Relations, arid other 
 Heads of Scholaftick Learning \ for what reafon we 
 fhall obferve hereafter: but the whole that he hath 
 here either obferved, or colleded, is all of ic an- 
 fwered, by that known (and certain) Aphorifm; 
 Idem diverftmode confideratHm^ formditate Kelativk 
 nott eft idem ^ a thing diverlly conlidered, is not the 
 fame in its Relative Formality, but is diverfe from (nay 
 oppofidto) it felf by thofe Relations.] 
 
 i jl 
 
114 A Scholaftkk^ Djjfertation 
 
 I intend not however to deny that, what Holk^t 
 f5ys, is in its meafure and fenfe true. *^ The natH^ 
 '• rat Logic is defeftive, when applied to Matters 
 ** of Faitli. And, the Rational Logic of Faith is 
 *' dilferent from the Logic of Nature : the Philofo- 
 '' phei s faw not that^ a thing might be Three and but 
 " O;;^-, and therefore they faid nothing of it in 
 " their Rules. The Logic of Faith hath fuch Rules 
 *"*" as thefe, every Ahfohte may be predicated of three 
 *^ in the Singular, and not in the Plural •, Unity 
 '' holdeth \t% Confecjuent^ where the 0;>po^rtf of the 
 *-"• Relation doth not hinder \ we may grant contra- 
 *^ dicT:ory Propofitionsof i\\t^^mtSii\>fofitHm^ when 
 ^^ it is with fpeciEcation of diverfe Natures. Not- 
 withftanding, I Will not deny d^^r things concern- 
 ing the Trinity, as fome do, only becaufe they 
 are clear, I don't think we may argue afttr this 
 manner •, *' The Dodrine of the Trinity is a My- 
 *^ iUry *, yotic Account of it is no Myftery, there- 
 *^ fore it is not the true Doctrine of the Trinity : 
 For it will be flill myfterious enough to us, tho we 
 do not rejed what is clear, or certain, about it. See 
 on this Raez^ d. 15. 6cd.2i. 
 
 V. Of the Difference of the Divine PRIN- 
 CIPLES or JTTRIBVTES. 
 
 Nor are the Schools well accorded, how the Pm- 
 c^.plesy or Attributes^ as fome call them, differ from 
 one another : The moft grant that thefe Attributes 
 or Prmtples (viz.. the Divine LIFE, INTEL- 
 LECT, and WILL) are the very Effence of 
 God> butitisqueftioned. Whether they are of the 
 Eilence as ftchy that is, oi an EJfence f Snaresij Me- 
 taph. Difp. 30. S. 6. fays i '* The Attributes, ac- 
 [' cording to their formal Reafons^ are not of the 
 
 "Eflence^ 
 
Part II. conarning the Holj Trimtj, 115 
 
 '* Eflence •, tho in reality they arc not diftinguifli'd 
 ** from it. 
 
 Aureclus^ m. 1. d. 8. q. 3. a« 2. and th^ Nomt- 
 ftalsy Ockam^ Bielj Hurtadniy Ariminenfis^ i . d. S. 
 q. 2. do not diftinguifll the Attributes from the £f- 
 fence at all, in the nature of the thing, 
 
 ScotM^ I. d. 8. q. 4. & d.2. q. 7. and the Sec- 
 tiflsy teachf that the Attributes are diftingmfhed 
 from the Eflence by a formal Dtf^lnBion^ in the nature 
 cf the things without any Ad of the Underilandingw 
 Of this, fee Rada^ cont.4. p. 57. 
 
 Thomas Aqmnas^ i. p. q.4. a, 2. & q. i3- a- 12. 
 q. 28. a. 2. fays 5 The Attributes are diftinguilh'd 
 from one another, by an Ad of the Underftanding* 
 And foalfo the Thomi^s^ fome of *em calling it a 
 Virtual Diftindion, others a Ftindamsntal, others an 
 Aftittide» By this laft they mean, when a thing on 
 its own part is one and undifiingnijljed, yet the Un- 
 dcrftandingforraeth different knowledges of ir, that 
 iignify or denote foraething that is real. And la 
 truth, the Opinion of the Nominah^ approved by 
 Snarezy comes up to this* The Scottjh f^y, it is 
 NoH'identity^ where there is not dlfimfiion •, as, be*^ 
 tween E«f and A^e«-e»/, and between /i^cVif and fr/* 
 vation *, for Viflin^ion as it is an incident and affedioii 
 ot Beings can only be between pfitive Extremes : And 
 here they deny J'tf^/Diftindion i but afTert a formal^ 
 *viz. diftind cbje^ive Conceptions, and Definitiortfs 
 They mean by Form here, any manner or way under 
 which a thing may be conceived ( as they fpeak ) ifi 
 the Nature of the thing \ and hence they coin the term 
 Formality. Saith Rada^ ''■ The Formality is nothing 
 *' elfe, but the objective Way or manner, under which a 
 *' thing may he conceived^ in (or according to) the Na^ 
 *' ture of the thing. And they fay a thing is formally 
 diJiinU^ which is neither part of a Definition^ ndf 
 the whole Definition ^ nor agreeth to it fsrfe^ or of • 
 
1 1 6 A Scholattkk, Differtaiion 
 
 VIS own Nature, in the firfl Mode or Inftant. But it 
 is to be noted that, Scotm \ and the Scotifis^ Trom- 
 heta^ Lychetufy Mairo^ Faber^ Meurijfe^ Bajfolis^ Ra» 
 da^ and the reft -^ fay both that, the Divine Relati- 
 ons or Perfonsj and thefe jittribntes^ are formaUy di- 
 ftinguiOi'd frora the Effence i and fo affirm the fame 
 formal diftinftion of them both. 
 
 Here the confounding of Attributes, is no fmall 
 occafionof Error. Thefe three elTential Attributes 
 (the Divine LIFE, INTELLECT, and WILL) are 
 not to be confounded with the Attributes of another 
 fort. And the Eijeme of God is taken, either ina- 
 dequately for 'ovcria, or general Notion of Being, 
 or for a Conception analogous to Metafhypcal Mat- 
 ter i and fo the Principle! are not de EJfemia ( of the 
 ElTence ) as an Eilence. But if we take Effence in 
 the molt ferfe^i Senfe^ or as fome fpeak for the Bi" 
 vine Form \ that is, for an objective Conception ana- 
 logous to Form ; fo the triple adive Power (or Prin- 
 ciples) are de Effentia Dei^ of the Effence of God, 
 as it is an Eilence : but in the Radix of the Eflence 
 it is one Power, not three. We muft hold, contra- 
 ry to StotM^ fuch Conception of the Divine Eflence 
 is not adequate and perfect, that doth not include 
 all thefe Principles. Melhinks Rada hath not well 
 faid, p. 73. "The Divine Eflence, prefcinding from 
 '* the Attributes, is an Entity fo perfefl, that a 
 ^^ more perfect cannot be conceived. What? An 
 Eflence that mderflandnh not, and wiUeth not, may 
 it be called mofl perfed ? Of A/^rc^ and Jttftice^ 
 which are nothing elfe but the fame Principles as 
 they refped the Creatures, we muft indeed fay o- 
 theiways j becaufe to refped the Creature, is not 
 Effential to God. Therefore however we conclude 
 and determine concerning the diftin(^ion of -/^//W- 
 butes among themfelves, or from one another ^ we 
 muft tiold as certain truth that, thefe three are Ef- 
 fential 
 
Part I L concerning the, Holy Trinity, 1 1 7 
 
 femial to God, and muft he diflinguiflied as fo many 
 inadequate Conceptions of the Ed'ence. And tho 
 Rada faith rightly, p. 80. Append, i. '^The Divine 
 *' Perfedlions are not faid of one another, formally^ 
 '* in the jihflraEi-y viz. Wifdom is not, formally^ 
 ** Love ', nor Intelled formally Will. Yet he hath 
 not rightly faid, God^ ai confidered qmdditatively^ or 
 in the quidditative Conceftiofi^ is not wife. Yes, he is 
 Life, Intelled,Wil), Power, Wifdom^ Love. 
 
 But it is asked. Whether the fame mufl: be faid of 
 the Trinity of Perfom or Relations ? Smrez.^ Me- 
 taph. 2. d.30. §.4. fays^ " There is a great dif- 
 ^ ference between Relations and thefe Attributes: 
 *^ For prefcinding the Relations, yet the Eflence of 
 ^' God is fully compleated •, and each Divine Per- 
 **• fon, feparately confidered, by the fame ahfolnte 
 ** Eflence, is formally, and eflentiaily, and fully, 
 ^' and perfedly God, without the other Relations. 
 " And hence the formal Perfedtionof a RtUtion, is 
 " inreafon eminently contained in the Eflence, before 
 " it is formally joined to it : becaufe tho there is 
 *' formally no Imperfedion in a Relation, there is 
 '* however fomewhat in it that doth not Amply ap- 
 *' pertain to Perfedion. But I dare not fubfcribe to 
 thefe things •, nor do I underfi;and5 how it can be 
 true what many Scholaflics fay, that a Relation is the 
 Eflence of God, and yet doth not belong to the 
 perfeEiion of the Eflence: nor dare 1 to fay, the Di- 
 vine Eflence is adequately conceived, as compleac 
 and perfed", without including the Trinity of Per- 
 fons. If, as Aquinii faith, i.^. 29.^. 2. c, a Per- 
 fon in the rational kind of Subftances, lignifies as in 
 the whole kind of Subftances, Suhfifience^ a nattiral 
 things Hypofiafis j and as he faith, a. 4. c, Perfon is 
 to be ufed in the Divine Nature, becanfe it implieth 
 Perfedion \ and a. 4. c, a Divine Perfon fignifes a 
 Relation in the way of Snbfiance md H^pofitifu in the 
 
 I 3 3iv'm 
 
ii8 Ji SchoUfiick Differtatton 
 
 Divine Natftre. I fay, if tliefe Maxims of St. Tho- 
 m<u be true, I fee not how a Conception of the Di- 
 vine Eflencecnn be o^mdditative^ adequate and per- 
 fed^ that doth Dot include the Trinity of Vrinci' 
 fks and Perfons, Is that IntelleEi perfed, that doth 
 not underfland it fslf ^ or that Intelied that doth not 
 produce a Self complacence^ or that Life that is not 
 cilenii^Hy Life to tt felf^ 
 
 Gregory Ayimifienfts faith, i. ^. 8. '^ No attributal 
 *' Pel lection ill God *, whether you call it Formality, 
 '*• or quidditative Reafon, or whatever elfe ^ is an 
 '• Entity^ either great or little, if confidered as di- 
 ^^ Hind from the Divinity (or Divine EfTence) 
 " ptecifcly taken. He pro?jes it thm : T^king^ faith 
 '• hc^ the Divinity by it lelf, wittiout any fort of 
 *•' Mods diftindt fi oin it ^ either it is Wifdofn^ or not* 
 '"' If it is '^ then either no Wifdom, or the Wifdooi 
 ^^ that is Formality is in God diflind from the Divi- 
 *' riir.y, which is the thing deftred- or there are more 
 ^* Wifdoms in God, which is erroneopu.— — ■ If the 
 *' Divinity is not Wifdom, which no Chriftian, nay 
 " no Heathen, will deny j it foliov^rs that, God is 
 " not the Wifdom by which himfelf is wife, which 
 '' i4 falfe. And indeed it fccms to me that, the Con- 
 ception God abftraded from Wifdom, is a lame 
 inadequate Conception \ as the Conception Fire 
 abftratted from Heat^ h inadequate and iraper- 
 
 fea-. 
 
 Bat it i; a greater Qiieftion, whether Attributes 
 are dillinguifhed from ene mother y tho not in this 
 primary Eilentialiiy ? The Reafon why Gregory and 
 others deny it, is chiefly the Divi»e Simflicity. But 
 the Scottfis^ as particularly Rada^ Cont. 4. Sc 24. 
 p. 380. lays •, '^ Formal Nen-idtntity is not contrary 
 ^'' to the moft perfed Smflicity. V/hence a formal 
 ^* Diftindion in the nature of the thing, tho it be 
 ■ ' connHenc with CompofiiioD, yet does not necef- 
 
 J'farily 
 
Part II. conetrmtig the Holy Trhiiy, 119 
 
 *' farily infer it; becaufe things that are diftin* 
 *' guifhed formally^ by precife formal Reafons, are 
 " not neceflarily as AB and Vomr ^ but as two AEls^ 
 '' neither of which is m Power to the other. To 
 which Argument notwichltanding, it is anfwered by 
 Grtgory Ariminenfis \ "■ Tho perhaps Conjfofition may 
 *' be fo avoided, yet the Simplicity is not falved. 
 " The Reafon is, becaufe no thw^ that in the afore- 
 *^ faid manner doth include w(?y^, is fimple > and ic 
 ** fhall be fo much the lefs fimple, as the things in- 
 " cludeii make it lefs one. And in is certain that, 
 " thofe morey of which every one is in Atl^ and 
 ^ none of them in Power to another of them : I fay, 
 *' fuch more make a thing to be lefs one •, than do 
 *' thofe rnore^ of which one is tn Power to another. 
 But we will not proceed farther in thefe Matters ^ 
 dark, and therefore ungrateful to mofl Readers. 
 
 Vio The Doctrine of the FATHERS. 
 
 For what the Fathers have faid, in thefe Pvlatters *, 
 the beft, and largeft account given of it, is by the 
 Learned Jefuit Dtonyfim Petaviw. One cannot deny 
 that, many of |the Fathers of the firfl Ages Platomz.c4 
 but too much i I am not he that will undertake to de- 
 fend all their Sayings ^ I would not corrupt Theology 
 with any thing unfound> from a fuperftitious Reve- 
 rence of Antiquity. I grant to Pet aviiu ihH^ di- 
 vers of the Antients have endeavoured to explicate 
 the Myftery of the Trinity in a rational way ^ there- 
 by to facilitate the Converfion of Heathens: But I 
 will not grant^o the Ariam^ that almoft all the An- 
 tients were Ariani, or to the Heathens, that well 
 near all the Fathers were Hyjjocrites and Diflem- 
 biers, who to deceive the People have wrote whnt 
 themfelves did not believe. But lie that fliall re^d 
 
 i 4 oil 
 
1 20 A SchoUflk\ DiJJertation ' 
 
 on the one fide Thiloflorgm^ and the later Anan 
 Sandipt^ •, and on the other the rigid Difcuffion and 
 IniliOn of the Dodrine and Sayings of the Anti- 
 ents, by Petavius \ will fee that Nets and Snares 
 are laid for his Faith, to prevent (if poffible) his 
 believing that mofl:, or but many Chriftians of the 
 firftAges, had a found Faith concerning the Trini- 
 ty. Tho Petav'm has indeed, elfewhere, well e- 
 Eough vindicated the CatholkJ^ Church it felf of thofe 
 Times, from any finifter Imputation, of that kind. 
 But if Petavim have truly reported the Fathers, as 
 hh granted he has ^ one may wonder that, the Roman 
 Catholics were obliged by the Council of Tr^wr, to 
 fvvcar that they will nnderftand and interpret Ho- 
 ly Scripture, according to the unanimous Confent of 
 the Fathers. 
 
 I omit what he faith of Thilo^ TrifmegiftHSy and 
 (the late) EMgubinus, 
 
 The words of Jiffii» alfo muft be correded. 
 
 NoY doQs -Athenaaora^ fpeak cautiouQy enough of 
 the WORD. Buc when he faith, in his apology •, 
 MIND and the WORD of God, is the Son^ of 
 God. j4rj agdn^ "• He is the firft Of fpring of, the 
 ^^ Father, not created*, for God who is Eternal 
 ^** MIND, had within himfelf from the beginning 
 ^* the Logos^ WORD or WISDOM, f&r he wa^ al- 
 f' Wiys wife, 1 fay, herein he fpeaks as divers o- 
 th-rs of the Fathers did. 
 
 'XaiuwHi, otbcrwife unfound, yet fpeaks agreably 
 to the other Fathers ^ " A Power was the Principle or 
 '^ Caufc of the Logos.— And with him, (with that 
 ^'' Power ) the Logos that was in him made all things. 
 When he faith here, a Power was the Principle of the 
 Logos or WISDOM, he is not alone in this way of 
 fpeaking, 
 
 Theofbtlm Antiochenus^ ad Aureol. L. 2. fays al- 
 uioft the fame things. " Which WORD (orWIS- 
 
 *J DOM) 
 
Part IL cofjcerning the HcljiTrhiiy, 1 2 1 
 
 ^< DOM ) he took as his Minifter and Inftrument, 
 ** and by him made all things. This fame is called 
 ** the Beginnings becaufe he hath the Sovereignty and 
 ** Dominion over all things that were made by him: 
 '^ this is the 5pinf of God, the Beginning, the Wif- 
 *' dom and Power of the moll High. The Word by 
 '^ which were all things msKie, taking on him the 
 *^ Perfon ( npc'(7W23-ov ) of the Father and Lord of 
 '*• all, came into Paradife. — :'Before any thing exift- 
 ^' ed, the Father had for Counfellor him, who is 
 '^ his /^ind and Wifdom, — But when God would 
 •^ make whatfoever he had decreed to make, he be- 
 '' gat this fYoUtitioM WlSVOMy ox WORD. In the 
 ** beginning was God only, and the IVordov Wifdom 
 *' inhim'^ — the Wifdom therefore being God, and 
 " originated from God, is fent to whatfnever place, 
 " whenfoever the Father of all v^illeth. Becaufe he 
 calleth this Wifdom or Word, inward •y and the Mtnd 
 and IVifdo^ of the Father: P^f^x//f« over haftily con- 
 cludes that, he believed he was not yet a Son^ but the 
 fame with the Father : or that he imagined a two- 
 fold WISDOM, one Internal or Inward, even the 
 Underflanding or Intelle^H: of God 5 the other tempo- 
 rary, prolatitioHi and outward, the Minifter and In- 
 ftrum.ent of the Creation, But Theophiliu is hereby . 
 wronged i for clearly he intends only, as the other 
 Antients, to confider the onlj Word and Wifdom of 
 God in a double State, viz. 1. In the State of Eter- 
 nal In-Exiftence and Co-Exiftence, 2. Of tempo- 
 ral Operation. He doth not deny the Eternal Gene- 
 ration, or Filiation, tho he exprejfes only his In-Ex- 
 iflence ^ he teaches a double Prod^Mion ot the fame 
 Son, not two Sons, 
 
 Irertdtm unfoundly maketh the WORD and WIS- 
 DOM to be the Son and Holy Spirit j and of both, 
 faith very improper and inept things. But as others 
 alfo do, he faith ^rimfics for Pfrfins, 
 
 I 
 
12 2 \A Scholajlick^ DfffertJtion 
 
 I leave Ckmem Romanus to the Judgment of the 
 Reader 5 but as divers more he fpeaketh unfouiidly. 
 
 CUmcns AlexandrinM^ Strom. /.J. fays v '^ The Son 
 *' is fVifdom^ Knowledge and Truth j and more eafi- 
 *^ ly known than the Father: he is all Mind, all 
 *' Light, all Eye;— one God with the Father. 
 
 0'i^f«f peaks very badly fometimes-, not always, 
 unlefs in thofe jJlaces it is his Tranflator RuffinHs. 
 And we muft fay the fame of Dionyfttis AkxandrinHt, 
 Indeed fome of the Fathers of thofe Ages feem to 
 have held a twofold Natm-$ in Chrifl:, before his Incar- 
 nation \ the firft a Divine, whereby he was the Eter- 
 nal Logos or WISDOM of God;, a fecond, created, 
 Super'angelicnl, the firft-born of the Creatures, the 
 Minifler and Inltrument of God in the Creation : 
 and this lall only was acknowledged by u4riHs, Gre- 
 gory ihaumatitrgm^ whofe words are recited by 
 St. Baft, feems to have believed the tn^ofold Na- 
 ture. But other Fathers of thefe Ages ( the three 
 firft) ^doable Proceffion^ even the Eternal Generati- 
 on, and the temporary Progreffion to the Work of 
 Creation. 
 
 Tetavim blames alfo Methodius the Martyr, be- 
 caufe he calleth the Father and Son two Powers ; when 
 indeed both of them are but one Power. But the 
 Power that is indeed but one radically and #»- 
 tiaUy^ may be triple or threefold refpe^tvcly and fro- 
 cejfionally. 
 
 \ leave Lucian the Martyr alfo, to his proper 
 Judg. 7ertullian believed the Son and Logos is the 
 Eternal Divine Wtfdom\ but he feems to have 
 thoifght that, he then became a Perfon^ when he fro- 
 cseded to the Work of Creation. In Truth, many 
 of thefe Fathers held a certain Secondary Perfonality in 
 the Deity ^ (a Perfonality in refpedt and reference 
 to the Creatures s) in the threefold Manifeftation of 
 God, by the Creation, Incarnation, Regeneration 
 
 or 
 
Part II. cmcitmng the Holy Trimtj. 125 
 
 or San<9ification. But as to TerthUian, I really think 
 with PameltPis ; he acknowledged our Saviour to be 
 Co-Eternal to the Father, in one EQence, in one 
 Power-, and in one tmmanent A^^ as the Self-Know- 
 ledg or Wifdom of God. 
 
 Nor can 1 other ways free Athenagoras^ Tatianwy O- 
 ri^erty Theophilns Antiochtmis: 7ertnllian^ LaEiantius^ or 
 even Zeno Veronenfifs^ or Con^antine the Great *, accuf- 
 ed by P^M-y/V^, P*'3o, 31. Hay, I cannot other- 
 ways clear them of the Imputation of Ariimifm^ but 
 by fuppofing that-, they held the Son or WORD 
 is the Divine Incelled and WISDOM, in Vowtr and 
 immmtnt All co-eternal and co-equgl with the Fa- 
 ther, and proceeding from him by an Eternal Gene- 
 ration •, and that, they miftook his Proceffion to the 
 tranfient Att of Creation, to be alio a fort of Gene- 
 ration: and laftly rW, they fpoke almofl; only of 
 this laft, becaufe known to the World. The Lo- 
 gos as a Power ^ and as an immanent AEi^ is the fame : 
 for every Divine Power or Virtue is always in Acj^ 
 at Xtz^immanemly •, and every kdi is Almighcy, and 
 the fame with the Virtue or Power •, thefe are but 
 inadequate {or partial^ Conceptions of the fame 
 thing. And the Divine Adion as external^ as it is 
 the A<^ of the Agent, and not of the Patient or Ef- 
 fed, is God hirafelf under a partial Conception : 
 but becaufe the External tranllent Ad is fpoken of, 
 with Connotation of the EfFed, (or is denominated 
 from the EfTcd, as. when we fay Creation, SancH^ifi- 
 cation, or the like*,) and is often faid to be in the 
 Patient :i therefore thefe Fathers improperly and 
 ineptly faid, the Logos was then generated, and the 
 Father then breathed the WORD, when he was a- 
 bout to create Angels and the World. It is better 
 thus to interpret thefe Fathers, efpecially there be- 
 ing fome ground for it \ than to grant to the Arians 
 that, the true Faith was believed but by very few 
 
 Writers 
 
124 %4 SeholaJiu\ Dijfertation ^ 
 
 Wni :rs of ihe firll Ages, when Baptifm was admi- 
 niflred in the Name of the Holy Trinity. The 
 Tedimony of all Ages wicneifes that, Chrift was al- 
 ways celebrated in the Catholick Church, with 
 unaoimous Confent, as the Logos or WISDOM of 
 God. 
 
 Considering the inept Sayings of (fome of) the 
 Fathers, the obfcurity of^the thing, the diverfity of 
 Exprelljon among the moft Orthodox, the unpoliftrd 
 Wit of the moil *, I would be of the Number of 
 thofe, who hope better of the Salvation of many, in 
 thofe days called Heretics, than fome others do : 
 there are but too many that fcarce give any other 
 Sign of their Orthodoxy, or even of their Chridia- 
 nity, and fuure Salvation ^ but their cenfuring 
 others as Heretics, or at leail as Heterodox. Phila- 
 prhu^ wiiom they call 5r /^^>/^_/?n«*, has hailily, and 
 as it were in the dark, huddled together a great num- 
 ber of Herefies ♦, in his Book on that Subject : but in 
 the lame Book he has heaped alfo fo many weak Fa!- 
 litiesof his own, fome of them contrary to common 
 Senfe *, that I fcarce think, he would have efcaped 
 the Imputation of Herefy, if he had not thus fet up 
 for an Accufer of others. 
 
 C)friaf2^ de Idol. Fail. Edit- GouUrt, p. 33<5, fay§; 
 " The WORD and Son of God was fent to be the 
 " Teacher and Adminiftrator of this Indulgence, 
 *'• Grace, and Polity •, the Goffd. The Prophets fpeak 
 ^' of him, as the Dodor and Light of Mankind ^ he 
 **" is the Power, Reafon^ Wtfdom^ and Glory of God. 
 -St. Cfprian too much conceals the Eternal Generati- 
 on •, but confeiles Chrift is the REASON and WIS. 
 DOM of God. 
 
 The Error oi Marcdltis Ancyranus^ whom Athana* 
 fiui defended, fecms to have been this •, that he deni- 
 ed the Eternal IVifdom of God is an Hypojftalis or 
 Ferfm, 
 
 ■ ■ I 
 
Part n. cofjcernwg the Holy Trmity. 125 
 
 I omit the Cafe of Mcletim, 
 
 The Paifages out of HermM^ Clemens Romanus^ 
 Ignatim^ Polycarp^ and others*, cirtd gnd repeated 
 by Petavm^ Prxf. c. 2, 3. are ftich ?:; the other 
 Fathers, cenfured by Petavim^ would h:^ve faid. 
 
 St. Athanafim acknowledged but one Hyfoftafis in 
 the Deity •, but their Controverfy was only FerbaL 
 He faith, Lib. cont, Gentii the Logos is the WIS- 
 DOM of God*, and as others, he defcribes him by 
 the tranfient ontward Adt of Creation. The WORD 
 and WISDOM , faith he^ obeying the Father creat- 
 ed all things. He calls him, WISDOM, LIGHT, 
 TRUTH; all fynonymous Names. He adds, *^ For 
 " as he is the iVord and Wtfdom of the Father, he 
 ** condefcends alfo to the Creatures; he becomes 
 *' their Sandifier, Life, Shepherd, Door, and 
 *^ Way, that they may know and underftand God. 
 And, de Incarn, rerbi. he calls our Saviour Gcd^ 
 the WORD of the true God, the WISDOM of the 
 Father. 
 
 1 he Fathers long ufed the Terms Hyfoflafu and 
 Vfta as common to all the Divine Perfons *, and it was 
 a good while before the Grseks would admit of Perfon: 
 and feeing neither Hypofiafis nor Perfon was a dlfcre- 
 five Term with them, 'tis no wonder that they fpoke 
 not altogether as the Moderns do. See Petaviw^ de 
 Trinitate, Liki\» c,\, p.3 1 2. and of the Senfe of the 
 Terms Perfon^ Shbfiancej ^xifience^ Natftre^ Nature of 
 the Thing, Genm^ Sappofrum^ at cap.5,4. as alfo con- 
 cerning the Contentions and Stirs about the Terras 
 Hypoftafis and Perfon. We mufc obferve, and ought 
 to lament it ; what this Jefnit has largely proved^c^p, 
 9. th^t Gregory Nylfen^ Cyril of Jlexandria^ Maxima 
 the Martyr J TheodoYfu Abncara^ Theoriannsy and even 
 7. Damafcen^ feem foraetimes to teach only afpecific 
 Vnity of Nature between the Divine Perfons ; fuch 
 as between ^fter James and John^ whom they would 
 
 cot 
 
125 ji Scholafticli Dijfertation 
 
 not have to be called three Men, but om^ becaiifc 
 they are of the fame Species ; left otherways they 
 fhould be obliged alfo, on their Principles, tocon- 
 fefs three Gods. It was on this Foundation, that 
 fktlofonui grounded his Error. If they really held 
 this, tloe fpecific Vnity \ \ don't fee, how they can 
 avoid the juft Imputation of Trithei[is, When they 
 departed from the Trinity of Principles ^ very many 
 fell into the extreme of Tritheifm: and at this time 
 the State of the Church was very unhappy > there 
 were but few Writers who, in defcribing the Trini- 
 ty or the Perfon of Chrift, were free from the Accu- 
 fation of Herefy by one another. And truly we 
 ooght to pity the Sahellians^ Eutychians^ Neftorians^ 
 Momthelites ^ if thefe Fathers, reputed Orthodox, 
 were indeed Trithei^s : which without doubt we 
 mvift fay of thofe of them who have taught thati 
 the Divine EfTence is not lingularly and individually, 
 but only fpecifically one ^ for 'tis plain that fuch aflerc 
 one Deity in three Gods^ as they wouid one Humanity 
 in (three Men) Peter James and John, It may be, 
 it has pleafed God to permit that, fo few fhould 
 fpeak foundiy and rightly of thefe Myfteries ; partly 
 that we may learn to pity Human Infirmity, in our 
 Brethren : and again partly to admonifh us, to con- 
 tent oor feives with a fliorter Creed, (a Creed ac- 
 cording to Serif mrc^ and our Baptifmal Covenant ) 
 and a more praBical Faith •, rather than affedt con- 
 troverted Dodrines, and over-curious Determina- 
 tions. 
 
 St. Atifiin was the fir ft, or of the firft, I think^ 
 that denied that the EfTential Attributes oiF WIS- 
 DOM and LOVE, by which God loveth and is Wije^ 
 are appropriate t& the Perfons j he was followed herein 
 by P, Lombard^ and Lombard by many of the Scbolaf- 
 U€s. Anfelm alfo follows St. Aufiin^ but doubting- 
 ly T he calls the Father Memory and Snprcmfi Wifdom^ 
 
 the 
 
Part If. cot7cernhjg the Holy Trinity^ 12 J 
 
 the Son Wifdom of iVifdom, Monolog. c. 45, & 4.6, 
 Ate. 33i &45- ^ fpeaks varioully; '^ When the 
 '' Spirit faith himfelfy he thereby faith all things that 
 '*- are made 5^ — perhaps becaufe he is the highelt 
 " Wifdom, and higheft Reafon, in which are all 
 " things that have been made. Cap. 45. ^^ It is 
 " certain, t lie Son is the true WORD ^ that is, the 
 " perfed Knowledge or the perfed Cognition Intel- 
 ** ledion and Science of the whole p^f^rw^/ Shbflance^ 
 " the Wtfdom that underllands and knows the Ef- 
 '* fence of the Father. Therefore it is no Error, if 
 '' itbefaid, the Son is (in this fenfe) Underftand- 
 '^ ing Knowledg and Wifdom; becaufe he know- 
 ^' eth and underltandeth the Father. 
 
 The Argument, alledged by St. j^nftin and his 
 Followers, is*, '' Becaufe WISDOM is the Effence^ 
 *' and a Divine Perfediony it mufl be common to 
 *' each Divine Perfon. We mufl: not fay, the Fa- 
 '^ ther is not wife in himfelf •, but by the Son : or 
 *■* Father and Son are not Love, &c. Thus they 
 tiold a double Wifdem in God •, the firft Unbegotten, 
 the other Begotten. But the other Side anfwer^ 
 *^ The Father is wif^t as he hath the Logos, or Son •, 
 *' which is the fame as to be wife : and the Son is 
 *' the Father's ffifdom. The Father is not without 
 *^ the Son, becaufe not without W^«/^ow; as the An- 
 ** tients fpoke in this Matter. And the fame is to be 
 " faid of Love^ or Will. They fay, again-, both 
 *' the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, are moll 
 ** perfed God i and the fame is to be faid of the Di- 
 '' vine LIFE, IlvlTELLEGT, and WILL: but the 
 **• Term Father alone, or Son or Spirit ¥lonc, doth 
 •' not fpsak the whole Perfedion of theT)eity, nor 
 " is an adequate Conception of God. And they 
 think St. Afiftin fays the fame, even when he feems 
 tooppofe it-, Becaufe, i. he faith, the begotten 
 WISDOM is God's Knowledg of HIMSELF, and the 
 
 SPI- 
 
128 \A Scholajiicli Dijjertation 
 
 SPIRIT God's Love of HIMSELF-, and they deny 
 that, God's KmwUdg or Love of Creatures are Son or 
 Spirit. 2. God's Knowledg and Love of HIMSELF, 
 is always in A^ : but if fo, I pray, what ImelleU or 
 Will^ what Knowledg or Love^ can be afcribed to 
 God, but the Knowledg and Love of HIMSELF? 
 for the Knowledg and Love of Creatures is here 
 excluded. And if the Son is God's whole Knowledg 
 of himfelf, it is no Imperfedion that the Father as 
 di^inSi from the Son is not the Knowledg of himfelf ; 
 or that again, the Father as diftinU from the Spirit is 
 not the Love of himfelf. 
 
 Elias Cretertfs, in NauAnz.en^ p. 845. *' In the 
 ^' Divine and incomprehenfible Trinity, there is an 
 «^ Unity in the things becaufe of the Identity or 
 "■^ famenefs of the EfTence, Power, and Will ^ the 
 *^ Divifion is oply in our Conception : For the Per- 
 '' foDSare in one another, according to that of our 
 '^ Saviour, / am in the Father, and the Father in me y 
 " we muft conceive the difference, ov diftin^ion^ 6n^ 
 *^ ly in the Perfonal Properties, Vnbegotten Begotten 
 t* Proceeding, 
 
 But let us again look back to the Sayings of the 
 Antients. St, Cyprian, Tefi.Lz. adv. Jud^os, <r.2,3* 
 proves from Scripturej our Saviour is the WISDOM 
 and WORD of God. 
 
 St, jithanapHSy as was noted before, teaches i 
 €od U not without the Logos, becaufe not without WIS- 
 DOM. 
 
 Gregory Nazianz.enj Or at. i. p. 16. denies three 
 Principles^ apKocs •, and the fame at Orat, 13. p. 4^5* 
 but he raeajis only, in the Trinity the Father is the 
 fok Principle of the Son and Spirit. He faith, the 
 Son was not without a Principle ( that is, was not 
 unoriginated ) and he ( the Son ) is th? Principle or 
 Caufe of all other things. Orat. 29. p. 490. In the 
 fame place, he calls the Father the Caufe of the Son^^ 
 
 And 
 
Part II. concerning the Hoi) Trwitj. 129 
 
 And at />. 492. By Principle^ faith he, I mean Caufe, 
 Fie often, and earneftly, fays j iht Vmty_ of.theEf- 
 fence, and 7V/w^ of the Proper ries, is co be iield 
 without enquiring into the manner of thisi Secret \ 
 Chriltians ought to be follicirous, rather about a 
 good Life, than Curiolities. Orat. jp. p. 493. And 
 both he, and his Interpreter^^^jJ?^/^/, fay ^ Chri(i: is 
 the WISDOM of the Father immmently^ and with 
 refped to the Creation, or externally^ He vi the 
 WISDOM of the Father^ according to the. J^ofile ; 
 arid therefore called the WISDOM of God^ t9 fignify 
 that the Father was never without Wildom, that tf^/i'ever 
 without the Sou, . ,, 
 
 The Expofition of the Faith, afcribed to Gregory 
 thanmat^rgfia^ faith, p. 98. '^ No Man can know che 
 " Father, except he kn !W the Son ^ for the Son is 
 " that Wifdom by which all things were made. He 
 " is not fuch a Wtfdom of God, as Man hath, bun 
 *' Perfed: *, proceeding from G^c*, and yet ever a- 
 *• biding-, not like to the Knonled^ of Man which 
 ' paiTeth away, or to th< IVord of M-rn, which is 
 '^ extind as foon as fpoken : And therefore he is 
 ^^ not only the WOKD, but the Son ^ not only 
 '' WISDOM, but God. Whether we would know 
 *'- God by the Creatures, . or by the Holy Scrip- 
 ^' tures ', we cannot know" him but by his WIS- 
 " DOM. 
 
 MacariHSy Homil.45. faith, The WORD of God 
 is GOD^ and Homil 11. the Holy Spirit is like to 
 Fire, This Father, by faying nothing of theiXon- 
 troveriies about the Trinity, and by teaching pioufly 
 and pradically, made fhifc to. efcape the^putatiori 
 of Herefy. ', ' ' . ' 
 
 We may fay the fame of Bafil of Selencla \ 6ut he 
 ventures to fay. There U in Man ths Image of the Tri^ 
 nitjfi Orat. i. p. 5, 6. 
 
 K And 
 
ijo A Scholaftick^ DiJfertaUon 
 
 And fuch alfo was Efhr^tm the Syrian ^ who yet, 
 in f)is Tefiament^ f wears in an odd Form \ " By the 
 ^'^ threefold Fire of the Holy Trinity •, by that one, 
 "^ and only Ififdom of God '•* by the three SuhfiUen^ 
 *^ cifjofthe Intelieduai Fire, which are thy Subli- 
 ** micy and Wiii, and one and the fame. 
 
 Cyril (or John) o[ Jemfalem^ often faysv Men 
 ought not to be wife beyond Scripture, concerning 
 the Divine My fteries. Cauch,i6. p, jrj6. What the 
 Holy Spirit hath not [aid (in Scriptnre) kt w not hear. 
 Cat I J, p.ioi. What thoH art commanded^ that only he 
 careful to Uarn. Yet he faith, Chrilt is the WISDOM 
 2.vid POWEll of the Father : and again^ the Son is God 
 the WISDOM and God the WORD. C^^4• f • ^6. 
 
 Symftas hath faid but too little of the Trinity, and 
 of Chrill -^ he faith however. Hymn i. n. do. p. 3 14, 
 The Unity dijfufedinan intffahie manner^ hath a triple 
 Power* He faith not, only a triple i?^/4/;o«. Hymn 
 3. n. 210. p. 323. Ikoithaji begot the Son^ thy excellent 
 Wifdom, a-nd mafyr of all things. And Hfntn 4. p. 
 331^. The pregnant Counfel^ the mediating Principle j 
 the Hdy Spirit, 
 
 St, BafU of Cdfaria^ Lib. 4. c. Eunom. fays; *Mf 
 ^^ Chria is the WISDOM and P O W E R of 
 "of God, and this Wifdom and P(?irfr is nncreate 
 *^ and coeternal with God ^ as 'tis certain God 
 ^^ was ncvcmnwife or impotent ' it. will follow that, 
 ^* Chfiil is oncreate and cbeternal with God. But 
 he doch not interpret what is faid of JVifdom^ in the 
 firii: Chapter of ihe Proverbs^ as meant of Chrift. 
 In the Book concerning the Holy Spirit •, againft Sabel- 
 Vm% he grants that Chrift is the WORD and WIS- 
 DOM of God •, and (hows at the fame time that he 
 is a Per fen '^ which Sabellitts dented. He often dif- 
 fuades from oveicurious Enquiries. 
 
 I omitted that, Clemens AlexandrintUj ad Cent. 
 fays I ^"^ The image of God Is the Son and Loges^ 
 
 f* and 
 
Part It coKcermffg the Holy Trifiity, 131 
 
 *^ and Man is the Image of the Logos: There is a 
 " Mind in Man, wiSo is therefore Did to be m ide in 
 *' the Image of God ^ Man, on the sccount of the 
 ^' Wifdom in him, is likened to the Divine Ao^^/. 
 
 St. Gregory Nyfcn^ l.ib, de Imag. ^ Simtl Dei^ fetS 
 himfelf to prove rhar, the Soul of Man is the Image 
 of God, in refped: of Sabp^ance, and Trinity. *' If 
 *' thou wilt know God, fir/l know thy felt; thou 
 *' may'fl know him by thy own Stru(n:ure and Make, 
 '* and by the Things within thee. There are three 
 ** perfonal Propmies^ in the one SHbfiatJce of the 
 *' Souli namely thacftace of the Soal that is nnbe- 
 ** gotten^ the Word that is begotten^ and the Frocef^ 
 *' [ton of the Spirit or Mind. And I will confiderjc- 
 ** ly affi m ic was with refpedt to this Trinity in 
 ^' the Soul chat rhe Apoflle fays, Man was made in the 
 *' Likc^tfsand Image of God. After he had faid, the 
 5W, Word and Mmd are the Image of the Trinity '^ 
 heefpecialiy notes char, only our WORD (the in- 
 ward and that which is ffoken) \% the Image of the 
 Son of God. And irom the Writings of the Philo- 
 fophers he difcovers another Image of the Trinity, 
 even the Irafctbk CoKCHpifcibU and Rational FucMet 
 in Man. How boldly would the good Man have 
 talk'd, if he had known xh^ true Trinity of Princi- 
 ples in the Human Nature "^ Perhaps by ihe 5<W, the 
 Image of the Father, he meant VITALITY; by 
 Reaforiy the Image of the Son, he meant the 
 Thoughts, or the Faculty of THINKING ^ by 
 Mind^ the Image of the Spirit, our FORMAL 
 CONCEPTIONS. 
 
 But more cleaily, Catechet. Orat. e. 2, C?' 2. 
 *^ He that cotifefle , God is not /r.r<!ir;<7«4/, muftne- 
 *' cefTarily confefs that he Kath REASON 5 the Hu- 
 " man Reafon is but equivocally fo called: if there- 
 ** fore any one faith, that he underftandeth the 
 " REASON and WISDOM after the likenefs of 
 
 K 2 ^ the 
 
132 . AScholatikk Dijfertation 
 
 '* the fame in «*, he will be led thereby to a more 
 *' fublime Knowledg. After this he (hows, like the 
 other Anticnts, that, the WISDOM and WORD 
 paiFes not away, as ours does, but is pm.anent, 
 [iV. B, Th*y mean, Human Reafon or Wifdom •, 
 ( whether inward, or as a Conception \ or outward, 
 or as it becomes^ IVord-^) ceafts and is extinguiihed 
 with the A(ft of Thinking or Speaking : but the 
 WISDOM of God not fo, for it is an Eternal AEt •, 
 and as k is the fame with the Effence, a Ptrfint. For 
 in God, the A^ft and EfTence are really the fa rne, 
 their Dillinc^ionis only Modal^ the Ad is the Ejfence 
 
 Sr. Amhrofe^ Toiti. 4. p. 43, & 4.^. often fayS', 
 Chriil is the WORD and WISDOM of the Fa- 
 ther. And, p. 48. There U one that is the \iovtr^ ano* 
 ther the Beloved •, and another who is the Love of both^ 
 even the Holy Spirit : bnt all the fame God, ' . 
 
 St. Jcrom^ tho accufed by his Enemies as a Heretic 
 
 concerning the Trinity, yet has written ^ery little 
 
 of thefe Matters. But he writes very earneftly to 
 
 F'ppe Damafiis^ againil thr^e Hypojlafes ; which, he 
 
 faith, in all good Authors fignifys three Snbftances, 
 
 ^■^ All Philologers, fays he, underftand nothing by Hy- 
 
 '*' pofi a fis hut Ep nee \ but what blafphemous Mouth 
 
 ** dares to fay three Sftbfiances f If you pleafe. Jet us 
 
 '' hold one Hypoflafis, without mentioning three Hy- 
 
 ** poilafes. Tom. Epiji.i. p. (Edit. Erafmi) 131,132. 
 
 And in another E[)\itlQj ad Marcnm Presbyterum^ 3 1 5, 
 
 '• Becaufe I believe and teach a Trinity of Pfr/^^/ that 
 
 ^' have all the fame Shb fiance^ I am called- Heretic, and 
 
 ^' Sahellian. — I am an Heretic *, What doth it hart 
 
 " thee? Be content,! have confeffed it — -Everyday 
 
 ^'' they demand. What is mv Belief f As if I had been 
 
 *' baptized, without confeffing tht Creed, I make 
 
 *•'* fuch a Con fe (lion as they would have me, it doth 
 
 '' not fatfNfy 'em : 1 fibfcribe, they won't believe 
 
 '*^ me. See the refldn the Author. ^ I 
 
Part [ /. concernifig the. Holy Trinity, 155 
 
 I omic ^ufebitis the Church-Hiflorian, becaufe he 
 too much favours thfe 'i^W^iv/ , ^s Petaviush'is (uWy 
 proved,' tho Socrates would not have it fo. - • ■ 
 
 What St. Hilary^ of 'Poi^ieYs^ thought ; one may 
 guefs by what he has delivered Lib, 12. de Irin, p. 
 282. '' Neither will I be ^o foolirti and impious, 
 '^ as to determine that, the Father* hath been at any 
 " time without his WORD, WISDOM, and 
 *' POWER-? that is,- without the only-begotten 
 " God, ' eVen my Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift. 
 '' For as in us, WORD, WISDOM, and POWER 
 **" is our own inward Motion' and Work : So wiih 
 *' the Father, his inward WISDOM and POWER 
 ** is generated by him, andinfeparable from him *, 
 '^ and it appears that he is indeed born of tne Fa- 
 '' ther, in that he hath thefe' Names (which aretiie 
 *' Names of God's Eternal Progenies) give»l to him. 
 Again, de Synod, p. 324. '' None is the Image of 
 " himfelf, but reprefents him whofe Image-im is ; 
 " an Image is the undifferenced Likenefs of one thing 
 " as compared with another : There is therefore a 
 ^**' Father, and a Son the Likenefs of the F^lthcr ; 
 '^ but that he may really be the Image and Likenefs 
 " of his Father, we mufl: fuppofe that he hath the 
 '* Natnre and EJfence of the Begetter. And, de Trin, 
 I. 12. p. 257. m fay^ Chrifi u the WlSDOM^w^ 
 POWER of God, Lib. 2. p. n. *•' There is one 
 *' God the Father, of whom are all things \ and 
 " one Lord Jefus Chrift, by whom are all things \ 
 ^•« one Holy Spirit, the Gift in all. One Power,^ of 
 Uii* -which are all things •, one Offpring, by whom are 
 ' ■•' all things ^ one Gift, the ground of perfec!^ Hope. 
 You may fee alfo his Comment on Matth, Chap. 11. 
 p. 5 1 p. and ^^ .yyw^^. p. 326. 
 
 We rauft not expect that, Epiphanius fhould tell us 
 
 V what, or where, is the Image of the Trinity ^ for 
 
 he denies that the Image of God is in the S(f^l of 
 
 K 3 Man, 
 
134 'Jl SchoUfiich^DiJfertation 
 
 Man, or in his Bc4>, or in bis Vower^ or in his "Regi' 
 neration by Baptiim v or that (infhort) we can 
 find where it is. Tho he uks many words concern- 
 ing the Trinity, he explains the Myftery but little i 
 It amounts- to thus much, *•'• There is one God, and a 
 ** real Trirtity of Hypoftafes, but ic is infcrutablc. 
 But, 7om. I. H'iref. 70. & Har. ep. comr. AUnos^ 
 and often el fe where, .he fays^ ^' The Son is the 
 *' WISDOM of God \ the fupreme WISDOM of 
 *^ God, not in any piHrative fpeaking, but in rea* 
 *' lity. And, p. 75*- ^' The Father begat, neither 
 *' willingly nor unwillingly 5 as the y^rians would 
 " have us to fay 5 but by Nature^ which is fuperior 
 ff toWiUandCounfel. 
 
 Ifidorus Pelftfiota commends Phihh ConfelTion •, and 
 fays, Chrift is the WISDOM and POWER of 
 God, and an Hypoftafis ^ and that he is called the 
 WORD, bQcmf^ Iwpajfihle. Lib. 2. Epift. 143. 
 
 St. John Chyfoftom^ as his Adversary Epifhanius^ 
 maketh the Image of God in Man to confift only in 
 the Dominion ov^r the other Creatures ^ on Gen, i. 
 Hom.S. and on Gen, 6, Hom.zi. He fpeaks of the 
 Holy Trinity, only in general,ard in Scripture-terms j 
 he fays. The Unity of th^ Daty^ and the Trinity of 
 fiypoflafes, 
 
 Andreas C£farienfis^ in Apoc, Serm. 20, fays> 
 ?' TheHypoItafis of the Son is called the WISDOM, 
 *' either to ilgnify his impa^ihle Generation from the 
 *^ Father 5 or bccaufe he containei"h the Ideas and 
 ^^ Rtafons of all things, or ( and chiefly ) becaufe 
 *^ he is the Interpreter and Minifler of the Father's 
 *^ WiSDOM and Power. 
 
 ' Leo Romams faith many things agamft Nffiorins 
 and Ehtyches^ for the true Deity ard Humanity of 
 Chrift •, for the Unity of Perfin and Duality of Na-- 
 ^fire in him : but he has no SchoUfiic Subtleties con- 
 cerning the Myftery of the Trinity , but as fome 
 
 Other 
 
Part If. comermfig ihe Holy Trinitj. 135 
 
 other Fathers, of the fourth and fifth Centuries, faith 
 only, '* There is one Efftnce^ and a Trinity of Pro-- 
 *' prtits or Perfons. In Traif, adv. error, Entych, 
 p. 18^. be faith •, " The Holy Trinity diwded (as 
 '* it were) the Work of our Redemption and In- 
 ** ftauration > for the Father was reconciled^ the Son 
 ** did reconcile^ and the Holy Spirit fanEbtfied, 
 
 Nor has MaximM Tanrinenps much concerning 
 thefe Qpeftions : he fays only, with Holy Scripture 5 
 The Son u called the WISDOM and POWER of Cod, 
 that we may knovo that the Father begat not after a car- 
 nal manner, bm in a manner ineffable and incomprehenji- 
 ble. Homil. in Natal. Eufeb, Vercel. 
 
 Peter Chtyfologiu, Serm. 1 19. fays 5 Chrifi is the 
 true WISDOM of God. But I think, he faith this, 
 only in regard that our Saviour was the Teacher of 
 that iVifdom which is from above, or the Gofpel. 
 
 Fdgentins hath many things of the Trinity, but 
 plain and fcriptural ^ as ad Monim. ad Thrafimnnd, ad 
 Petrtimy &c. But, cont, Serm, Fafitdiofi^ c. i6y& 17, 
 he faich after St. j^nfiin ^ Chrifi is that WORD or 
 WISDOM which is (as it were) the THOUGHT that 
 firings from MEMORY. Becaufe Sc.-^A'y?/» fometimes 
 explains the Trinity by Memory, Knowledg, and Love* 
 And, ad Thrafim, 1.2. r. 4. If the WISDOM Were 
 not coetemal to the Father, then hath God been mutable. 
 He means, of Unwife became Wife. 
 
 j^gnellm Ravennatenfis, ad Armen. de rat. Fid. Epifi* 
 BibL Fatr. T. 3. 147. fays •, " When the Father 
 " would beget the Son, Had he a Power to beget 
 *^ this yirtne, or to will this IVifdom f If you fay, 
 " he had not •, you biafphectle. If you fay he had 
 « not POWER, or had not WISDOM^ you biaf- 
 
 cv pheme. Add to the WORD, POWER, and 
 
 " you have the third Perfon. 
 
 There is a Fragment faid to be St. AHfHn\ con- 
 cerning the Trinity, in Bibl, Patr, Grxcv-Latino 
 
 K 4 Vol- 
 
1^6 A Scholajlkk^ Dijfertation 
 
 Vol. I. p. 540. where it is faid ^ '* Reafon teaches 
 " tbar, the kfpnce of God is Eternal LIFE. But 
 *' if this true LIFE was without beginning, it is 
 " certain that Jt KNEW alfo this Life from all 
 *^ Eternity ; for if it did not, it would not be v^ife^ 
 '^ which vve cannot think of God, But if the 
 " Eternal L I F E always knew its Life, or always 
 '^ kmwit Self', ic had not this KNOWLEDG from 
 '^ another/ but the KncwUdg is coellential to the 
 *^ Ltfc, sltho the Life begat the Knowledg as its 
 
 '^ Idhe. Therefore the F^r^fr never was without 
 
 " the Son, And, p. 545. '• I faid, the EfTence of 
 " God is Lfe'^ but true Life KNfOWETH that 
 ''- it liveth : And if it KNOWEIH its Life, it alfo 
 *' LOVETH it. But in God to hve, to know^ to 
 '^ioie^ are no other thing b\M to be*: The Love of 
 *' God therefore is Life^ the Life is Spirit : And be- 
 " caufe by Love God gave Being to all things, there- 
 *' fore the Love is called SPIRIT^ and HOLY, 
 
 *' becdui^ck fafj^ifietb a[\ things.-^ -By thQ Sfiirit 
 
 *' of God we are tounderftand nothing elfe but the 
 *^ LOVE of God 5 and from hence God is called 
 " Lvve by the Apoflle yohn. The Father loveth the 
 *' Son ashimfelf, and the Son loveth the Father as 
 *' himfelf; for the Life loveth to be ir//^, and the 
 ^' Wifdom loveth to Itve 5 and we proved before 
 *^ that, the I>/f^ and Kmwledg (or Wifdom) have 
 ^^ the fame Ejjence: therefpreZ.o'z;^ which is the Ho- 
 '' ly Spirit is co-efTeritial to the Father and Son, and 
 " proceedsequally /ro^ ^o/i;. This per feidly agrees 
 with the Irifle Principle^ or Trinity, that, we de- 
 fer ibed in fo me of the foregoing Sheets^ and fhall 
 more amply and clearly difcourfe hereafter. [ But 
 this cannot be St. ^^tifi^j ;Biiihop of Hippo ^ but fomc 
 other jihftin^ who being alfo antient, his Work 
 hath been miilaken to be that Father's. : Eor accord- 
 ing to St. Anfim^ thf Father is npt LIFE, but Mind 
 
 : ' or 
 
Part IL concerning the Holy Trinity. 137 
 
 or INTELLECT j and tho he teaches that, the 
 Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son^ yet he 
 exprefly denys (as we noted before) that he pro- 
 ceeds equally from bothy as this Writer faith. Nor 
 would St. j^tiftifi have faid, the Father is Eternal 
 LIFE^ and then that the LIFE is the ESSENCE^ 
 for io the Father is the Ejjence •, which is Herefy.] 
 
 Cdfarim^ in Dial. 1 . Ibid. p. 549. fays ; The Tri- 
 nity may be explained in a fort, by the 5««, viz,, his 
 Fire, Rays, and Light. He hath there more to the 
 fame purpofe. 
 
 Zacharias Mitylenenfts^ Difp. Ibid. p. 357. fays^ 
 " The WORD or WISDOM predded in the Pro- 
 *' creation and Confticution of Things', and the 
 ^* Divine SPIRIT infpires into Eflences the Prin- 
 *' ciples of Reafon and Undcrftanding, and thus 
 *' perfedeth their Subftance. We call the Father of 
 *^ the Word or Wifdom^ and from whom alfo pro- 
 " ceedeth the Sfiritj the firfi Caufe and Principle of 
 '^ the Deity. 
 
 We mention'd him before ^ but again,.CyrjAof^- 
 leXandria^ on John i. i. contra Ennom, fays 3 ''The 
 ''^ Son is the Word^ PFifdom^ Eternal Li^ht of God •, 
 *' and the Sen is not one thing, and the Internal 
 '' Word another. Then he explicates his Genera- 
 tion by the Likenefs of Fire and Li^ht •, with a great 
 deal more to the fame purpofe. 
 
 The Reader may ufefully fee the Creed or Confef- 
 fion of Peregriniis Laureacenfu^ Patr. Orthod. Vol. 2. 
 p. 1625. and E.H^enius Carth, de Cath. Fide, Ibid. p. 
 1 6 1 7. and Thalajfius.^ Hecatontad.4. Becaufe 1 am a- 
 fraid of tiring my Reader, I am conftrained to o- 
 mit many others : I almoll repent that I began fo 
 long a Work ^ but it will be neceffary that we do 
 not wholly overpafs fome few very clear PaiTages of 
 the following Ages. 
 
 Chit' 
 
158 ^ SchoIajiu\ Dijfertaiwn 
 
 GmtmHndusy Anhiefifcofus Averfanns^ BibL ?4tr, 
 Tom, 6- p. 22(5, 227. Ipeaks copioufiy •, the fhort is. 
 '* God begot his WISDOM, by whom are all things 
 '-'' of himfelf. This WISDOM is the Son of God, 
 *^ God of God.— — ^But what fhould God make by 
 " this WISDOM, if he did not firft love it ? therefore 
 ^^ it is evident that, Love proceedeth from the Fa- 
 ^' ther to the Son, and from the Son to the Father : 
 ^' This LOVE is the Spirit^ which fo proceedeth 
 
 *^ from both, as to remain in both. The Fa- 
 
 " ther KNOVVETH his whole felf, and LOVETH 
 " bis T^-k/aeir, therefore the WISDOM and LOVE 
 ''^ areeachas ^rtf^f as hiffifelf, that is, the Son and 
 '' Sftrtt each equal to the Father. The LIFE liveth, 
 ^' the WISDOM liveth, the LOVE liveth •, the 
 *' WISDOM is Wife, the LIFE wife, the LOVE 
 *' wife., the LOVE loveth, the LIFE ioveth, the 
 *' WISDOM loveth. The Father is LIFE, the Son 
 '^ WISDOM, the Holy Spirit LOVE. And thefe 
 **" three are but one Subflance, which is God, The 
 ^' Father is Livings the Son Wtfe^ the Holy Spirit 
 *' Lo'vingh and the Father Living, Wife, Loving-, 
 '^ yet but one Nature^ which fo Liveth as to be 
 ^' LIFE, is fo Wife as to be WISDOM, fo Loveth 
 *' as to be LOVE. C^*^. This comes fully up 
 with the triple Principle^ or Trinity of Principles, 
 Lifc^ W'ifdom^ Love-^ which our Author approves 
 above a]l other Explications. But in anfwering 
 the Q]ieilion here following, this Father wholly ad- 
 heres to St. Jiiflin,'] '^ It is asked •, Is the Son that 
 '*• IFifdor/i^ by which the Father is Wife 5 or what is 
 " the fame, is the Father V/ife by that Wifdom 
 .*■' which is the Son ? Anfw, The Father is Wife m he 
 '' hath theJ)ivinE EJfence : Therefore if the Father 
 ** were IFiy^ by the Son, he rault have Wifdom from 
 '^ the Son, and confequently Effence from the Son 5 
 *^ that is, he fliould not be the Father, but the Son. 
 
 "As 
 
Part II. concerning the Boly Trinity. 1 5 
 
 '« . —As Man died and was loft by InftfUnce^ fo 
 
 «* by WISDOM only be could be reftored ; the Wif^ 
 *' dom of God was incarnate, that the Inffiencc of 
 ^' Man might be taken away. 
 
 Potho Frnmenjis^ Bibl. Pair, Tow.p. p.567. Liki.dc 
 ftatti domus Deij fays h '^ There are three Inviiible 
 ** Things of God, POWER, WISDOM, GOOD- 
 '*• NESS 5 from which all things proceed, in which 
 ^' they fubfift, and by which they are governed : the 
 '^ Father is Power^ the Son Wtfdom^ the Holy Spirit 
 ** Coodncfs or Love ; the Power Creates, the Wifdom 
 **• Governs, the Love Preferves. The Power by 
 *' Love wifely Creates, the Wifdom by Power kind- 
 *' ly Governs, the Love by Wifdom fowerfHlly Pre- 
 *^ ferves. 
 
 Edmundns^ Archiepifcopus Cantnarienfs^ in fpeculo 
 JEccL c. 28. faith ; **' By fuch a way as thi , Man 
 ** Cometh to the Knowledg of God, that he is one 
 '* in SubHance, three in Perfons ^for every Man feeth 
 ** it in himfelf. Every Man hath always in himfelf 
 *' Power ^ Wifdom^ and Love proceeding from both : 
 '^ and when he fees it thus in himfelf, he will infer ic 
 '' is alfo fo in God, who is above him. Namely 
 *' th^t, in God is POWER, from whence proceed- 
 " eth WISDOM, and from both LOVE. And be- 
 '* caufe from the firft Perfon proceeds the fecond, 
 •* and from the firft and fecond the third ^ therefore 
 *' the firft is called the Father^ the fecond the Son^ 
 ^' the third the Holy Sprit. By this Method, Man 
 *' attaineth to the Knowledg of his Maker j how he 
 ** is without beginning, and why it is faid he is one 
 *^ in Subftance and three in Perfons : as alfo, why the 
 ^ *' firft Perfon is called the Father^ the fecond Son^ 
 " the third Holy5p;m-, why Power is appropriated 
 *' to the Father, Wifdom to the Son, Love or Goodr 
 
 *^ nefs to the Spirit? And this manner of 
 
 ** knowing God, is the Foundation of //p/y 0??rfi»- 
 
1 40 \d Schplafikk^ Dijferfation 
 
 , RichaTtdm de S. VtGtore^ in o^nffttL ad S^ Berfjardam^ 
 de appr&frtatif Perfdn:^^ fsLith ) .^^ Ponder Wifdom'Good^ 
 *'*' nefs 2LXQ things molt known toils, in that we fee 
 ** zn^ under fl and the invifihle thijfgs of Gody by the 
 '* things that are made. In the'EJern^rlts, Plants, and 
 *' Brutes* there is a certain Towei^y without Wif- 
 *' dom; in Men and Angels a Thiper^ not without 
 " Wifdora : in Lucifer a Power and Wtfdom^ with- < 
 '' out Goodnefs ^ in Angels and good Men there is 
 ^^ not Goodmfs^ or a good Will, without the Power 
 '* and Knowted^. Therefore we muft fay, thefe 
 ** three are dtfiin^ : the Power is Principal, and of 
 **" it felfi the M^//^ow is from the Power, theGoodr 
 *^ nefs or good Will is of both. 
 
 CHlielmugy Effcopm Parifienfis^ de Vniverfo^ parte 
 I. pag. 580. c, 20, 21.. faith*, '* Almighty God cre- 
 " ated all things by the WORD, that is tht Son h 
 '^ and- by his WILL, that is ih^ Spirit. The 
 '* Wordb his THOUGT^ in God to THINK and 
 " WILL are two Divine Prodtdiions : but God doth 
 " not think^^ by forming Conclulions, or by parts j 
 " but by one moft perfed ^^. Again, parte 2. 
 pag.^ij, he largely fhowsthat* '^ The Human Son/ 
 *' is the Image of ih^ Father^ who is Viral- Aftivity 
 « or LIFE-, and of the Son who is WISDOM, and 
 " of the Spirit which is LOVE. The Holy Spirit is 
 *« feenin theGood,by thrjr aW^jf/jr; the Son in the 
 " Wife, by Wifdom-y the Father in the Powerful, by 
 '* Power, LOVE is the proper Gharader of the 
 '^ Spirit, WISDOM of the Son' POWER of the 
 '^ Fgther. 
 
 And we often meet fuch like P^fTages in the fa-. 
 Hious J> Gerfon-^ QS at far. 3. foL 3^7, coi 3. and 
 dfewhere. .4 
 
 But fee the Senfe of the An tients 'concerning tne 
 Trinity, more largely, in Peiavm\ pogm,; ttj^pl. 
 Tom. 2. lib. i. cap. 3. ' ' "T 
 
 ■ VllThc 
 
Part II. conc&lrmng the Holy Trifiify. 141 
 
 YII. The Do^rim of the Schools and 
 
 '■ the ScboUftks, 
 
 The Divines of the Schools exprain the Diflinftions 
 or Differences of the. Divine Perfons^ by the DifFe- 
 reri' es of the Attributes and PrimaUties-^ and call the 
 Terfons by the Name of Prmalitiesy that is, Mind or 
 IN fELLEGT, WISDOM, and LOVE. 
 ' We have fpoke before concerning St. Auftin^ the 
 Father in this Matter of the School DoClors. But 
 take alfo his Words, cited by Petavm^ de Trin* L. 
 5. c- 4. p. 503. '' God is the Caufe of all things ^ 
 .**: and as of all things, fo alfo of his WISDOM •, 
 ^ neither wps God at any time without his WIS- 
 " DOM : he is the Eternal Caufe of his' own Eternal 
 '^ WISDOM, he is not pras-exiftent in time to his 
 '' own WISDOM. 
 
 I. P. Lmh^d^ Bilhop o^ Paris ^ dlfp. 3. F. p. 8. 
 
 •fays5 *^ The Son is the TRUTH of the Father, the 
 
 *** Holy Spirit GOODNESS. And G. he faith -, 
 
 ^* MIND remembers it f.lf, mderflands it felf, loves it 
 
 *' felf^ if we undefftand this, we underftand the 
 
 *' Trinity : not indeed that Trinity which is God, 
 
 f*^ but which is the Image of God* [For he fpeaketh 
 
 \«* here of the HUMAN Mind.]— /^/.p.i I. '' Thofe 
 
 *"* three are natural Properties and Powers q( the Mind^ 
 
 '^ and diflinguifhed from one another ^ ^ov Memory 
 
 w^'' is not Intelldi or WxU^ nor lnteUe[h Will or Memo- 
 
 •** ry, &c, -^ — But thefe three are referred to 
 
 '^ (-or fuppofe j one another, for Mind cannot re- 
 ^ *^ membcT ir felf, or love it felf, unlefs it hj}ovs> it 
 
 ^^ felf i. and fo of the reft.- -They are alfo one 
 
 " Subjiance •, for they are fubftantially, and not as 
 '' Accidents^ in the Soul or Mind. From whence St. 
 Ai^fiin^ de Trin. lib. 9. fays i [^ Memory Intelled and 
 
 " Loye 
 
142 \A Schoiaftkk^ Dijfertation 
 
 *' Love exilt not as Accidents in theiif Sobjef^ ; as 
 " Colonr (for Example) in a Body\ but fubftanti- 
 " ally : becaufe tho they are predicated relatively^ 
 *^ yet each of them is fuhfiantially in his Subftance, 
 *' which is the Soul. He fays moreover, de Trin. lib. 
 15^. ^^ He that confiders the tinman Mind^ fees there 
 *' the Image of the Divine Trinity, It appears by this 
 that, neither St. Mftin nor P. I-^^w^^r^ thought the 
 Faculties of the Soul arc Accidents ; as the Thomifis 
 have lince taught. And it may be doubted, whe- 
 ther St. ^uftin intended here to defcribe the mere Re^ 
 latiohs^ or three Relative Faculties, 
 
 But Lombard not well fatisfied with St. Anftinh 
 MEMORY, fubftitutes another Explication of the 
 Trinity, out of St. AnftimKo-^ S. T. « MIND^ its 
 '"- KNOWLEDG, and LOVE of it felf, are threes 
 *' for yli'/Wknoweth, and loveth it felf, nor could 
 '' it love it felf without knowing it felf. Mind and 
 " its Knowledg are two things, fo are Mind and its 
 *' Love 't therefore when Mind knows and loves it 
 *' felf, here is a Trinity^ even Mind Knowledg and 
 '' Love. But he diftinguiihes afterwards the Begot- 
 ten and Vnhegotten Wifdom, and fo alfo between J?r- 
 gotten and Vnbegotten Love-, following St^ Atiflin: 
 but there is no ground for fuch Diftindion. 
 
 Jquinoi alfo, tho he confefles the Philofopbers did 
 not explicitly know the Myftery of theTrinity,yet they 
 knew the Effential Attribntes that are appropriated 
 to the Per fans •, PovQer to the Father, Wifdom to the 
 Sotii 'Gcodnefs to the Spirit. Here note, i. Thefc 
 Attributes are EJfential. 2. Known and certain to 
 the Philofophers by the Light of Nature. 3. They 
 are appropriate to the Perfons •, or diftinguiih the 
 Perfons, as their proper Chara^crs. i. ^.32. ^' 
 I. ad imam. 
 
 2. Divers Scholaftics, following St. Anfiin^ left 
 they Ihould be conftraincd to fay, the Father is not 
 
 mff 
 
Part If. coP2cerm^g the Uoly Trinity. 145 
 
 Wife and Loving^ cfhlmfelf. And left it (hould feein. 
 the Father is o//fctf»J-;«-, if he be wife by the Son, bc- 
 caafe to be and to /?<? wife are the fime ia G:>d- 
 Therefore they fay that, Wifdom and Love as they 
 are the Divine Ejfence are common to each Divine 
 Perfon :, but the Begotten Wifdom is the Son, and the 
 Begotten Love the Holy Spirit, and the Vnbeaottfn 
 Wifdom is the Father, or Wifdom ^ VnbegQtten 1% 
 the Father's. They fay however, there are not two 
 Wifdoms, or two Loves, but one only ^ one EOea- 
 tial Wifdom, Begotten and Vnbegotten^ and one Love. 
 Of which the Mafter of the Sentences fays, it U above 
 my Vnderfianding ^ but it t6 fafe to fpea\ 04 the Dealers 
 do. But the Reafon why the feveral Attributes are 
 appropriated to the Perfons*, and why Wifdom to the 
 Son, Love to the Spirit, Power to the Fathers ra* 
 ther than Lqv€ to the Son, and Wifdom to the Spirit : 
 r fay, I do not fee that any of them have given a pro^ 
 bable Reafon of this, when (according to them) 
 Power Wifdom and Love are nothing elfe but the 
 Effence, Of the Relations of thefe Attributes much 
 indeed may be faid ♦, but for the Reafon of the Ap- 
 propriation of thefe Relative Attribhtes^ there cart 
 icarce any thing be faid fatisfaftorily, on the Hypo- 
 thelis of Sc. Afijiin, 
 
 Efiinii a Man indeed that affetled not Subtle- 
 ties, fpeaks the cleared, i. d, 34. /, 3. p. 113, 
 *' Of the Appropriations of the Divine Perfons, the 
 '^ mofl common, both in Holy Scriptui:e and VVri- 
 ** ters of the Church, are POWER WISDOM and 
 *' GOODNESS-, Power proper to the Father, Wif- 
 "■ dum to the Son, Goodnefs to the Holy Spirit. 
 *' To which three Attributions, do correfpond 
 " CREATION REDEMPTION SANCTIFICA- 
 *' TIOlSI orGLOKIFICATIOM, as the ^,5?/ of the 
 
 *' other. The Reafon v;hy Power (or Omni- 
 
 " potence ) is appropriated to the Father, feems to 
 
144 \A Schdlafikl^ D/JftrtatwH 
 
 *' be, becaufe he is the Origin or Principle not only of 
 *' the Creatures, but of the other two Divine Per- 
 " fons. By how much any one is able to effedt or 
 " produce more things, by fo much he is wonted to 
 " be accounted by Men moft Powerful-^, therefore 
 *' Power being moft accommodate to the Property of 
 *' Father^ it is appropriated to him. And again, be- 
 *^ caufe thfe Divine Power is the moft remarkable and 
 '•' confpicuous of the Attributes in the work of Cre- 
 *' ation, therefore is Crf^rio»a(cribed to the Father, 
 *' But of this, another Reafon may be alfo given > 
 *^ the Father is the firfi of the Diyine Perfons, and 
 " the Original of the other two •, and the work of 
 *' Creation is the firfl of the Works of God, and the 
 '^ Foundation both of Redemption and Sandifica- 
 '' tion : therefore Creation is reckned to the Father* 
 /. 4 p. U4. After this, he proves from Scripture 
 that, WISDOM is appropriate to the Son. " Be-; 
 '^ caufe, according to his Divine Nature, the Son 
 ^^ proceedeth from the Father after the manner of a 
 « WORD-, and a WORD, faith St. Thomas, is no- 
 " thing elfe but a^ Conception of Wifdom. [^i,e, A 
 *' mental Conception, which is Knowledg or Wif- 
 " dom.3 But as the Son, as he is God, is a middl^ 
 " Perlon between the Father and the Spirit^ as the 
 « WORD is a middle between MIND and LOVE : 
 *' fo it was congruous that tlie Son, after taking on 
 ** him our Nature, fliould be ^ffivf^w God and Men; 
 *^ 2. The Attribute of VVifdom has been -given to 
 " the Son,' becaufe he is to m the Teacher of the true 
 " and heavenly Wifdom. 3. Goodnefs Love Be- 
 " nignity is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, be- 
 " caufe the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the 
 " Son after the manner of Love. He r^jeds the 
 Reafons given by Hugo^ in TraB. i. r. 10 •, and 
 thcfe given by himfelf, iffome higher be not added, 
 afford bat little Satisfadion. 
 
 3. AH 
 
Part 11. cofjcernwg the Holy Trinity. 145 
 
 3. All of them confefs, tluc the Image. of the 
 Trinity in us (our Mind or L\fe^ our Im e lie 5t and 
 Love J is not fuch an Image of the Divine Trinity as 
 is perfed, and exadtly correfponding. " It is enough 
 '• (^£ay Scot Its znd LychetHs^ i.d. 3. q. 9. p. p.142.) 
 *' that it reprefents the Trinity and Unity, which 
 '' require ConfHhflantiality^ Diftin^ion^ and Origin^'' 
 *' tion : tho it doch not reprefent in every refpe§ the 
 *' Divine Trinity. And St. ^HJiin^ Scorns, and 
 LychetHSj fay there, i. "There is an Image of the 
 *' Holy Trinity in the Soul, tho an hnperfe^i one *, 
 ** vjh^n it finder fiands ^nd loves the Creatures, 2. It 
 " is a more perfed Image, as Underftanding and 
 *' Loving it fclf, 3. It is moil: perfed, when it 
 " adually hnderfiands and loves the Divine Trinity ; 
 *' becaufe hy ftch ABs it is ajjimilated to the Ohjell^ 
 *^ the A5i of ImeUe^ion being the Likenefs of the Ob* 
 " jeU. 
 
 4. Scotus and the Scoti/ts, and fome others, fay -, 
 *' ifhe Image of the Trinity in the Human Soul, 
 " confifts both in the firfi and fecond Adls. That 
 *^ is, it comprchendeth Intellect and PVill^ and alfo 
 " the JSis of Underftanding and Willing. See Zj- 
 chetw^ ibid. p. 141. 
 
 5. What hath occafioned much Obfcurity in the 
 Minds and Dodrine of the School-Divines, when 
 they difpute concerning the Image of the Trinity in 
 the Human Soul, is that^ they knew only of two 
 Pr/wo/j/if/ or Faculties in the Soul, IntelleEh and ^/7/.- 
 They were not aware of the firft, even Atim-f^ital^ 
 Powers or Vitality, or LiFEv that this alfo is a 
 Principle. St. u^nfttn^ to make Three, added Me- 
 mory. When out of the fame St.Aufiin^ they fub- 
 flituted MIND for Memory -^ Matters went better 
 and more eafily. Scottu and Lychetta have noted all 
 this, in the places lall cited. [ But neither the 
 Learned Author, nor thofe Schoolmen, had read 
 
 L St, 
 
T 46 A Scholaftu\ Dijjertation 
 
 St. Atiflin carefully and heedfully enough. St, 
 j^HJiin did not make Intelled the fecond Principle^ 
 but the firft 5 the Order and Names according 
 to St. j^hfUn are, MIND, which he explains 
 bylmeUea, SEL F-KNO W LEDG, and SELF- 
 LOvEg 
 
 6. It is controverted by the Schoolmen, Whether 
 the Image is only the fecond Ad, or whether it in- 
 cludes the firft alfo ? And Scotas denies that, *' The 
 *^ Ad of Willing (or produced Love) is the third 
 '' part of the Image *, becaufe it doth not imply any 
 ^' Confiibji^ntiality with the Soul, being rr<«iZy diftin- 
 ** guifh'd from it : But the IVill it felf, as informed 
 *"' by the AB; of JViUing^ or by Lovci is (according 
 ^^ to him) the third part of the Image > becaufe, 
 " in refped: of the Will, it fuppofes C or rather it 
 " implies) Confubftantiality. As Lychetus reports 
 him, Ibid. p. 14T. 
 
 I ask. Whether the fame may not be faid of the 
 three Faculties ** Concerning the Image you may fee 
 more in. u^lex, Alenfu^ i.q. 60. Memb. 3. ^. 3. Bo- 
 navemnra^ i . d. 3.93. Richardns^ i . d. 3. q. £ . a. 2, 
 ScQtHSy I. d. 3. q. 9. St. Thomas^ i. q. 93. a. $,&(?. 
 Durandus^ d. $.q. 3. J. Baccoms, i.d. 3. q. 3. We 
 muftnote the words of St. Ihotna^^ i.q'39' 2.7.0. 
 *'' The EJfentid Attributes are more known to us by 
 **- Reafon^ than thofe that are proper to the Perfons\ 
 *' becaufe the former are certainly learned from the 
 *' Work of Creation, the Ferfonal Properties not. In 
 the fame place, and again a. 8. he proves the Ap- 
 propriation of the Attributes. 
 
 7. They almofl: all agree that, the three Perfons 
 ZXtthxtQ Relations. 
 
 8. Alfo that, thefe Relations are not Accidents', 
 for which reafon the Thomifis deny any Relations of 
 God to the Creatures.^ left thereby they ft^^ uld be ob- 
 liged to admit Accidents in God. But one th t un- 
 
 i deri.ands 
 
Part IL cot7cernwg the Holy Trwity, 147 
 
 derftands the true Nature of a KeUtion^ as before 
 explained, will not fear that Confequerce. 
 
 5>. Moll of the Schoolmen hold char, the Trinity 
 is by no means conftituted by any Relation to the 
 CriatnreSj but only of God to Himfelf, But fome 
 of 'em grant, there is a twofold Caufe or Reaioa 
 of the Denominations of the PerfonSj one Intemd^ 
 the other with refpEi to the Creatures, That God is 
 really related to the Creatures, predicamentaliy, and 
 evQnde novo (or in all the'w Changes^ whether Na- 
 tural or Moral ) is indeed denied by St. Thomof^ Ca- 
 jetarfy Ferrarienfis \ but defended by Oc^^^w, i.Cifp. 
 30. C7^^y^>/, ibid. 4, 5. Dnrandus^ q. ^. G^.Ari^ 
 minenfis^ Difp. 28. q. 3. a. i. M-^^fiHt^Sy 32. a. i. 
 PaUcios, I. d, 5. And faith Hurtadus^ by An^ 
 felm Monolog. c. 24. (HHrtadns liimfelf defends 
 it, Metaph. Difp. 15. SeEi. 2, f. 901.) '^ God, 
 *' faith Hurtadas^ is formally diftind from P^- 
 " ter -^ more perfed than He, and (belides) his 
 ** Lord: But thefe are formally predicaniental Re- 
 '' UtionSy therefore God hath predicament al Relations. 
 I know well what Capreolns and others have alledged 
 and argued to the contrary ; but cannot q^l^A^^ force 
 my felf to believe or fay that, God is not related to 
 jthe Holy, really and truly, as their Redeemer, San- 
 difier, Lord, Governour, Father; and alfo as their 
 Efficient, Dirigent, and Final Caufe. Whether 
 thefearetobe called Predicamental^ or rather Tr<««- 
 fcendental Relations, let AnflotU fee to it ; for I care 
 not. /^^^J'M^w/ however obferves that, even of the 
 Thomifls^ Soncinus and Herv£us do afTert the Relatioa 
 of Dominion in God is real. Molina^ i . p. q, I -^. a. 7, 
 fays % Ihefe Relations are affirmed to be in God^ by Du- 
 tandus, Gabriel, Gregory, arid others. Whom he 
 doth not oppofe, except in the diftindion of thefe 
 Relations from jhcir Foundation \ but tho they are noc 
 diftinguilhed froria their Foondationj we may affirm 
 
 L % iheo! 
 
 I 
 
148 A ScholaHkk Differtation 
 
 them in God, without abfurdity. Of this mind al- 
 fo is Fonfeca, Metaph. lib. 5. c. 15. q. i. fed:. 7. 
 and Palacios^ difp. $. Snarez. thinks, this Dodrine 
 is not to be cenfured, Metaph.^y* difp. feEl.i'^t 
 16, 17. Notwithftanding, this School- Dodtor, 
 out of refpedt to the Society of thejefmts of which 
 he was, forfakes here the Nominals *, and joins him- 
 felf tothe5cr<?r/y?j and Thomifis. viz. u^qmnas^ i.p, 
 q. 13. a. 7. 0*1, contra Gent, c. 12. Cajetant Fev' 
 rarienfish Cafreolns^ I. d. 30. q. i. a. i. c. 3. and 
 a. 2. c. 2, & 3. Bonaventura^ a. i. q. 3. Richardus^ 
 a. I. q. 4. Scotusy q. i. t/£^idiHSy q. 2. Henri- 
 ens^ quod I. 9. q. I. AUnfis^ i. p. q. 2$. Alherti" 
 nus would prove the contrary, by fome trifling un- 
 concluding Arguments, de Kelat.frim. Carol, p. 41 7, 
 41 8. But if there be a true Foundation of this Pro- 
 pofition, God created the World^ there is a true Foun- 
 dation of the Relation of Creator. 
 
 10. " A Per fon^ faith 5'f. Thomas, being a y«^- 
 *^ pUing Relation in the Divine Nature, is really the 
 
 *' fame with the Divine EJfenee, As Relations in 
 
 *' created Things are but Accidents^ foin God they 
 
 *' are the very Divine EITence. A Perfon in the 
 
 ^^ Divine Nature is a Relation <« fuhfiUing : a Rela- 
 *' tion compared with the Eflence, can differ from 
 ^^ it but only by mental Conception i compared 
 " with the oppofite Relation, it hath a red diftindi- 
 '^ on from it, by its oppofition. i.^. 3>9'^' ^*^* 
 It feems- then, Oppofition and real DifiinBion^ may 
 be in a thing really and altogether the fame. By 
 this it appears that, Relation is a term wholly equi- 
 vocal, when applied to Divine and Human Things : 
 for in Divine Things, they fay, it is a Subftance not 
 an Accident •, but in human and;' crj^at^d Things 
 there is no Relation but what is an Acn(!,e;it, and not 
 formally a Subflance. They tharfay^; the Foundia- 
 
 tion and Relation, the Term ^^'^^^^t^^2?S^^^^ 
 
 '*^ '*' lame, 
 
Part I r. concermng the Holy Trinity. 1 49 
 
 fame, may fay. Relation is a Subfiancc when the 
 Foundation and Term are Subftances. But this is 
 DOC the Dodtrine of thefe Schoolmen : and hitherto 
 Relation, as Relation^ has been diftinguifli'd almoft 
 by all from the Foundation, tho not really \ and 
 therefore 'tis really only an Ens Rationis^ a Creature 
 of Reafort^ tho ics Foundation is not. But a Relati- 
 on which formally, or as fncb^ is a Subftance ^ antf 
 a Subftance perfectly the fame, and yet divers ways 
 related to it felf ; and a diftindt Relation, where the 
 Subjed, Foundation, and Term, are altogether the 
 fame i are things unknown to Men : and therefore a 
 Divine Perfonality is no more under ftood by the term 
 Relation^ than by any unknown or barbarous Word 
 that one might devife •, becaufe it doth not fignify 
 what Relation is ufed to fignify by Men. 
 
 I r. Yes, faith St. Thoma<^ i. q. 28. a. 2. c. *' A 
 *■*• KtlzxXon really exijiing in God, is the fame (as to 
 *' the thing) with the EQence j and doth not differ, 
 
 *' but only in our way of Conceiving. What- 
 
 " ever in created Things has an accidental Exiftence, 
 
 " in God hath a fubfiantial ; Whatfoever is in 
 
 *' God, is his Effence. And thus it is manifeft that, 
 " a Relation really exifting in God, is the fame re- 
 •'-ally with the Effence 5 its Diflindtion is only an 
 '' A^ of Reafon, In fhort, the Being of a Relation, 
 *' and the Being of Effence in God, are the fame. 
 The fum then is 5 the Effence is One^ the Relations 
 Three: the Relations are real^ and really different from 
 one another \ and yet really they do not differ from 
 the one Effence. Nay, they are offofite to one ano- 
 ther ^ in an Eflence not really different or diverfe, 
 there is a real oppofition. The Reader may coafider 
 of thefe Maxims of the Thomifts^ and other School- 
 Dcftors. CBoc this was an affeded darkning of 
 Things ; The Oppofition is not of the Effence, as fuch, 
 but only of the Relations 7 which fhould not be Re- 
 
 L 3 .lationsj 
 
150 \A Scholajlick^ Dijfertation 
 
 lations, if they were not oppofed as Relation and Ok- 
 reUte. And tho there are three Relations in God, 
 thu really exiil^ and are the fame with the one Ef- 
 fence j they extj} only as they are the Effence related^ 
 and they are three and oppoHte only as they are 
 Mis, and refpetiso( the EfTence. . The Ellence a(ft- 
 ing after three Modes or Manners^ Vitally, Intel- 
 Mtively, and Volitivejy, is as really diftinguilhed -^ 
 as thofe three immanent ABs, or the refpeds ari- 
 fing from them, can diftingiiilli it. They become 
 Kelations^ as the firft Generates, the fecond is Gene- 
 rated, and the third Proceeds : Which is moreeafi- 
 ly underftood in Sc- Anflin\ Hypothefis, as alfo is 
 all the reft ^ than in the ( Learned ) Authors. To 
 generate^ and be generated^ do infer Relation ^j and 
 yet every one fees, they are oppofite, tho in the 
 fame Eflence and Subflance.] 
 
 12. Dionyfiis Petavm QoxAdi not digefl or endure 
 thefe things j he oppofes them largely, deTrin, lib. 4. 
 r. II. p. 405. He fays, contrary to St. ^Hfiin and 
 thethomfts ^ '^ A Perfon properly and diredly fig- 
 *' nifies fomething Relative'^ it doth not denote 
 "the Effence in God, but a Kelattve Property^ and 
 " that too but obfcurely. w. 9. p.411. He rejeds 
 thofe that fay ; ^' Relation as ' fpoken of it felf, or 
 '^ as including the Eflence, doth confiitme the Perfon, 
 y- and difitngmjhes as it is bppofed to another Reia- 
 *' tion, or as he fpeaks quatenvu ad alteram dicitur, N. 
 10. p. 412. he faith, as the Schools vwox^ commonly 
 do, A thing is difiinguifhed^ by the fame that U eonfii- 
 ihted. But he confelTes *, " The Notion of Relation 
 " and Perfon in God, is not the fame as in Man, or 
 " other created Beings; For in God, Relation as 
 *' diftinguifhed by the Mind from Effence, is a Re- 
 " lationfubfiftingof it fdf, and by it the Eflence 
 *' fubfifteth, &c. According to him then, Rela- 
 , tion or Perfon differs only notionally from the Ef- 
 fence, 
 
Part IL concernwg the Holy TrinHy. 151 
 
 fence, not really 5 and yet fubfifteth of it felf> 
 and the EfTence by it, tho they difFernot *, ». ii- 
 p. 413. He faith farther, r. 16. n. 5. p. 455. 
 ff^hat is pmfly one^ U neither in it felf^ nor is numbred. 
 Agreeing herein with Richardns de S.FiU. de Trin, 
 lib. 6. c. 12. *' Nothing is rightly faid co be equal 
 *' with it felf. Where there is Unity, we ought 
 
 ** not to fay Equality^ but Identity. Whatcom- 
 
 ** parifon can there be in Unity ? there is neither 
 " Similitude nor Diffirailitude, where there is fim- 
 *' pie and perfed Unity. 
 
 13. Sc. Thomas^ i. q. 28. a. 4. reckons four Re- 
 lations, two Proceflions, three Perfons: Therefore 
 they do not think, every Relation is a Perfon ^ tho 
 they fay, a Relation that is a Perfon, differs from 
 a Relation which is not a Perfon. ^Only oppofite 
 Relations, which in the Deity are but three, are 
 Ferfons.'] 
 
 1 4. The Scoiifts conclude they clear thefe Matters, 
 better and more eafily, by their formal Diftiuiflions. 
 The i^th Controverfy in Rada^ is ^ '' Whether a 
 *' Perfon as fubfifting is conftituted by Relation, as 
 " Relation notionally and conceptively diff^ers from 
 *' Effence^ or whether as i^f«r/^e^ with the EfTence ? 
 In anfwer, he faith, (i.) According to CapreolttSy 
 Tefrarienfisy and St. Thomas •, there is in God but one 
 ejfential Subftflencey common to the three Perfons •, 
 not three relative perfonal Subfillences. ( 2. ) On 
 the contrary, according to Cajetan^ i.q. ^o. a. 4, 
 Relation, not as the fame with Effence, but as con- 
 ceptively diftinguifh'd from it, conftitutes a fubfi^ing 
 Perfon, or a Perfon as fubfifting. This Faft is the O- 
 pinion alfo of the Jefuit P^f/fy/w, Note, a thing is 
 liaid by thefe Writers to be diflingmjhed in Reafon^ 
 that is diftinguifhed only Notionally or Concep- 
 tively. 
 
 L 4 The 
 
152 A SchoIaJikJ{ Dijjertation 
 
 The fame Rada opens the Opinion of Scotas in 
 thefe ConcIufionSi ( i.) We muft believe three Sub- 
 fHences in God, it Subfidence be taken in the Con- 
 crete, (2.) And three Subfiftences m x\\t ahjira^ 
 alfo, meaning thereby three Modes, or Manners, or 
 Waysoi Subfffting. (3.) EfTence as differenced only 
 iiotionally from Relation, doth not make a Perfon. 
 (4.) ElTenceasdiftinguifhed from perfonal Relati- 
 on ; either formally in the nature of the thing ac- 
 cording to Scotpu^ or notionally according to St. TIiq- 
 rnas\ doth not make a fubfilling Perfon. ( S.) Re- 
 lation as identified w ith the EfTence, doth not give 
 lubfillence to a Perfon. '(^. ) A Divine Relation as 
 only notionally differing from the Eflence, doth not 
 make a fubfifting Perfon. And here they objed to 
 xliQThomtfts^ that their way of conftituting a Perfon 
 is mere Fidlion •, theirs are not really Divine Perfons^ 
 but only Corjceptions, (7.) Relation, according to 
 its proper formal Entity, according to which it is 
 not formally in the nature of the thing the fame with 
 the Divine Eflence, doth conftitote a Perfon. After 
 this, he proves that formal Non-Identity ^ is not con- 
 trary to the moft perfcd Simplicity. 
 
 Bccaufe this Author has treated of all thatcon- 
 cerneth the Per fans more clearly^ than the other M4* 
 fiersin Stibtilty-j therefore omitting what they have 
 faid, I will only fetdown here his Concluiions upon 
 fome of the Qpellions. 
 
 The Refolutions and Conclufwns of Rada. 
 
 Contr.2^, p* 340« QP* Both this term? tx^on fg- 
 nify a Relation ? In anfwer \ Firfl he approveth the 
 definition of P^r/o« given by Kichardns^ J Ferfonis 
 an incommunicable Extfieme^ in the rational Nature, 
 1 hen he asks ^ Doth Perfon imply the lirfl-, or fe- 
 
 cond 
 
Part 11. concermng the Hc/j Trimty. 155^ 
 
 cond Intention-, that is, the real or notional? He 
 anfwers, contrary to fomc others, the term Perfon 
 doth not (ignify the fecond Intention. 
 
 Queft. Doth Perfon primarily pgnify Relation, or 
 an abfolute Entity? Anfw. i. Perfon taken umver- 
 fally^ doth not [jgnify Relation. 2. The terra Per- 
 fon is common to the three Divine Perfons. 3 . And 
 not by an equivocal Community, which condfteth 
 in the Name only> but an Univocal. 4. The 
 term Perfon doth not formally fignify the fecond Sub- 
 ftance, ov Qjiiddity, 5. Nor formally a Relation, 
 exprefly. 6. If the term Perfon formally import- 
 eth Negation^ it fignifieth neither Subftancc nor Re- 
 lation ^ becaufe Negation is neither Subftance nor 
 Ffeelation : yet it connoteth fomething fofttive. 7. If 
 Perfon fignifieth fomething fofuive ^ it is hard to 
 determine whether that Pofitive in God, be j^hjolute 
 or Relative. 8. The term Perfon doth not prima- 
 rily formally (Ignify 2 relative SHbfislence^ or a relative 
 Suhfifient, 9. Nor an abfolute Subfiflent. 10. But a 
 Subfiftent or Subfiftence that is indifferent to Abfo- 
 lute and Relative. 11. All this is to be applied to a 
 Divine Perfon. \2 and 13. '^ The term a Dm»e 
 " Perfon-^ according to the current Opinion, which 
 *' maketh it to be fomewhat pfitivet, primarily 
 •^^ and formally.^ fignifies a Stthfifient in the rational 
 *' Nature *, Materially the particular Perfons, Father, 
 *' Son, and Holy Spirit : Secondarily, the dtftinlJive 
 *^ Formalities in the Perfons : and laftly, t\\Q EJfenec 
 '' common to them all. 
 
 Contr. 23, Qu. ^re the Divine Perfons in their 
 pQv[on2lEmky conft it Hted by the Relations ? Anfw.lht 
 Perfons are not diftinguifhed by themfelves^ as iht ul- 
 timate Differences, but by Perfonal Properties •, nor 
 are they con flit uted by themfelves. Are thsy confti- 
 tHted then by Abfolute s ? We muft: deny it *, not be- 
 cauf^ it is without probable Reafons, or Authorities: 
 
 but 
 
154 ^ Scholajlkk^ Dijfertation 
 
 batbecaufe it is denied by theF^^^^r^, and Councils. 
 2. It is a rafh Opinion, becaufe contrary to the Cmx^ 
 xQnX.oi tht SchoolrDo^ors. 3. Wemuftlay, it is near 
 to Error,becaufe it feetns contrary to tiie Councils,and 
 Fathers, and the Schools. 4. It is not plainly and 
 raanifeftly Heretical This he proves largely, 
 
 Quefi". j^re the Divine Perfons confiltutedhy Rela- 
 tions^ and in what manner? Anfw. i. Relation 
 under the exprefs Form of Relation doth conftitutc a 
 Divine Perfon, in its real Being; without any A<^ 
 of the Mind. 2. The firft Perfon hath only two 
 Relations of Origination: The firft by which he 
 is related to the fecond Perfon, belongeth only to 
 the firft Perfon, and is called Paternity or Generation ^ 
 the fecond by which he is related to the third Per- 
 fon, is common to the firft and fecond Perfons, and 
 is called Jl^ive-Sfiration ^ it is nnmerically the fame 
 Spiration in the Father and Son. 3. The Relation of 
 Origination of the firft Perfon to the fecond, hath 
 really but one formal Reafon, even Paternity or 
 Generation. 4. The firft Perfon is not conftituted 
 by Relation to the Third. 5. The firft Perfonal En- 
 tity is conftituted by the Paternity or Generation. 
 
 In the following Conclufions he fhows, in what 
 Manner Relation doth conftitute a Perfon i in our 
 way of conceiving. Concl. i . If we conceive the firfl 
 Perfon in God by a corapleat Conception, we muft 
 needs conceive him Relatively •, namely the Father, as 
 a Father, 2. By an incompleat Conception we conceive 
 the firft Perfon, firft under the Notion of an fJypo- 
 fiafu or Perfon, then of Begetter •, and of Begetter, 
 before Father, For fo in created Beings, we conceive 
 firft a Suppofitum, then Begetter, then Father; this 
 is the natural Order of thefe Conceptions. 3. In 
 a compleat Conception the conflitutive Entity of the 
 Perfon of the Father is conceived under the Notion 
 of an Hyp£i/r4?;V/i//vrw,becaufe 'tis conceived under the 
 
 Notion 
 
Part II. concermng the Holy Trinity, 155 
 
 Notion of Generation^ and as Generation, before as 
 Paternity. 4. The Divine Perfons,i« the Order ofonr 
 unperfeB Conception^ are not conftituted by Relations 
 under the exprefs Form of Relations ^ but of Hypofati- 
 r^/ Forw/, as an Hypoftatical (or Perfonal) Form 
 abftrads both from Relation and AhfolHte^ and is in- 
 different to both. £ Hitherto clear and edifying Ra- 
 ela'y now again our Author himfelf.] 
 
 1 omit other thorny Queftions and Subtleties of 
 the SMaflics^ as alfo the Opinions ( and Reafons of 
 them ) that are contrary to thefe here mentioned ^ 
 but thefe I have reported, becaufe I have not elfe- 
 where found the Matter fo clearly and briefly 
 opened. 
 
 Scottts confefTes that, he makes Relation to be the 
 Material of Perfon, becaufe it is the leaft of Differen- 
 ces ', and in the moft perfect Vnity the leafi Diffe- 
 rence is the only true. [[But our Author likes not 
 thefe things •, he oppofe5 them, and anfwers to the 
 Reafons (aUedged for them) in fome Sections*, 
 but the whole is fo obfcured, by Scholaflic Terms, 
 and by Metaphyftcal Subtleties, that I fhall not trou- 
 ble the Englijh Reader with it: but the J^orr of his 
 Opinion, in plain EngU{h^ is. " The Divine Perfo^ 
 '^ nality is not to be placed in one or fome of thefe 
 '^ things, but in all of them. Radically^ in the Tri- 
 *' nity of Effentialities, Ltfe IntelU^ Wtll-^ then, in 
 " the threefold immanent Adl, even Self-living Self- 
 '^ knowing Self loving^ and the Relations thence arif- 
 *' ing: and laftly, ^roQ^^ion^W"^ \n Creation Redemp- 
 " tion and Santiificatton^ and (thereupon) God's 
 *' triple Relation ( of Creator, Redeemer, Sandi- 
 " fier) to us Men. He concludes thefe Riddles 
 with commending to the Reader the Sohloquium of 
 Henriciu de Hajfia, as an excellent Work*, and 
 which treaceth briefly and foundly of the Trinity.] 
 
 V ML The 
 
156 ji Scholajikk^ Dijfertation 
 
 VIII. The Explications by the Reformed Di- 
 vines. 
 
 ThQ Reformed have no difference with the Roma^ 
 m^s^ concerning the Trinity \ and are generally 
 more modeft, as well in their Determinations as En- 
 quiries, than the School- Doilorj. For the moft part 
 they contain themfelves, within the Bounds of Scrip- 
 ture-, and when they do not, they difTent from one 
 another, tho not fo much as the Romanifts, 
 
 Luther in his Common-f laces ^ p.8. contents himfelf 
 in a manner with a bare Propofal and AfTertion of 
 the Unity and Trinity. ZHingUm indeed objefls to 
 him fome Heterodoxes, in thefe Articles*, but they 
 feem rather Ohreption^tb^in formed Errors. See Zhw^* 
 Hus, Tom. 2. p. 475* 
 
 ZuingUm himfelf well explains the Myftery of the 
 Trinity^ Tom.i, f. 523, & 525. He illuftrates it 
 by the Trinity of Faculties in the Human Soul; and 
 fhows, why OMNIPOTENCE is appropriated to 
 the Father^ WISDOM to the Son^ LOVE to the 
 Spirit, 
 
 Mr. Calvin is niofl; Orthodox, in thefe Matters 5 Ge- 
 nebrard in vain quarrels with him, for his calling our 
 Saviour 'auto^@^ God of himfelf^ when the Ntcene 
 Creed faith God of God^ i. e. God the Son of God 
 the Father. Mr. Calvin has been well defended, as 
 to this, by the Divines ot Leiden-, and by Cardinal 
 BeUarmine, Mr. Cahin feems to doubt of the Expli- 
 cations and Illuftrations of the Trinity, by Human 
 Comparifons. He confefles however that, the Ho- 
 ly Scriptures diftinguifh, by attributing to the Fa- 
 ther the firfi Canfadty or beginning of Adion ^ to the 
 Son WISDOM, Counfel, and the Government of the 
 Things-, to the Spirit POWER, and Efficacy of 
 Adion. ^^^^ 
 
Part II. concernifjg the Holy Trinity, 157 
 
 BezM is altogether found *, he notes and blames 
 thofe (inept) ExpreflTions of divers Fathers, that 
 explain the Divine Unity as only a fpecific Vnity, 
 See Bez.a de Trinitate, in Tra(^. Theol. f^oL i, p, 
 i7<5. 
 
 P. Martyr fays very little of the Trinity, in his 
 Common-places-, and as well there, as in his other 
 Works, he agrees with the reft. 
 
 AntonitM Faym treats of thefe Articles more largely 
 and accurately. He faith, ** The Per fins differ from 
 '* the Ejfence, not really, but conceptively i- but 
 *' they are really diftinguifliM from one another, difp. 
 " 2. thef 8, & 30. and difp. 3. " Chrift is the 
 " WISDOM, and WORD of the Father 5 ia refpe<:t 
 " both of his Eflence, and Office of Mediator, difp, 
 2. thef 23. 
 
 ^ MhJcuIw^ a Divine of great Judgment and Since- 
 rity, fpeaks only known and certain things*, the 
 manner of the Eternal Generation he difmilTes as in- 
 fcrutable. But that the Trinity is not incredible in 
 Reafon, he proves by the Trinity of Facnlties in the 
 Human Soul ^ and by the Snhfiance Light and Heat of 
 the Solar Body. Loci comm. p. 12, 13, 14. 
 
 I fay the fame of BuHinger, who hath this PalTage, 
 Decad.^., Serm> 3. p. 272. " It is enough that, the 
 " Faithful believe and confefs (according to Scrip- 
 '^ ture and the Creed of the Apofiles ) one Divine Ef'^ 
 *' fence or Nature, in which are Father Son and Holy 
 *^ Spirit, Nor need we to be very folicitous, whether 
 *' they are called Suhflances^ Suhfiflences^ or Perfons \ 
 *' if we but exprefs their Difiinition, and Properties : 
 " fo confcffing the Unity, as not to confound the 
 *' Trinity, or deprive the Perfons of their Proper- 
 *' ties. And, c.2. p.275. '•'• Tht Creed of the Apof 
 " ties was publiQied, that none might controvert the 
 " Faith; or perplex it with needlefs Difputations, 
 " and Curioficies. 
 
 JUyricm 
 
158 ^A Scholaftkk^ Differtation 
 
 lllyricM recites feveral Senfes of the Word Logos j 
 given by others j and thinks them uncertain: he be- 
 lieves thi6 to be the moft probable, take it in his own 
 words. " B caufe the ChaUee Paraphrafe often ufes 
 " the Term Meimar or WORD, for Jehovah-^ and 
 " that the Chaldee W2s the vulgar Language of the 
 " Jews in the Age of our Saviour and the Apoftles : 
 " therefore St. Johrtj to fignify the Mejftjs is true 
 *' Jehovah, calls him (in GreekS) Logos', becaufe 
 ^^ Logos as uell as Meimar, is WORD. Clav. fcrif, f, 
 '^ 1247. And, CUv. part. 2. p. 615. he endeavours 
 to p'ove thn, the NamQ o( Jehovah^ firft revealed 
 to AfofeSy doth fignify that God Jha/l become Man : it 
 ouaht not f faith he) to be interpreted I am that I 
 am\^ but I will be, or he will be-, that is, he will be the 
 ( hicarnatt ) Redeemer, He faith alfo, '^ The ChaU 
 *-' dee Paraphrafl renders the Words of the Pfalmtfi, 
 " The LORD faid to hl^ WORD.^ fit on my right Handy 
 '* Pfal. I TO. I. And that J*f. John-, chap. i. verf, 
 ** I. having regard to the Words of A^ofes ( Gen. 
 *^ 1.) GodSAlD^ Let there be Light, and fo of the 
 *' reft-, therefore calls the 5c^;z the WORD. The 
 " Word Jehovah is ftill a Myftery to the Jews, be- 
 *' caufe Chrtfl is hid to them. There are three Per- 
 *•' fons, Father Son and Holy Spiric^ what they are, 
 " no words can exprefs. Clavtf. part, 2. p. 208. 
 
 Wigandus maketh Perfons to be a part of the Btfini- 
 rwwofGod-, and largely proves from Scripture the 
 common Faith, not medling with Niceties and Sub- 
 tleties. Syntag,p,/\^, 
 
 Zmchiiu iv, copious, and accurate. He faith, de 
 tribm Elohim lib, 8. c. i. p. 337. " A Divine Perfon 
 '' is nothing elfe but the £//>«cff as diftine^uiflied (and 
 " as it were individuated) by a Perfnal Property. 
 And p. 340. '' The FATHER is an Eternal, Sim- 
 *^ pie, mod Perfedi, Living-, JnteUeUnal, Folitive, 
 '^ and Vncommimicated Eilencej and thereby is a 
 
 *^ Perfon, 
 
Part IF. coftcernitfg the Holy Trinity. 159 
 
 '' Perfon, (imply Vnhegotten\ and generating the 
 '< Son^ by a Coramunication of himfelf that u^ gf 
 *' his own EJfence. The SON is an Eternal, moit 
 '* Simple, mod Perfect, Living^ Inteiligent^ Volmvc 
 " EITence *, but which was communicated to him b/ 
 ** an immanent and incompreheufible Ad of ihe Fa- 
 " ther, which the Scriptures have called Generation ^ 
 " and therefore he is a Perfon Bf^otten, by God the 
 '^ Father, from all Eternity. The Holy SPIRIT is 
 *' the fame Eternal Ejfence \ an EfTence mod Simple, 
 " moft Perfed, Livings Intelligent^ Folitiv€\ com- 
 '' municated to him by an ineffable immanent Adion 
 '' of the Father and Son ^ and therefore a Perfon^ 
 '^ proceeding (through all Eternity ) from the Father 
 " and the Son. He feems here ta diftinguifh a dou- 
 ble immanent Adtion of God 5 but whether thefe 
 Anions are really diftind, from the E (Fence or from 
 one another, or only notionally and conceptively, 
 he has not determined. He notes, Lib. i. p, 4, 
 *' The Fathers have confelTed that, one can difpute 
 '^ of no Subjed that is fo difficult, or dangerous, as 
 " this of the Trinity. 
 
 jHniHi^ Vol.1, p. 2012, 2013. faith*, "TheDi- 
 " vine Perfons are diftinguifhed from the EfTence, 
 " only conceptively •, but from one another, by red 
 " Diftindtion, which is the Ground of the Proper- 
 " ties and Relations. Farther, he dillinguifhes the 
 *^ inward Perfonal Ads> (Begetting, Breathing, 
 *' Proceeding and faith the Father begat the P^r- 
 " fon^ not the EfTence. p. 201 5. 
 
 Polantu has performed well 5 but he did not 
 throughly underftand the meaning of the School- 
 Dodors, whom he endeavours to follow. He faith, 
 Syntag, /. 3. c, 8. p. 224. *' The Relations of the 
 ^'' Perfons really differ from one another •, fo that the 
 " Father is one r^i«^, the Son another r/;/«^, theHo- 
 " ly Spirit a third thing : but from the Eflence they 
 
 '' differ 
 
l6o ^ Scholaflkk^ Dijfertation 
 
 *' dX^tT Modally^ and Formally, not Really. And, 
 p. 226, " Relation ow/y mate the Diftindiion ; z/?^ Re^ 
 *-' latton of the Perfons is a Mode of exlfting. He alTerts, 
 " mt\\ G abriel., a formal Diftindion; and with St. 
 " Thomas ihztj not every ( real) Relation maketh a 
 " Diftinclion (or Perionalicy ) but only an o/)pq/?rtf 
 *' Relation. But, i. Either he means Relations, as 
 including their Foundations, or as abftraded from 
 the Foundations : if the former, Relations are the 
 very Divine Eflence or Subftance ; if the latter, Re- 
 lation is notniog clfe but Comparability or Reference, 
 a mere Child of Reafon, not a Thing or Mode of a 
 Thing. 2. A real Diftindion, or as of one thing 
 from another things is not the fame as either Modal 
 OP Formal Diftindion ^ which are indeed in the Na- 
 ture of the things but not reaL Therefore when he 
 afterwards diftinguifhes the ElTence, as a thing from 
 its Modes^ he fpeaks Contraries. 
 
 Bucanm^ Loc i. p. lo. faysi The difference 
 (of the Perfons) is not, i. Eflential. 2. Nor 
 Rational, that is Conceptive Notional or Verbal on- 
 ly. Nor, 3. Refpedive •, as the fame Man may be 
 both Father and Spn. 4. It is real, but Incompre- 
 henfible. He explains it however, by a Mode of Ex ^ 
 ifience-^ and therefore, probably, he thought it Mo- 
 dal. 
 
 Vrfmpu and ?ar<zm^ in Catechefi^ fay nothing out 
 of the common Road ^ but intimate that, the diftin- 
 dion of the Perfons is Modal 
 
 Matth. Martinius^ a Divine of the firfl: Note, de 
 Symk p. 60. fays *, the Perfons are diftinguifhed r^- 
 aliy, \nOnomaflicoy in the word Perfon^ he faith*, 
 ^^ It is enough to Salvation to know that, Father 
 " Son and Spirit 2TQ three ^ and yet are bnt one God. 
 If this was fufficient to fo great a Man •, why do we 
 require more of the Unlearned ? Do we exped-, 
 they (hould underftand the nice Subtleties of the 
 
 Schools 5 
 
Part II. coticermftg the Holy Trwity. i6l 
 
 Schools-^ five Notions^ four real Relations^ three real op* 
 f fit e Relations^ tv^o Proc(ffii)nj in God. And that^ in 
 all this there is however but one 'tndifltnSb Eflerce. 
 That^ 2\\ Dillindions in God, buconlv th t o^" Per- 
 fons, are not real, but only conceptive and fatiitiofu, 
 Thaty tho the diftindlon of Perfuns is real^ yet they 
 are one iindifiingm[h^d Ellence i becaufe ihe^eis no- 
 thing in God but God. All this, fure, i^ not ne- 
 ceflary to Salvation. 
 
 Snecanus^ Method, de Deo, /^. 70, Sc 120. lays 
 down many mod ufeful Rules concerning the Triii- 
 ty; and but few Subtleties. Bat when he denies, - 
 the Father is a pyimiple with refped to the Son •, he 
 muft mean it of a temporary Principle. 
 
 G. Sohnitu^ tho a Divine of great acutenefs, has 
 faid only common things ; either in his Method, 
 Common-places, Thefes, or Exegefis. But in this 
 laft, f, 87. he fays wich fome Schoolmen, againft 
 forpe of ours; '*• The Father by communicating his 
 '' whole Eflence begat the Son, that is, another Per- 
 '' fonfromhimfelf^ and the Son, by receiving the 
 '' whole EiTejice of the Father, exifts, as Light of 
 " Light. And the fame of the Holy Spirit, f 88. 
 
 Ph. Melanchton^ after Luther^ finds many Traces of 
 the Trinity, in the Sun, and the Human Soul ^ and Si- 
 militudes of it, in the Arts, as in Aftronomy,in Mufic, 
 in Geometry, Arithmetic, Grammar. Loc. com. p.3,40 
 
 LudovicHs CrocitUy a Divine of great Reputation> 
 has many things (tn Symagm.) concernins; the At- 
 tributes; efpecially the LIFE, INTELLECT^ 
 WILL, and EXECUTIVE POWER. But in 
 truth, they are but three, A^ive't^ttal-Power^ InteU 
 , M, and Will, He faith not much of the Trinity i 
 "yet he faith. Generation is an immanent AEb, p. 696. 
 and that the Perfons are difting^uifhed from one ano- 
 ther really and aBually^ but from the EfTence.only 
 by an A<ft of Reafon. He concludes, the Trinity 
 
 M is 
 
1 62 AScholuUkk^ Dijjertation 
 
 is an infciu table Myftery *, to be adored, not fearch- 
 td. 
 
 Bifliop toavetiant^ as cited by Crocm \ '' It hath 
 *' been well and neceflarily determined that, God is 
 *' one in ElTence, trine in Perfons that are diftinft. 
 *' But a Man fhould deferve but little, either of the 
 *^ Church or of our Saviour, who would define or 
 ^* determine on either fide in the Difputesof the 
 *^ Schools \ concerning the manner of t\\Q Generation 
 '* or Procejfion. And, Deurm,2^, p. 112, 113. he 
 faith •, " A Relation fignifys only this or that Mode 
 ^' {ox manner) of having the Divine Nature. 
 
 Keckermafi, Sytt. Thcol. Lib.l. c. 3. follows the 
 SchiflafttcSy and is of their number, who fay> The 
 Perfons are Rdations and Modei h and that the Ads 
 of Speakings and of Breathing or Loving, are the 
 Foundations of the Relations. He rejeds the real^ 
 and formal, and merely conceftive Diftindions, of 
 the Perfons *, preferring the Modal : and therefore 
 explains what a Mode is, tho by Inflances not very 
 congruous. 
 
 Beftmlerns^ a Divine that underftood the ufefulnefs 
 of vvell-chofe Method, TheoLLtb.^. p. 50,51. pre- 
 fers the Definition of a Perfon by Jnafiafm and C>- 
 W/, before all others \ The Perfons differ^ or are di- 
 ftinghifh^d from one another truly, but not really, each 
 by his Mode of ftdbfiHing, And, p. 52. they are di- 
 ilingm^nd by Relation^ and a certain manner of fub' 
 filing. He affirms^ 'tis improperly faid that •, the 
 ElTence begets or comwunicates the Eflence, or the Ef- 
 fcnce emanes from the Eflence. 
 ' Trelcatiuij Inftit. Lib, i. p. 38. fays 5 " The di- 
 '*- ftindion of Perfons ( in the Unity of the Ef- 
 ^' fence) isreal And, p. 39. "The Eflence is di- 
 ^^ fl:inguifhed from the Perfons, not as a thing Uom 
 *^ other thin^i^Sy but as a thing from the Jldodes of a 
 ■'^ thing : for the Perfons are M^des of the Divine 
 
Pa r t II. c0»cerM^g the Holj Trinity, 1 5 1 
 
 ** EfTeiKe; from which they are difJ^reoced, cot hf 
 " a r^al Diftinftion, or by mere CQactftisn, bilx, ^^ 
 *' the Z?f^ri?tf or Mode of a tbing. Bur when he 
 faith, the Diftindion of the Perfons froM one ano- 
 ther is rcai'^ and afcerwards, *tis in Degrte ^nd 
 Mode : Either he thinks, Degne and Mode is 2n En- 
 tity or things or he does not lafe the term real Di- 
 ftindtion in a S<holafilc fenfe, or he contradlcisi 
 himfelf. But he well dtfcribes the Trinity of Attri- 
 butes. 
 
 Dudl. Icenntrtii concerns himfelf with cioGotitr<3J- 
 verfies ^ and Wenddinm affirms that, a Mode of fi#- 
 lilting doth not conftitute a Perfon. 
 
 Maccoviai ^ Colltg. Th^oL fpe^ks prc^perlyi 
 '' 'Tis asked, Miy Perfoii in the Abflr^ b^ c^Vi&A, 
 " a Mode f { would not affirm it diredly 5 teca^^fs 
 *^ a Mode is always pofterior to the thing ex beings 
 ** of which it is the Mode : Which muft not bi faid 
 " of God. And yet there is nothing dfe by whicM 
 " we can better eXprefs, or co-nc€i\?e, a P^rfctjiUtf 
 *' in God. For if Perfonality is really iaC.odj it h 
 ** Ellence, or Accident, or Mode i there is no fotirtli; 
 'l^l^ut it is not ElTerice, for then there ihoiuld be 
 W^three EiTences ; nor Accident, for that vvo.uidtskc 
 *' away the Simplicity of Godi ft is therefore ^ 
 ** Modcj but Mode atialogically^ not properly-,^ 
 '* taken ^ and it is, as faich DMrnafcsnt aa Etef/iat 
 *' Mode. 
 
 Gomarm faith, a Perfon is d Beiti^^ that liAtU Hi. 
 proper Mode of Exiftence \ and not only a M'>de of 
 Etifting^ Bat he fpeaketh thk of Perfon in ciie 
 Concrete^ Or as it includeth the Eifeoce \ p.et of per- 
 sonality. He engages in no Oiffioskiei. L^c. 3. , 
 
 Sch/trpius^ Gurf.TIieoL f. 211. hath the fkiae M<>^ 
 tion» A ?Qr{on^ faith he^ is a Beicg that hath M 
 proper Mode of £:sciftixig^ ^tnd is sotsnly a Mode of 
 
 Id i Fih 
 
164 ^ Scholaftkk^ D'jjfertation 
 
 Fefi. HommtHs^ Difpv. n.d. fays •, *' In the ISlicene 
 *' Creed, Chrift is called God of God, Light of Light •, 
 *' not in refped of his Eflence, but Perfon. 
 
 Onto, Idea Theol. difp. 5. f. 40. faith ^ " The 
 " Divinity contradtcd is analogically called a Perfon \ 
 '^ the Perfons are diftinguilhed by PropertieSy and 
 ** the Properties arife from the Ads proper to the 
 \*' Perfojis : The Perfons are reaHy diftinguiflied 
 '^ from one another, that is, not conceptively on- 
 '' ly. He hath not ventur'd to fay any thing of Per^ 
 foviality, 
 
 AmefiM^ Mcdul. Theol. 1. i . c, 4. n. 26, faith > 
 *^ The Divine Attributes are in God, not only vir^ 
 "-^ tnally^nd eminently^ but formally. But, ». 28. he 
 fays alfo^ '' They are diftinguifh'd from the EITence 
 *' and from one another ratione ratiocinata^ or fo 
 ^' that the Foundation of the DiJiMion is in God. 
 But, I. Foundation is an ambiguous word i and fig- 
 nifies, either that there is a certain true Diverflty and 
 Difference in the thing t or only that, there is an Oc- 
 cafion^ without Difference in the thing *, as, when it 
 is diftinguiihed by inadequate (or partial) Con- 
 ceptions. 2. The Diftindlion of ratio ratiocinata is 
 of the laft fort > but modal, formal^ and real Diftinc- 
 tion, is of the other fort. Chap. 5. He diftinguilhes 
 StibfBences from the EJJencey as Modes of Sn^ filing 
 ( not as Modes of Being ; J and from one another by 
 Relative Properties^ or Relative AfFedions. He 
 faith, as do others, the difference between Genera- 
 tion and Proceffion is inexplicable : But that, it may 
 be in a fort explained by this Similitude •, the Father 
 is (as it were j GOD KNOWING, the Son GOD 
 THE INTELLECT, the Holy Spirit GOD LO- 
 VED. Somewhat like the SchoUflks. 
 
 Polyander^ in Synopfi Lcidenn,'Difp. 7. F; 7^» 
 fiyss " A Mode of Subfifting doth nor r^^/^^ dillin- 
 *^ guiili Perfon from Ejfance, but only notion ally or 
 
Part II. cofieerfjifjg the Holy Trifjiiy. 165 
 
 *^ conceptively. N. 28. But the Perfons are diftin- 
 '*■ guifhed from one another, not by a Conception 
 *' of our Reafon, but really. ;V.2o. But the Man- 
 *' ner is rather to be adored, than fearched. 
 
 WaUm^ Ibid. Difp. 8. recites the Explications of 
 the Fathers, by the Adts of IntelltEt and Will \ and 
 doth not reject them. And, ». 16. he faith. The 
 Father communicated his whole Eflence to the Son by 
 this Eternal Generation. 
 
 Thyfi$ii^ Ibid. Difp. 9. n. 10. faith; "ProcefTion 
 " is to be underftood as an immanent Adtion in the 
 *' Eflence of God, whereby God fo adeth in the 
 "^ Eflence, that being replied on himfelf, he mak- 
 " eth a Relation by communication of the Divine 
 " Efl^ence. f ^^^ ^^^^ myftical Flourifh is nothing 
 but this 5 Proceflion is God's reflex Ad of Love, or 
 his SELF-COMPLACENCE.] Upon this of Thy- 
 fihs we may note •, Either this -^(f? is the fame with 
 the Perfon^ or not the fame. If the fame^ then the 
 Attributes and Effential ACts are the Perfons: for 
 God's Lovey and to love^ and to love himfelf^ are the 
 fame in God : and God's Intelieci, and to under fland^ 
 and to underftand himfelf, are alfo the fame. But if 
 they fay, the Ad is not the fame with the Perfon, then 
 they muft firft diftinguifh the Attribmes and the Ef- 
 femial AEis from one another \ and after fay, the Re- 
 lations arife from them. 
 
 Spanhemitu^ Difp. Th.de Trin. p. 45. n. 6. fays^ 
 *^ The Perfons are diftinguifh'd from the ElTence, 
 *' not by a real Diftindion : but by a formal^ or a 
 " modaly or a conceptive-^ but he determines not by 
 which of thefe. But, as AmefiHs^ he miftakes 
 the meaning of the Diftindion Rattone ratioclnata : 
 He thinks, 'tis fuch Diftindion as hath its Founda- 
 tion in the Things when indeed it doth not fignify a- 
 ny difference in ih^ thing it felf Again, he diftln- 
 guifhes the Perfons, in refpedt, i. Of their Or ^f?-. 
 
 M 3 2, Of 
 
^66 A SMaJifcl[ Dfjjertaffon 
 
 2, Of tkir P/oprtiesj and Perfonal Operation^ 
 $, 0( their mamer of operating, in the EJfentiaJi 
 Wyylq. 4. Of the Terms of operating, or the Ob-^ 
 fe5is sn which they operate. 5. Of their mutual Rela- 
 fioo^ n ig. He faith farther, the Proceffion of the 
 Holy Spirit from the Father and Son, is not in refpedt 
 of BTenc€,biit of Perfononly : and yet he faith, the 
 Explication of the Generation and Proceflion, by 
 fhe A& of Intellr^ and Will, do rather perplex 
 than expound thofe Secrets, ft, j6. And he faith, 
 k^St.Jftfim^ he doth not know how to diftinguilh 
 them, n, ip. He faith^ contrary to St. Aufiin^ and 
 the Schools ^ Relations are not the eonflitHtive Princi- 
 pk? of the Perfons, but only the notifying. He adds, 
 a M'^de h x\k6. bot improperly in defcribing the Per- 
 fons, n. 2 J. E^Bot he means, 'tis not in allrefpedts 
 the fame in God and Creaturei 3 butfo neither hter- 
 fm^ or any of the other Terms.] 
 ' The Thefes Sedanenfes^ de Trin, n. 7. p. 90. pionfly 
 fay y ^* The Dpdrine of the Trinity has for its end, 
 •'^ rather the comforting anci ftrerigthning the Con- 
 *' fcience, than ipRroding the Mind. And, f. p. 
 **- It ;s peculiar to this Controverfy that, not onjy a 
 " Miftake iseafifymade, and the Truth is hard to 
 - be I'oand j bnt even when found, is not propofed 
 *^ ard pablrihed without danger : For a true Expli- 
 '* cation, lefs accurately or properly exprefl, mini- 
 ^^ flersoicc^nonof Calumny and Accnfation to the 
 *^ Mcliciou?, and of Miftake to the Unlearned. The 
 *• faftft way is, to keep clofe to ScriftHre^ and the 
 *^ meafureofKnowledg there revealed ; and that too 
 ^* in as ft w words as may be: left we feem to fpeak 
 * things that are indeed ineffable, and withal for- 
 *-"- bid<j^n, ' N, j%. Jt is fufficient to prove the E$er' 
 *' ftity of the Son, that he is called (Frev. 8. arid 
 ♦V >!?» I,) the WISDOM and WORD of the Fa- 
 *^ ther: FoMhe Father, all will grant, never wa$ 
 
Part 1 1. concermng the Holy Trinity. 1 67 
 
 *' without WISDOM ^ or his inward WORD, which 
 *' is nothing elfe but the WISDOM of the Father. 
 See alfo N, 20,21,22. 
 
 Lud. CapellHs^ in Thef. Salmurienf. /^o/, i. ft. 11. 
 p. 119- fays; *' A Perfon differs from the EOence, 
 *' not really, but only conceptively : as a Mode of 
 *' a Thing, from the Tking ^ for example, as a ^^^r^* 
 '' of Heat, from Heat. But the Perfbns are really 
 '' differenced from one another, as the Mode of a 
 '^ Thing from other Modes of it *, as in example, 
 ** one degree of Heat from another. But this is 
 more than concepive Diftindion. He hath befides, 
 St TV. 23, & 181. forae notable Exceptions*, againfl 
 the Explication by the immanent Adts of the IntelhEi 
 and Will : but having been already more prolix than 
 I intended, I (hall omit them. 
 
 Mtingiut., Loc, Com. pag. ^6. fpeaks cautioufly \ 
 " The Perfons are not really diftind from the Ef- 
 *' fence, but eminently by an AB of Reafon ^ but from 
 ^' one another really^ but not effentially, or ft^arahly. 
 The Eflence, he faith farther^ is not generated, but 
 communicated, 
 
 P. Foetifu^ Theol. Natural, has abridged almofl: 
 the whole Theology of the Schools, concerning the 
 Trinity, and the Divine Attributes. But the Rea- 
 der may condder ; whether what he fays c.j. j'. 4. 
 n. 2, 3,4. p, 1 1 5, 117. agrees with n, 7,8. p. i2o« 
 l^But on the whole, f^oetiw is both learned and accu- 
 rate. Note, \th Pauiyoetim^ not Gilbert.'] 
 
 D. Chamier, Panftrat. de Trin. 1. i. vindicates 
 Mr. Calvin \ who had wi(hed,on certain Conditions, 
 that the terms Trinity and Perfons were buried, c, 2. 
 He proves that, the Subftance or Deity is not a Rela- 
 tion, c. 3. ^.35. And he proves largely that, the 
 terms WORD, and IMAGE, zxq figurative^ againft 
 Suarez^ Gontier^ and others, c. 8,9. He faith, The 
 Divines of tht Schools have proved that, there is not 
 
 M 4 one 
 
1 68 \A Scholjjlhk^ Dijfertatkn 
 
 one word (but £w/, or a Being) ufed univocally, or 
 in the fame fenfe^ concerning God and the Crea- 
 tures : And yet fome pleafe tbemfelves, he faith^ in 
 barkingmadly againft the Sober, who cannot agree 
 to their F'olly and Ignorance, in averting that 
 WORD and IMAGE are fpoke of God and the 
 Creatures univccally. The Reafons of Suarez and 
 Cornier are like other vain Subtleties of the Schools j 
 they fay, in fhort ^ *VWe mull diftinguifh between 
 'V the Kmwledg of Cod fallen Umply, and his knowing 
 '' by way of the Internal W ORD '^ the firft is common 
 *' to the whole Trinity, the other is terminated on 
 *'• the Internal IVord. And God's fpaking (fay 
 ^ they) antecedeth his WORD, that is,, his A' «on?- 
 *^ ifdi'^ ^s ScotHs and the Scotifts (beiides others) ■ 
 " te;ich. God*s f^eak^ng is his thinking, as the 
 .'' School- Dehors teach ^ his WORD is, as ic were, 
 ** an intelligible Sfecies received. As if God, like us, 
 properly thonght ; or k^ows^ by receiving a Species^ and 
 not by one molt perfedt Intuition. And as if in God, 
 freaking were one thing, and under pending another \ 
 or h^s /7».'p/<? Sdfknowledg different from his Self- 
 knoixledg by way of WORD ••> and that in freper fpeak- 
 ing. Saith Chamier again, r. 8. n. 6, " if I fhould 
 '' grant that, the inward SPEAKING is termi- 
 ** naced on the inward WORD-, which yet is an 
 *' extravagant Battology, becaufe the Terms are the 
 '^ fame 5 yet the Internal S^eahing^ and the Internal 
 ** Wordy is a mere crackle of Words, differing in 
 " found, not in flgnification. A bold infult onjthe 
 whole finenefs of the Schools! But fee alfo what he 
 fays c. ip. where he proves thatj as to external 
 Works the Father is the firfl Principle of A^ion^ the 
 Sou the Second, the Spirit the Third , yet not three 
 Principles rf^/Zj' diftind, but one. 
 
 Marefim^ yet more boldly and remarkably, Co^' 
 'In. Loc. com, Theol, 3. ». 22. fays , ^' Altho the 
 
 '^ three 
 
Part II. concerning the Holy Trimty, 1 69 
 
 ** three Terfonal Properties may be exprefTed by the 
 *^ Relative Term^ of Fat her y Son, and Spirit: Yet 
 ^' the Relation?, P<»^tfr«/y, Fi/»Wio«. adive and paf- 
 '** five SpiratioH, are untruly by forae SchoUflics cal- 
 *' led Rf4/ Entities^ and by others, Subftances .fiib- 
 *'^ fining of them/elves '^ from which Miftake of theirs^ 
 ^' have come all their Difputes about the Divine Re- 
 '' Utions. For a Relation, confider'd precifely and 
 '' abftradlly, is a mere refpeSit of one thing to ano- 
 ^' ther : which refpe^ tho it hath a real Foundation 
 '^ in the thing, and the habitude of things towards 
 ^' one another 5 yet (in aEin exercito) it always de- 
 *' pends on the Operation of the Underflanding, as 
 *' referring, orelfe oppofing one to the other ac- 
 " cording to their natural Difpofition and Habi- 
 '' tude. N. 23. And feeing according to the Meta- 
 '' phyficians, the Abfolnte Properties of a Being are 
 *•' not real Beings ^ How fhould the Relative Properties 
 '' of Perfonsbe Real Entities or Beings ? The Per* 
 ^^ fons indeed in God are conftituted by Relations, 
 " as confidered in their Foundation 5 which fome 
 ^' C2^ the Manner of Founding: and not as confider- 
 **• ed in their External, Denominative, and Refpedtive 
 " (^S^'^'i or) Being. Paternity, as it is the Relati- 
 " on of the Father to the Son, doth not make the 
 ^^ (Perfon of the) Father, but only denotes that 
 *^ he is Father by his Generation of the Son. 1 per- 
 ceive by this. Friend Marefia^ has read the School" 
 Dolors \ and that in Metaphyiics and Logics, he 
 does not take Nam-s for Things : But the Romanifls- 
 will call thee Heretic. They will take it uncivilly 
 that thou wile not know, or not obferve, that the 
 Divines of the Schools don< t by Reliiion underftand 
 Relation propeiiv fj caljed \ b..t fcaieihing that can 
 neither beexprdfed, nor underftood ; and yet that, 
 they may wri:e numerous Voluilies of what is not to 
 be underllood. 
 
 Arfniniw^ 
 
I JO s4 SchvUJluk^ Differtatwn 
 
 Armimui^ Difp. 4. p. 187. fpeaks as the reft do. 
 I fay nothing of the Tritheifm of CnrcelkHi ; nor of 
 the Minority of the Son in refpedof the Father, af- 
 fcrted by Efifcoftm, But it is remarkable what this 
 laft advifcs, concerning rejeding all the SchoUftic 
 Quetlions and Difputations about thefe Matters, and 
 of the Trouble and Vexation they gave to him and 
 others. See of this, his Inflttut, q. i^, p. 537. & 
 c. 32. p. 333. See alfo what he faith, c. 24.&35. 
 of the Ind'fference of belieVing the manner of the 
 Divine Filiation of Chrift. And in truth, if the 
 many Diflendonsof the School- Doftors, are damn- 
 ing to one of the Parties ; thefe famous Difputers are 
 m a bad Condition. Wo to the World, if every 
 one iliall be damned, who is uQt more fubtle than 
 the Scotifls^ Ock^mifis-, and the reft. Thefe Dam- 
 ners and Heretic makers reprefent our Lord Chrift, 
 as a monftrousTyranr, rather than a Saviours and 
 as a teacher of Subtleties, not of pradical Truths. 
 
 See the 27 Differences, obferved by l^oetius^ be- 
 tween a Divine and Human Perfon. Theol, Natural. 
 o 5. S. 2. p. 52, &c. 
 
 Not farther to trefpaf? on the Patience of the Rea- 
 der, I advife him to read the Corpus Confefftonum of 
 the Proteftant Churches ; that he may fee how much 
 (according to them) is neceffary to be believed in 
 thefe Qiieltions. 
 
 I will conclude with the words of Gratins, in Ca^ 
 
 techffi, 
 
 Quefi. What reafon have you to believe Three in 
 One ? 
 
 Anfw. Finite cannot comprehend Infinite. 
 
 ^ But is there no lik^ntfs any where, of the 
 Great Three-one f 
 
 A. The Sun, his Light, and Heat, are Three and 
 but One. 
 
Part II. cottcerrjwg the Hdj Trimip l^\ 
 
 ^ Is there not the Image of the Maker in Man 
 alfo? 
 
 j4. To Live^ Vnderfiand^ and Wtli^ are Three in 
 One. 
 
 Queft.VIII. In this diver fity of Opnions) What 
 is your own Judgment of the Trinity of Pri» 
 malities and Perfbns compared f 
 
 Anfw» We have faid wherein they agree \ the reft 
 may be exprefied in thefe Thefes 
 
 1. Nothing (hould be propofed, as necefary to be 
 believed, but what is certain. 
 
 2. Nothing is necejfary to be believed in thefe Mat- 
 ters, but what is comprehended in the meaning of 
 the Baftifmal Covenant^ and may be underflood by 
 /?i/ fincereChriftians. 
 
 3. It is c^rMfw that, the moral Image of God, is 
 the Hoiinefs of the w^fwr^/ Image: Which noral 1- 
 mage is a Trinity oi fpiritital LIFE, KNOWLEDG, 
 and LOVE5 in the Unity of the Spirit or Soul. 
 
 4. k is certain that, there is a Trinity of Principles 
 or FacHlties in the Unity of the Edence, in Man-^ 
 the Image of God. 
 
 5. It is certain that, the Motive Lum'moui 
 and CakfaEiive POWER of the Sun, and the ^ttal 
 Intelkaive and Fohnve Virtue or POWER of the 
 Human Soul, arc thcEffential and Formal Differences 
 of the Sun and Soul : Yet they make no Compofjtton 
 in the EfTence, nor are Parts of h h but the whoh 
 ElTcnce is Life or Vital, and fo of the reft, the not 
 wholly. And yet thefe Faculties are necellarily to be 
 diflingHtjh^d from one another ^ for who doth not 
 diftinguifh the Motive Illuminative and Calefadivc 
 Virtues, or the Vital Intelkaive and Volitive 
 Powers ? 
 
 6. No 
 
172 ^ Scholafih\ DiJJertatim 
 
 6. Nobody qaeftions that, the Proceflional or Ex- 
 ternal ^^s of the Soul are dtftinguifljedby (or ac- 
 cording to) their Objeds ^ and therefore alfo the 
 Powers or Facnlties (from whence thofe A dts pro- 
 ceed ) are diitinguilhed, comotativtly^ by (or ac- 
 cording to) the Gbjedls: So that InteHed, Wi!!, 
 and Vital- A<5live-Power, which is executive, are 
 undoubtedly diftinguifh^d. 
 
 7. Not only the External, but the immanent Ads 
 sre to be diftinguifli'd •, fo that to ^(J? vitally^ to ««- 
 derfiand and love him felf, are not altogether the 
 fame. To Uve^ to l^ow that I Live^ and to will to live^ 
 one clearly and certainly perceives that they are not 
 the fame. And in like manner, to underftandy to 
 will to Hndtr^and ( and fo of the reft ) are not one 
 another. 
 
 8. Tho we are certain that, here is a difference ^ 
 yet what it is, or how to exprefs it, we cannot find : 
 one may fay with Ockam^ it is better perceived by 
 mental Intuition^ or fome Internal Senfe^ than by Or- 
 ganical and Verbal Explication •, but the Diffe- 
 rence is not to be denied, becaufe it cannot be de- 
 Sned. 
 
 p. It is certain that, as was before faid ; the Soul 
 both in Nat HraU and Morals is the Image of God : 
 and therefore the Image by which Man is like to God, 
 confiftsin this Trinity in Unity; in the Adive- Vi- 
 tality, Intelled, and Will, in theoneEflenceof the 
 Soul. As by that, he is the Natural Image of God, 
 as is faid. Gen. 9. 6, and isdiftinguiftied by it from 
 Brutes: fo Holy Men are diftinguifhed from Wick- 
 ed, by God's Moral Image in them *, even the S^iri. 
 tnal Lik, Light, and Love, that is begot in them by 
 Grace. 
 
 10. It is certain that, only E»f or Being, no other 
 thing can be fpoke of God and Creatures Vnivocally\ 
 or in the fame Senfe v and that no Mortal can have a 
 
 proper 
 
Partir. cof7CtrmngiheHolyTriT7iiy\ ij^ 
 
 proper and formal Conception of God, and yet lef? 
 can exprefs it : we muft neceilarily conceive of God 
 by equivocal and improper Conceptions 5 all our 
 Terms and Words concerning God are Metafhorical, 
 For tho tiie thing exprefled is primarily and emi- 
 nently in God'i yet the Notion of ours that exprefTes 
 it, is primarily in the Creature, the moft famous 
 StgnijicAtion (as Grammarians fpeak) is in the cre- 
 ated thing. . 
 
 11. Becaufe we mull: fpeak of God metafhorkdty 
 and improperly^ we can borrow our improper and 
 metaphorical Exprefllons and Conceptions from no 
 other thing fj well as the Human Soiil. We have 
 no other Natural G/i^//, as faith the Apoftle, in the 
 prefent Lire^ m which we can fee God more clearly; 
 and certainly it was not for nothing that the Soul of 
 Man is called, in Scripture, and by God himfdf, the 
 Lik^nefs i^nd Image of God 
 
 12. It is certain that, the Lord Chrirt: (I fpeak 
 here of him as Man) is the moft perfect Image of 
 God, known to m ; who had therefore natural and 
 y4ȣ?^]z"e^ Faculties, as a Trinity in Unity. 
 
 13. Neither i> it to be [lighted that, we fee the 7V^- 
 ces of the Maker in all created Nature : every Afiive- 
 Nature is formally conftituted, of one Stibftance •, and 
 of one formal Power in the Subftance or Ellence, 
 which yet procefTionally is threefold; as was noted 
 before, in my Anfwerto th^ fourth Queflion. 
 
 14. Therefore, either we muft fay nothing at all 
 of God ; or we muft fpeak of him, from the Glafs 
 before defcribed : that he is one in fubfiantial Ef. 
 fence, and one in formal Power or Virtue-, which 
 Power proceftionally or objectively is triple. This 
 Trinity in Unity is certain-, but the Notion or 
 Manner of it, is not clearly and formally known : 
 but a certain thing is not to be denied, becaufe the 
 manner of it may be above us. 
 
 I J. And 
 
 I 
 
174 ^ Svholufikk^ DiJprtatioH 
 
 15. And therefore again "'tis no wonder there is 
 here fo great Diverfity of Opinion. Whether 
 thefe Attributes differ from the ElTence and from 
 one another really: or only in the Nature of the thingy 
 namely Formally, or Modally : or only Firtually^ by 
 inadequate Conception, called Ratione ratiocinata\ 
 or comotatively^ by extrinfecal Denomination, cal- 
 led Ratione rattccwame. But almoft all agree that, 
 a good account of the Difference of Conceptions, is 
 given from the thing it/elf, 
 
 16. What are the fame with a thirj^ are alfo the 
 fame among themfelvess but no farther than they ar6 
 the fame with thefaid Third: fo the Attributes and 
 Perfons, fo far as they are the fame with the Eflerice, 
 are the fame with one another. 
 
 17. He that will not diliinguifh the IntelleU of 
 God, from the Will^ tnuft hot difcourfe of God. 
 Would he preach, as the Scriptures fpeak, to Edifi- 
 cation ^ or deferve well of God, and the Churchy 
 whofhould teach, ^W God, inhimfelf, and with re- 
 fpedt to his own Ad, equally loves Himfelf and the 
 Creature, Holinefs and Impiety, Peter and Jndds-^ 
 or that his IViU to fave and to damn, is the fame •, 
 or that his KnowUdg of Sin, is the fame with Willing 
 of Sin ^ becaufe in Truth Intelle^ and Will'm God are 
 altogether the fame ? 
 
 18. Altho the ESfe^ the V^erum^ and Boniitn of 
 God-, as Metafhyficians fpQaky are the fame: yet 
 after the Manner and Glafs of the Creature, we 
 mud fay that, to live, to underftand himfelf, to 
 love himfelf, are not the fame in God; that is, 
 are not the fame necefTary Buman Concepion 6f 
 God. 
 
 19* Relation, meant univocatly and intelligibly, as 
 diilinguiih*d from its Foundation^ has no greater En- 
 tity (or Reality) befides what it has in mental Con- 
 ception* shaft Facdties or Powers ss diftind front 
 
 thek 
 
Pan If. concerning the Holj/ Trinity. 175 
 
 their Subltances h no nor any greater real piiTerence 
 from other Relation. 
 
 20. If the Relations \n God have a greater Diffe- 
 rence or DiiVmdion from one ?nother, than the ^t^ 
 tributes ^ it will become more hard to anfwer to their 
 Obje6tion,who fay, it doth not agree with the Divine 
 Simplicity. The Trinity of VrimaUtUs is not more 
 contrary to the Divine Simplicity^ than the Trinity of 
 Real Relations which are the fame with the Silence. 
 
 21. They that fay, the Perfonal Relations cr Per- 
 fons really differ from one another \ while ihey differ 
 from the Effence, only by an Acl of Reafn , can by 
 no means deny the fame of the Vnmdmts, [He 
 means, the Life ImelltCi and Love in God, or the 
 Vital InttlleUive and Volitive Powers^ are not lels re- 
 ally diftingiiidied from one another ^ tho they differ 
 from the EJfence only by an Aft of Reafon *, than the 
 Vital Intelleftive and Volitive ACTS are.] 
 
 22. They that fay, the Foundations of the Perfo- 
 nal Relations r^^/Zy difflr from one another j either 
 make the Foundations (them only, or them with 
 the Relations,) to be Perfons -^ ox fuppofe fome o- 
 ther real Diftinftions in God befides the Relations. 
 And becaufe they hold the Foundations are the imma- 
 nent ACis^ Cthe Adis of Self-living, Self-knowing, 
 Self-loving.3 and every immanent Ad of God is the 
 ElFence •, they teach a real Difference in Ahfolutes. 
 [But the learned Author did not confider there, 
 that '-, the immanent Adts are not the Edence fimply, 
 but are faid to be the Eifence, only becaufe they arc 
 the Bjfence acting: and therefore tho thofe A els are 
 rf^/Ty diftind, this doth not make a real Diftindion 
 in AbfolHtes.'} 
 
 ^ 23. But if there be no Difference in the Founda- 
 tions of the Relations, neither real nor in the Nature 
 of the thing \ it cannot be underftood, how real Rela- 
 tions (hould arife without any Difference in the Fun- 
 damentals, 
 
l-jG .A SckoJajikk^ Dijfirtation 
 
 damentals, Subjcifl:, or Term *, and a thing altoge- 
 ther the fame would be really Relatively diftinguiflied^ 
 without Connotation of Externals. 
 
 24. They that allert a Modal Diltindlion, and 
 Modes of Exiltence, while they deny Accidents^ fay 
 no more than we plainer Men ^ namely, that there is 
 a Difference, but of what fort they know not. For 
 by diftinguifhing the Mode of a Thing from the 
 Things both SHbjiantial and Occident aly thty fay no- 
 thing diftin(ft, but confufed. T.hey that make a 
 Mode fomewhat between fomething and nothings tell 
 o^ four fuch Sorts of Modes: but Gaffendm and 
 others the befl Philofophers fay now, all Accidents are 
 either the Modes ox Qjialitieso{ Subftances. There- 
 fore they confefs that they know not what a Mode is, 
 in that they are not able to explicate it to others. 
 
 25. It is certain that, there is neither Gompoli- 
 tion, nor Imperfection in God. 
 
 16. And the School-Divines confefs that, a Plu- 
 rality of real Relations and Hypoftafes in God, is 
 no way contrary to the Divine Simplicity. Nor is 
 ii difcernable by Reafon, how a mere Relation, tho 
 predicamertal, fhould infer Compofition or Imper- 
 fection. If among the Antipodes there area thou- 
 fand People like ox «»/% to me, there arifes hereby 
 to me no Imperfedion or Compofition, Some fay, 
 the Creatures are Related (or referred^ to God, 
 not he to the Creatures *, others that, Pvelations are 
 attributed to God fecmdum diet, or Verbally and No- 
 tionally •> others that, the Relations are real, but 
 Tranfcendental ^ others, they are Predicamental, 
 even with refped: to the Creatures : but none of thefe 
 think that, there is hereby any Compofition in God. 
 And fure, if it made God to be imperfedt or com- 
 pounded, that we fay he is relatively a Cvcuox '-, thqn 
 to create mull alfo make him impertedt and com- 
 pounded : for to be a Creator is nothing elfe but to 
 be fJe who doth create, 27. The 
 
Part it. cbfjcerfiitjg the Holj Trinity. tyj 
 
 27. The dim Human Mind hath Ideas of Perfe^i- 
 ori, by which too many judg raflily of the Divine 
 Perfedion^ without knowing whether thefe Notions 
 do quadrate to the Divine Perfedion. Thus the 
 Arians think, a Ttinity of Perfons is contrary to the 
 Divine Simplicity : when it is God only that knows 
 his own PerfeAion v and no Difference of Attributes,^ 
 Adts, Properties, Relations, Perfons, that is clear- 
 ly affirmed of God^ in the Word of God, can imply 
 any Imperfedion or Corapofitiori. 
 
 28. Altho the Notions and Terms oi Atitvi'Lif$ 
 imeiUEi and WUl^ fpoken or conceived of God and 
 Creatures, are not Univocal \ but Analogical or Me- 
 taphorical: yet becaufe in the prefent Life we have 
 none more proper, it is neceffarily to be held that,' 
 God livttb^ Hnderfiandeth^ and wilkth. And bc- 
 caufe from Eternity there was no other Objedb bat 
 himfelf, we muft fay that •, as he is Self-livings fo h« 
 mderftandeth himfdf^ and willetb ( or loveth ) lninU 
 felf: but herein is no Gompofition, or red Divcrfit]^ 
 of the Agent, Acft, or Objed. 
 
 29. As Life is the firft Adf , the fame with the LU 
 ver\ fo in the Image it hath fome Influence on the la- 
 teiled and Will : and as the Notion of Life, pre* 
 cedes the Notion of Intelled v fo ic muft be faid, t 
 under fi and and will^ hecanfc I live \ not I live, becaufe 
 I underftand and will. Intelled alfo is prior ( in the 
 Order of conceiving) to Willi and the Vital-Adi 
 produceth the Ad of Intelledion, the VitaUndla^ 
 ceiledive Ad produceth the Volitive. 
 
 30. An Ad, conceived without z Vital-Adi?c- 
 Power^ is either of an imperfed Agent, orisaairti- 
 perfed Conception •, for a Stone may ad. I wonder 
 therefore that, fome Metaphyfttians are afraid they 
 fhould impute Imperfedion to God, if with the J^k 
 they aifo attributed to biman Adivc-P^tr^r: for ii 
 tcry Deed v^c cau have ao higher or taorc perfeft' 
 
 N ^ €oart 
 
178 A Scholaffkk Dijfertalwfi 
 
 Conception of God than that, he is an Infinite Vir- 
 tue and Power, always and moft perfcftly in Ad*, 
 ic is the true Conception of a molt perfect Spirit. 
 
 31. He that (hall well confider the ways of diftin- 
 guiihiiig of the School-Doctors, will perceive that 
 thofe Divines plainly declare that*, they own a cer- 
 tain Difference between the Attributes j and again 
 between the Relations and Perfomi but that withal, 
 they do not know the true Notion or Nature of the 
 Difference ; feeing they difputc ( with fo much Sub^ 
 tlety, andfo great Dillent iroHi one another) whe- 
 ther it be a red Diftindion, fuch as of one thing from 
 another things or Modal^ or Formal^ or VtrtHal^ or 
 by External Connotation? Nay one may fee, they un- 
 derftand not perfedly their own Diftindions, viz.. 
 The Formal, Modal, Virtual, Rationis ratiocinate^ 
 Rationis ratiocinantis : for what one calls a Formal j 
 another names it z HrtHal DiSiinCtion* As lately 
 Pofewitz^ Theol. Schol. p. 142,143. calls the Formal 
 Diftindion of.$'c(>/«*, J^iruual^ and yet r^^/, thonot 
 a^ml: while yet the Nominals make Virtual DiKin^ 
 ^ion to be only connotative or denominative of the 
 fame Virtue, by a Diverfity of Ads and Effcds. l^ut 
 whether there be forae Inexplicable Difference of the 
 pmers ot Virtues between one another, which with 
 Fofemtz we muftcall Virtual: or whether (as I ra- 
 ther think ) the Power that is altogether one in itfelf, 
 is trifle with refped to its Afts and Effeds \ this Diffe- 
 rence may well enough be called V^irtual,[}NhQXf:zs the 
 Learned Author fays here, the Scholafiics do notun- 
 derftand their own Diftindidns ; and gives for In- 
 ftance that, what one calls Formal, another calls 
 Virtual, and might have inftanced after the fame 
 manner in the other Diftindions : as his Obferva- 
 tion is untrue, fo his Argument or Inftance is nothing 
 th the purpofe. His Inftance doth not prove that, 
 they underftand not their own Diftin<aions \ but only 
 - t^\ that, 
 
Part it. cotjcernwg the Holy Trinity, ff^ 
 
 that, they do not always ap^ly thsm alike: nor is it 
 to be expsifted that they fhould, till all Mens Obfer- 
 Vations and Knowledg of the true Natures of things, 
 is of like Extent and Perfedion. The Truth is, 
 thefe Metaphyfical Precifions are the very Perfe(flioa 
 of. Knowledg ^ without them we can difcourfe accu- 
 rately of nothing. But our Author's aim in perplex- 
 ing thus (all along) the SchoUflic Learning, and 
 more particularly their ViftinBions that are applied 
 to Ejfence and B.eUtions^ was this 5 to eltablifh there- 
 by his own Notions of Ferfons and Trinity^ both 
 which in his Hypothecs (or Explication) compre- 
 hend a great deal more, than they do in St. Attfims^ 
 or the Scholafiic Conception or Account of them ^ as 
 he will make us prefently to fee.] 
 
 32. If St. Atifiin and the Schoolmeny who obferved 
 the Triple Faculty in the Soul, had not put Memory 
 inlleadof A^ive Vitality -^ without doubt they had 
 otherways ordered their Notions of the Divine Tri^ 
 nity^ of which the other (in the Soul) is the Image^ 
 than now they have done. And thofe that are for* 
 ced, either to prove or illuftrate the Trinity, by 
 only the Ads of Vnderfiand'mg and Loving^ have 
 drawn on themfelves fuch Difficulties, as drfcoirrage 
 others from conceiving of, or explaining the trinity 
 by the Image of it in Man. Sr. "Thomas for inftance, 
 and Alex. Gtll^ have laboured very much 5 I am a- 
 fraid, without the delired Succefs ; to prove that, 
 if we follow the Explication of the Trinity by the 
 triple Faculty of the Soul, there will be only three 
 Divme Perfons. Pofewitz. has many things againft 
 this way of eftablifhing the number of the Divine 
 Perfons j he endeavours to prove that, by this way 
 of proving and explaining, there will either be more 
 Divine Perfons, or none. Ai^ Becams^ againft; ' 
 Keckernian^ and againit his own Scholaftics^ endea- 
 vours by many Arguments to fubvert tbis way of 
 "N X prov^j-jg 
 
l8o A Scbolaftick^ D'jjfertation 
 
 proving the Trinity 5 namely, by the Image. Bat 
 if they had underftood that, j^^ive. Vitality or Ll¥E 
 is in the Order of Nature the firfi ElTential Power^ 
 and that it produces its own proper Ad, and the Ad 
 alfo of INTELLECT ; and that Life and hteiua 
 produce the VOLlTlVE ACT; laftly that, thefe 
 three Powers do concur to all External Ads : they 
 would have thought, the Iw^ie is the moft proper 
 both Proof and Explication of the Divine Tri- 
 nity. 
 
 33. And I truly don't fee that St. -^//)?f« and the 
 School' DoSiorSy while they deny that, the ElTential 
 jittribntes are the Trinity of Perfons ; avoid the Af- 
 fertion and Inconvenience, that they defigned here- 
 by to efcape: I fear, they afSrm and deny almoll 
 the fame thing. For the Ads of Sfeakirtg^ Vnder- 
 fianding, Loving, are nothing elfe but the ElTential 
 Attributes^ 04 always in A^, And faith P, Aquila 
 Scotellusj i.d, 2.q. p- 42. " The Notional A^s are 
 *' founded on the epmial ImmanefU A^ls ^ and with 
 him are divers others. And hence, J. de Ripa and 
 fome more, endeavour to prove that, Perfonality in- 
 cludeth fomethirig that is abfilnte ♦, tho many contra- 
 did it, and Petav'm thinks it an intolerable Abfur- 
 dity. And Pofewitz.^ q. 21. p. 125. repeating the 
 Arguments on both fides, feems to incline to them 
 ithat fay 5 Perfonality is fomething abfolute : and he 
 anfwers there the Objedions. And if ImelU^ and 
 Will^ to VnderfiandTindlVill^ to Speak and Breathy 
 differ not in God •, it is unintelligible that, the felf- 
 lame thing fhould be related to it felf by a different 
 real Relation. But they that make the Eflential At- 
 tributes both the Foundation and Terms of the Perfo- 
 nal Relations ', I leave it to beconfidered, how and 
 hownfuch they diftinguifh the Attributes from the 
 Relations? And I have oblerved that, ordina- 
 rily Divines do not hear it very approvingly, when 
 ■ I ^ . it 
 
Part II. coticermfjg the Holj Trhitj, 18 1 
 
 it is faid the three Divine Terfons are only three Relati- 
 
 ens. 
 
 The Determination of the Author^ ufon the whole 
 that hath been [aid in this Dissertation. 
 
 Wemuft now declare, what we our felves think. 
 (lO As to the Thing -, the Doi^rine of the Tri- 
 nity, 
 f 2.) As to the tirm ^ Perfons. 
 ( I. } As to the Thing. I think it both fafe, and 
 neceflary, to hold and affirm all thofe Truths, about 
 which the contending Parties are agreed \ fo if we 
 err, it will be only in Words and Terms, not in the 
 Thing it felf. Therefore, 
 
 1. I thinkit arr^w that, from the Unity and Tri- 
 nity of Principles, or formed a^ive Powers in every 
 aftive Nature, chiefly in the Soul of Man, which is 
 the Image of God', wemuft fay. Analogically, and 
 according to the Human Capacity ^ God is one in 
 fubftantial formal Effence^ or, as they fpeak, in the 
 ^idditative Conceftion : And in this one EfTence is a 
 Irinune Power^ a Power that is Three and One ; Qne^ 
 as EfTence •> trine or three^ Firti^allyy Connotatively^ 
 moft certainly ; but whether alfo Formally^ and Mo- 
 dally^ I muft profefsnotto know. 
 
 2. It is certain that, this Triple Power or Virtue 
 is Vital- Ad, ov A^ive P^itality, IntelhH and IViil: 
 And that, it is to be confidet'd, both as a Virtue 
 Cor ABive Power '^) and as an ^^, that is Virtue 
 and Power in the fecond A5i. 
 
 3. Certain it is that, God hath felf-Life^ Vnder^ 
 fiandeth himfclf^ Wtlleth himfelf. 
 
 4. Therefore thefe Relations are found in God* 
 Firlt, The Fundamental Relation, wz.. by felf-Lifc 
 and felf-Aftion to beget Intelleftion, and to froduct 
 
 N 3 Voli- 
 
1 82 A Scholafiic}\ Dijfertation 
 
 Volition or felf-Love. Secondly, By Intelledion 
 ( or felf Knowledg) together with Life, to produce 
 Volition. Thirdly, To Will or Love himfelf, fro- 
 ceeds from the Other two, as in the order of Nature 
 Confequents from Anuctdent Principles. 
 
 5. Thefe Relations are diflinguifhed by Properties^ 
 as the School-Dodors have fhown. 
 
 6. Tho what are the fame in a third^ are the fame 
 with one another •, whereby thefe Properties, Relati- 
 ons, and immanent Fundamental Afts, are the fame 
 with the EfTence? and with one another in the Unity 
 of the Eflence, that is, with refpe& to the Onenefs of 
 the Effence : yet they are diftinguifhM and differ 
 from one another, in the Nature of the Things and 
 antecedently to any >^6? of the Vnderflanding ^ but in 
 a manner unknown to us. 
 
 7. I never faid, or thought that, the Trinity of 
 Eflentialities (viz.. the P'ital h,telleU:ive Volitivfi 
 towers ) are the fame with the Trinity of Perfon*^, 
 or Father^ Son^ and Spirit, What I fay, is only 
 that \ the Trinity of Eflentialities or Primalities, 
 fhowing its Traces or Imprelfions on all Nature, in 
 every part of aUive Nature, as I proved in the An- 
 fwer to the fourth general Queftion *, if it i$ not the 
 Trinity of Perfons, yet makes that Trinity intelligi- 
 ble and credible. For no reafon can be given, why one 
 Trinity in the Unity of Eflence, Ihould be difcovc- 
 rable in God, by the mere Light of Nature and 
 Reafon *, and the other be in a manner incredible. 
 1 fay not therefore, they are the fame *, but I prove 
 t\\t revealed Trinity to be credible, by the natural^ 
 as by a Demonftration : The Notions and Opinions 
 of others, which I do not underftand, I do not how- 
 ever deny. 
 
 8. It is certain that, God is to be (inadequately) 
 conceived by us, in a triple manner. Firft, As an 
 '^diiive^Vital^ Intelleclive, Folitive Power. Secondly, 
 
 In 
 
Part I L concerning the Holy Trinity. 1 85 
 
 In the triple Immanent A^i^ on himfclf ; or as felf- 
 Living^ fdf'Knowingy felf-Loving. Thirdly, In a 
 triple, external, or proceffional ACi^ as it is the Aft 
 of the Agent *» or as Creating^ Redeeming^ SanUifying 
 or Glorifying. 
 
 9, It is certain that, in Holy Scripture the Works 
 of Power are moft commonly attributed to the F4- 
 ther, thofe of Wifdom to the Son^ of Love to the 
 Spirit \ effe&ing to the Father, dire^ing to the Son, 
 ferfeC^ing to the Spirit •, Creation to the Father, Re- 
 demption to the Son, Sanftification to the Spirit. 
 The Father is the Author of iV^fwrr, the Son of the 
 Remedy^ the Spirit of Salvation \ all of them con- 
 junftly of Glory. 
 
 10. I hold as mo^ certain that, the federal Doc- 
 trine of the Trinity neceflary to Salvation, is frac^ 
 tical : He that will be faved, mull fo believe Father, 
 Son, and Spirit, to be three Perfons in one Eflence, 
 as to give and dedicate himfelf to Gpd, and to place 
 his Faith and Hope in him \ as his Creator^ Redeemer^ 
 2Lnd San5iifier '^ his Lord, his King, and Friend. This 
 is the faving Faith of the Trinity. And hitherto of 
 the Thing ^ Now, 
 
 ( 2.) As to the Name or Term ; and here, 
 
 1. The Terms Perfon, Hypoftafis, Subdflenqe, 
 arenot/wfpf, or to be avoided : but neither are^hey 
 flmply necejfary, as not being found in Scriptuft in 
 this fenfe. Tho Pofewitz has faid much of the In- 
 convenience of thefe Terms : »And Pctavim has ci- 
 ted much more out of St. Jerom and other Fathers 
 againflthem. 
 
 2. I willinRly give the Name or Appellation Per^ 
 fons to the Properties and Relations ^ but know not, 
 whether they are to be given to the Primalities, 
 
 3. For it is not certain to me that. Properties^ or 
 the name Perfons^ fhould be fo feparated from the Ef- 
 fential PrimalitieSj that the Priraalities neither ^re 
 the Perfons^ nor the Fonndattons of the Perfons : It 
 
 N 4 feemt 
 
184 \A Scholaftick, Dijfertation 
 
 feems rather that, the name Perfons fhould be given 
 to the Relations, Properties, and ellential Primali- 
 ti|s, conjm^ly. [; He means, the Trinity of Divine 
 |Perfons is, the V^nal Intelle^ive and P^olitive Power of 
 the Divine Eflence, or God •, then the immanenc 
 -<^(3^/ of Self-living, Self-knpwing, and Selfloving-, 
 then the internal Relations hereupon, of Paternity, 
 Filiation, Spiration, as is more particularly explain- 
 ed at Numb. 4. in the firft part of this Determinati^ 
 en \ Lafi'y^ The External Relations of God to his 
 Creatures, or Creator, Redeemer, and Sandifier. 
 And to fay, and confirm this, was the whole Aim 
 of the Learned Author in this Diflertation.] But if 
 any one lifts to contradidt thefej I, who am igno- 
 rant in the Matter, will not gainfay him. 
 
 4. That there is fomething here inexplicable and 
 linconceivable, and that fhall hereafter be revealed 
 and opened, I have no manner of doubt. 
 
 5 . I doubt not that, befides the confideration of 
 thefe Eternal Properties, God is often called in Holy 
 Scripture the Father^ on the account that he is the 
 Creator-^ and .^<?«, becaufe he Was Incarnate, and for 
 that reafon alfo is fa id to be generated or begotten-^ 
 and Holy Spirit, becaufe given by an hfftration to Men, 
 Thefe are the Perfonalities bed known to us •, and on 
 thefe accounts, as well as higher, are the Son and 
 Spirit faid to proceed from the Father. 
 
 6, But neither can 1 doubt that. Father, Son, and 
 Spirit, have been three Perfons^ from all Eternity: I 
 hold the Eternal Generationj and Proceffions '-, ac- 
 cording to the manner fo often already declared. 
 
 7. Tho I hold, with molt of tht Scholafiics^ that -, 
 the immanent Adts of God on himfelf, are the pri- 
 inary Foundations of the Properties : Yet I dare not to . 
 affirm that even from Eternity the Divine Vitality, 
 intelledand Will, and Father, Son and Spirit, had 
 no Secondary denominating refpedtto the things that 
 ^ere to be created. CThe meaning here is : Tho 
 
 Fathe^f 
 
Part II. corjcernittg the Holy Trwity, 185 
 
 Father, Son, and Spirit, are primarily fo called 
 from the immanent Adh of God on himfelf, his 
 Self-living, Self-knowing, Self-loving *, yet it may 
 be they are fecondarily fo named, even from Eter- 
 nity, with refpect to (or on the account of) ihz de- 
 creed Creadon, Incarnation, and San(!^i[ication.l 
 
 8. 1 judg the Keafons of Rada to be molt found, 
 thofe i mean by which he proves that, *tis neither He- ^ 
 refy, nor favouring of Herefy, to place the Perfons 
 in the abfolnte Attributes: And he himfelf feems of 
 the fame mind, in that he has alledged and propofed 
 them 5 but he durft not declare ir, ic being againft 
 the mofl. CThe abfolute Attributes are Pomr^ Wtf- 
 dom^ Goodnefs: If the Divine Perfonality be pla- 
 ced in thefe-, then God is three Perfons as he is God 
 Mmighty^ infinitely Wife^ and moft Good.'} 
 
 9. As no one (hall be damned for the Name or 
 Term, that belie veth the whole I'loing \ viz- The 
 trin-une Virtue or Power^ the immanent Ads, the 
 Properties, internal Relations, procefTional Adls,and 
 external Relations5 aJl which I firmly hold. So 
 none (hall be fa ved, becaufe perhaps he afferts three 
 Perfons^ but only in the Name •, and ufes indeed the 
 Terms of the Schools, but never heeds, ic may be 
 knows not, that one by Perfons means three Jhfi- 
 Intesy another three Relations^ a third three Modes^ a 
 fourth three Formalities, but Himfelf hath no Idea of 
 his term Perfons. '^ The Unity of a Term^ that is 
 *'' differently underftood, doth not make an Unity 
 " in Faith', norisanUnityof Faith that confiiletb in 
 *^ things^ deftroyed by a diverfity in the Terms. 
 
 If the Reader would fee more, and what is accu- 
 rate, on the Trinity ; let him read AlcHiniis (or 
 Alhintu) Praceptor fometime to the Emperor Char^ 
 lemain, de Trinitate : You have him Patr, Orthod, 
 Vol. 2. p. 1730. Alfo Meuriffe the Scotifi, de Tri- 
 nitate. And Htnrims de HA]^^ Soliloq. de Anima -, 
 
 you 
 
lis ji Scholafiick^ Df/fertatJan 
 
 you meet him P4/r.OrfW. Vol. 2. p. 1507. Thcfe 
 Authors are brief, dear, and found. 
 
 The Conclufion\ mth a Summary.^ anA Eluci- 
 dation^ of the Whole, 
 
 Thus far the Learned Author '•> who has led us to 
 the Determination he at laft makes^ through a Jong 
 and difficult way: And therefore. Reader, let us 
 now refreih, with foraething that may be more plea- 
 fant, and more eafy. 
 
 And in the firft place, here is a prety company of 
 Auiliors, for one Man to have read, on one Subjedl". 
 Efpecially con Jidering that, they are not Pamphle- 
 teers^ or your (lender O^avo, or even Qjiarto Writ- 
 ers -^ they are all Folio-men^ the leaft of 'em in two, 
 or three Volumes in f<?/<(7,~ divers in fix or feven, 
 fome in ten or twelve •, and Snares in twenty four. 
 Itis truth, fome Men may read all their Lives long, 
 and be never the wifer, but rather the more foolifh : 
 But we fhould wrong our Author, if we did not fay ; 
 bis own Determination upon the whole, is worthy of 
 fo great previous Pains and Study > it is Learned, 
 Judicious, Modeft. As he had read more Authors, 
 than any Man before him, on thefe Queflions '■> not 
 excepting D, Petavius : So he underftood them befl i 
 and allowing that he writes in the Scholaftic way, ex- 
 prefles himfelf cleared. 
 
 Well, this Bee has been upon every Flower, grow- 
 ing (or that hath grown ) in the Churches Garden j 
 let us examine what he hath brought away, and ftor- 
 ed up, iot common ufe. 
 
 L In fome things all his Authors are agreed ; the 
 FAthers with the Scholaftics^ both with the Maderns^ 
 and all of them with one another. As that, there is 
 one Deity, Divine EflTence, or God ^ an individual 
 
 Divine 
 
Part II. concerning the Holy Trinity. 1 87 
 
 Divine Nature, which is mmtrally one; diftincffc 
 from aU others, indiftind in it felf. Some Greeks 
 Fathers indeed are accufed, as having fpoke unac- 
 curately, and incauteloufly, concerning the Divine 
 Hypoftafes, or Ferfons. For in explaining, how 
 ^hree Divine Hypoftafes can be but one God 5 they 
 ufe fuch Comparifons as feem to intimate that the 
 Hypoftafes or Perfons are Specifcaiiy one Nature, 
 but phyfically and nnmerally three : wliich would be 
 three Gods in one ( Specific ) Divine Nature, as 
 Peter^ JameSj and Johny are three Men in one ( Spe- 
 cific) Human Nature. But withal thefe Fathers 
 fay fome other things, that are inconfillent with fuch 
 an Error. As particularly that, the fecond Hypo- 
 ftafis is the WISDOM of God, not metaphorically, 
 fay They, but properly fpeaking. And again, God 
 was never without the Son or fecond Hypollafis, 
 becaufe never without WISDOM, or never unwife. 
 They fay indeed, the Divine WISDOM and WORD 
 is not like onrs, but is a P.rfon : But they explain it, 
 by faying •, it is permanent^ and always in A[iy and 
 thus (confidered with the Ejfence) sPerfin-^ while 
 ours is tranfiem^ pafles away as foon as conceived 
 or fpoken . 
 
 11. They agree alfo, except perhaps tm or three^ 
 ( who in fo great a Number, are to be reckoned mne^ 
 that*, we can know God but only (as faith the 
 Apoflle ) as in 4 Glafs^ which Glafs is firft the Di- 
 vine VJovd or Holy Scriptnre^ and then the Works of 
 Cod, The former of thefe, in many Texts, refers 
 us to his Work^ ; as where he may be belt feen and 
 known by us, while we are in Via : by thefe we 
 know that, he is ^ by thefe we difcover his Effentid 
 Attribntes^ his Omnipotence Omnifcience and Good- 
 nefs. But of thefe Workit the Human Soul is (by 
 the Scripture. Writers, and by God himfelf) called 
 the LIKENESS and the IMAGE of God : and there- 
 fore 
 
l88 \A Scholaflkk Dijfermion 
 
 fore here it is that, wc may inform our felves of him i 
 vpkat he is, as well as that he is \ with more clearnefs, 
 and particularity, than elfewhere. The Human Soul 
 fhould not, in diflindlion from the reft of this Sub- 
 lunary Creation, be called God's Image^ if it were 
 not like to him in Trinity, as well as Vnity : in 
 the Vnity every thing may be faid to be like to him •, 
 for it is the firfl; Property of every thing that is, 
 as Metafhyfictam obferve and agree, to be Vnnmj 
 One. 
 
 The Soul refembks the Unity of God, in its Ef- 
 fencBj which is one*, and the Trinity, in its Proper- 
 rK/, or (if you will) triple Power. 
 
 IIL But becaufe the formal Nature of the Soul, 
 hath not been equally underllood by all : therefore 
 in adigning or naming, and defcribing the Powers, 
 Properties, or Faenlttts of the Soul, there is fome 
 Difference among the Church- Writers; and confe* 
 quentlyin their Conceptions of the Divine Trinity, 
 or in alTigning the CharaEiers of the Divine Perfons, 
 by which they are diftinguiflied from one another. 
 
 Concerning the ftcond Property or Perfon^ it is 
 mammnufly agreed ih^t^ it is the WISDOM of God : 
 and fo much is implied in the Naine or Appellation, 
 Logcs\ which fignifies WISDOM, or KNOW- 
 LEOG. They mean not however, the Knowledg 
 of the Creature s but only God's SELF-KNOW- 
 LEDG, which is Eternal and Immanent ^ and the fame 
 with himfelf. And as the Logos is the fecond Perfon^ 
 or difcretive Property, in God •, fo is Reafon ( or 
 WifdomJ) in the Human Soul. But for the other 
 Faculties of the Soul^ how they are to be named -^ and 
 the two other Divine Perfonalities, what are their 
 CharaBers '^ there hath been (as I (aid) a great Va- 
 riety among the Doctors of the Church, from the 
 very firll. 
 
 Some 
 
Part If. eoncermug the Holy Trinity. l3^ 
 
 Some diftinguifh the ?9wers of the SouL into Me* 
 tnory InteUe^ and IVillj and the fame in God : and 
 this was St. AnfUns firft Opinion. 
 
 Afterwards he faid, Mmd or INTELLECT, 
 S E L F-KNOWLEDG, S E L F COMPLACENCE. 
 Which is commonly followed by the Schools^ and 
 Councils of the middle Ages ^ and noc only by the La- 
 tin, but Greek Churches, as appears by the Confeffioa 
 of Faith drawn up by the Patriarch Gennadm, 
 
 But divers of the Uter Fathers faid, aUive Life or 
 VITALITY, INTELLECT, and WILL, are the 
 formal ejfentiating Powers of the Human Soul. And 
 therefore thefe faid, the triple Diftin<ftion in God is 
 by LIFE, INTELLECT, and LOVE or mil-^ for 
 Love in God, is not a Paffion, but his Efiential 
 WILL. So, God is three Peribns as he is SELF- 
 LIVING, SELF-KNOWING, SELF-LOVING. 
 Thefe fay, L#/>, Inteile5ly Will are moft certainly 
 three diftind Powers, Properties, or Faculties of 
 the Souh and together are hsEffential Form: there- 
 fore here we muft abide, and by thefe explain the 
 Divine Trinity. But a Difficulty arifcs^ for fome 
 fufped that, Life is not a diftindt Power or Faculty^ 
 but as it were the Genus and Foundation of the other 
 Faculties. But the Exception is noc valuable j for 
 ImeUeB alfo is as ic were the Foundation of WtSi 
 there can be no Will where there is noc Imellea^ and 
 theChoices of the Will are (at leaft generally fpeaking) 
 grounded on the Judgment that the Intelle^ makes. 
 What deceived the Objedors was, that Life is not a 
 Faculty of the Fluman Soul, as ic is a Rational Soul ', 
 but 'tis a Faculty or Power, and the firft Power of 
 the Soul as a SohI. 
 
 Some of the Antients, and Moderns alfo, diilin* 
 guifhed yet otherways^ fome faying, the Chara^er 
 of the firfi Perfonis Power: therefore their Trinity 
 is God, as Almighty^ Self-Knowipg^ Self* Loving, 
 Which feems however coincident with the Former v 
 
 for 
 
190 kA Scholaflkk^ Differ tation 
 
 for by ASllve-Life they meant, or however intended 
 to include in it^ the Fitd-AoUvny or POWER. 
 
 But others make Fovper to be the Gharafter of the 
 third Perfon > according to thofe words of the Angel 
 to the Virgin Mary^ the HolyGhofi jhallcome upon thee^ 
 the POIVER of the Highefi (hall overjhadow thee : 
 therefore they explain the Holy Trinity to be God, as 
 the pr ft Cahfe of all things, as Self ^ Knowings and Jill- 
 TowerfhL This lafl: was the Thought of Mr. Calvin \ 
 and is followed by the Churches that follow hii Model 
 of Doftrine and Difcipline, as is feen in the Corptts or 
 Harmony of Confejjlons of the Protefiant Churches, 
 publifhed at Geneva 1581. 
 
 But fome Fathers of the middle Ages, and fome 
 Schdlaflics that immediately followed them, infift 
 only on Power Wifdom and Goodnefs *, as that Dif- 
 tindtion by which God is denominated three Perfins, 
 
 The Divines of the middle Ages did not wrangle 
 in that bitter Manner, concerning their Opinions ^ 
 as before and after was done : they ufually content 
 themfelves with a videtur quod fie ^ or njidetnr quodnon^ 
 in their Oppofitions and Anfwers to one another. 
 They did not hereticate one another, for Differen- 
 ces in the very higheft Controverfies and Articles; 
 provided the Churches former exprefs Decifions were 
 not oppofed, or denied. The Opponent whether in 
 fpeaking or writing, having firft propofed his Doe- 
 trine^ in a Propofition or Propofitions, and explained 
 the Terms, faid thereupon, & prohatur : the An- 
 fwerer, having heard or read the Argument of the 
 .Opponent, faid^ at contra •, and thereupon either 
 denied, or diftinguiOied, what had been offered. 
 In (hort they argued, or conferred, without wrang- 
 ling: and hence it is that, tho their Explications of 
 the Trinity, or what is meant by three Divipe Per- 
 fons, are fo very different •, yet there was no di- 
 viding from one another, much lefs conderaniog or 
 hcreticating one anothet. They are the only Au- 
 thors;^ 
 
Part IL conctrnifjg the Holy Trimty, i c i 
 
 thors, fmcc the Foundation of the Chriftian Name, 
 that have been content to argue difputable Matters 
 in the Schools of the Learned , without bringing 
 them to the Magiftrate, or People, to be determined 
 by Power or Numbers without Knowledg. 
 
 IV. Of fo many Writers, not one has fo much as 
 once thought that, the Divine Perfons are fo many 
 feveralor diftmdt Spirits, or Minds:, they all agree 
 in explaining the Trinity by Prcpmies, or Powers 
 or Modes, or fome fuch Affedion of Being ; in the 
 Unity of one Mind, Spirit, Subftance, Being. 
 ^ V. This Agreement fhould content us , the 
 difagreemenc being in a Matter fo unconfidera- 
 bk. One God, one Eternal Infinite Spirit •, mod 
 Powerful, infinitely Wife, and infinitely Good, which 
 laftimphes infinitely Jfffi-, out Creator, Maurator^ 
 and PerfEher in Hojinefs and Happincfs •, that hath 
 Eternal Sclf.Life^ SelfKmwkdg, Self ComvUcence: 
 in this all agree. The Difagreement !s only that, 
 whereas there is a trifle Difiinaion in God, known 
 in the Catholic Church by the Name of />^r/o«/, and 
 Father Son and Spiration or Sfirit proceedmg from 
 both-, whether ihefe be the tritle Power, of LIFE 
 KNOWLEDG and WILL ? Or the immanent u^Qs, 
 ^f S^ELF-LIFE, SELFK-NOWLEDG, SELF-COm' 
 PLACENCEi or fome fuch like? Or laftl7, all 
 thefe; foas to comprehend alfo the triple Exlcmai 
 Relation of God to his Creatures-, that is, their 
 S^7?^ JNSTAURATOR, 'and PERFEC ■ 
 
 1 • / ^^' this Difagrecmenr, or Qpellion ra- 
 ther, IS iKtle. Becaufe the Appellation three Perfons 
 IS applicable (and perhaps equally) to anyof thefc 
 Expofitions of the triple Diftindiion •, if we conceive 
 'with them Cas all agree we fhould ) the Divine Ef^ 
 fence, Cteity, or God- And as to the Relative 
 
 1 erras, Father Son and Sfirit proceeding from both ; 
 fincethey are not ufed, by Confeffionof all, in the 
 Phylical or V»lgar, but in the Hyper-phyfcal and 
 
 Thiolo- 
 
'92 ji Scholaflick^ DJjf^rtation 
 
 theological Senfe : it is as plain that, aReafon of 
 thofe Names may be given alfo from any of the Ex- 
 pofitions, and indeed is adually given i as naturally 
 and adequately, as is requifite to fuch Terms as arc 
 confefled not to be Vmvocal to God and Creatures, 
 but Analogical Redu(^ive and Figurative only. 
 
 VI. Therefore^ for obtaining an Vniformity of 
 fpeaking, in the Article of the Trinity ; it feems 
 bell: that, all would agree to fpeak of the Matter, as 
 St. Atifiin does, I mean not thar, thofe that fpeak 
 otherways, have not frobabUKtziom for it; but t 
 fay, they are not fo much better (after all Objedti- 
 ons and Exceptions ^re fatisfied) than that Father s^ 
 as will countervail the IriconVeniencci of fo many 
 different ways of fpe&king. Without refolving ,to 
 adhere to St. Aaftin^ there virill be an endlefs Variety 
 and Didbnance, in particularizing and adjufting the 
 Charaders of the Divine Perfons : Co the hazarding 
 of the Churches Peace ^ and to n6 manriet of Advan- 
 tage, in refped either of ntcefFary Piety, or favihg 
 Knowledge 
 
 The Differences of Divines in adjufting the Cha- 
 raders of the Divine Perfons, or in explaining the 
 triple Diftindion inGod, feems fomewhat like to 
 the Controverfy among Geographers about placing 
 their prft MeridUn. Ptolemy drew it a Degree Weft- 
 Ward of the Fortunate (or Canary) Iflands. "the 
 Dutch commonly draw it over the Pike oiTehariff^ 
 which is one of the Canaries, IVlr. Sanfori (the 
 French Geographer) over the Ifle Fer^ another of 
 the Canaries^ It is drawn by many over the Az^ore 
 lllands', by others, 2Lmox\gi\\oitoiCafeVerd. The 
 Spaniards draw it, fometirries over Cape Finiflerre^ 
 fometimes over the City of To/^^o.Some Geographers! 
 have withdrawn it Eaftward, to the Cape of Good 
 ^ofe in Africa. Our Englifi} Maps begin to draw it 
 over London. It may be, we (hall fee that,, other 
 Nations will alfo honour their Capital ^ith the firft 
 
 Meridian. 
 
Partlf. concerning the Holy Trinity, 19:5 
 
 Meridian. This Schifm of the Geographers, from their 
 Father Ptolemy and from one another, is SLsn.^edlefs-^ as 
 it will be endlefs : for at what Point foever one makes the 
 firfi Meridian to interfed the Equator in the Maps*, ali 
 Geographical Queftions or Difficalties are anfwer'd and 
 fatisfied, with equal Truth and Certainty. I fay hereup- 
 on, as the Geographers may make all their Maps iiniformj 
 as to the Longitudes of Places •, by retunung to Vtclemy^ 
 the firjh of them that throughly underftood the Celeftial 
 Cand Terreftrial Syftems: fo may the Divines,and perhaps 
 ou^ht to, conform to the Hypothefis and Explication of St. 
 ^Hj}m ^ and thereby abolilh that Confufion of Langn.^e^ 
 in the Article of the Trinity, that has been {da:?gero;tjly 
 as Well as ra(bly ) introduced by Mens over-valuing their 
 own Authority and Difcoveries. 
 
 VII. Till this is obtained, all ought to be warned in the 
 mean time that, the Catholic Church has alwavs allowed 
 a Latitude^ in adjufting the Charaders of the Divine 
 Perfons \ or what is the fame, in expounding what is meant 
 by three Divine Perfons^ in one Divine EJfence, She ap- 
 proves what St. ^ujlin fays, de Trin, lib. 9. ' Let us en- 
 ' deavour to underftand the Myflery of the Trmity ^ 
 ' begging help of him, concerning whom we enquire \ 
 ' and as He (hall enable us, explicating it to others. So 
 ' explicating it, that if by mifhap we fay that of one Di- 
 ' vine Perfon, which belongeth to another^ or to the Tri- 
 ' nity^ we fay not however what is unworthy, either of 
 *" fuch Divine Perfon, or of the Trinity. This Modera- 
 tion and Caution of the Holy Father, hath been always 
 obferved in the Catholic Church ^ all the Writers cited 
 in the foregoing Differtation concerning the Trinity, tho 
 (divers of them) fb widely differing in their Expofitions, 
 yet are allowed by the Church to be Catholic Writers^ for 
 ib much as refpeds thefe Qtieilions. The Church rejeds . 
 or cenfaresnone but thofe, that advance a fpecific Vnlty^ 
 {o making the Divine Perfons to be lb many diftind Sub- 
 llances, Minds, or Spirits. 
 
 VIIL An efpecial care is to be ufed, in the Proofs (or 
 
 Arguments) thatwcalledg, for ellablilliingthe Artideof 
 
 the Trinity. He that by fpeaking or writing would 
 
 ■prove the Holy Trinity^ fliould begin with explaining the^ 
 
 Terms \ God, EflTence, Perfons, Unity, Trinity : So he 
 
 O will 
 
194 ^ Sdolajikli Dj/ferldiion 
 
 will fee, what fort of Scripture-Proofs^ or Arguments from 
 the Works of God^ on which the Divine Nature and Pro- 
 perties are in fome meafure impreffed ^ may be properly and 
 cor?fi fie fitly alledged : and the like in proving the Divinity 
 of our Saviour. The fafeU, and moft home Proofs of the 
 Trinity, from Holy Scripture, are without doubt tho(e 
 that dired us to know God by his Image \ the Human 
 Soul. The Soul is one, in Effence or Sithflance *, triple, in 
 Properties, immanent Ads, and Modes of exifting: What 
 we fay beyond or befides this Image, is arbitrarily faid \ 
 or very impcrfedly. For God is not known, immediate- 
 ly ., but in the Glafs of the Creature, and in his (declared) 
 Lihcncfs^ the Soul of Man : He is an Object too great and 
 difproportloned, to be known by us, immediately -^ He is 
 knowableby us, only inadequately and partially, and by 
 tliefe Similitudes of him. 
 
 IX. If w^e firfl: explain the Terms -^ and then prove the 
 Contents of thern, by their proper Proofs*, there will be no 
 more Difputes concerning this Article, or iht depending 
 Articles and Queftions : the Article will be fo clear and 
 certain, tlwt none will litigate about it. 
 
 The5<?t7>/i^wControverfy arofe, merely from a negled 
 of the Ciinrch- Writers, to explain the Terms •, Trinity, 
 Perfons, EiFcnce, Unity, Father, Son, Spirit, Generati- 
 on, ProceiVion : and will be quieted, fo loon as the Liti- 
 gants know the meaning of the Terms, that is, know the 
 true Meaning of the Catholic Church. 
 
 The fame may be Hud of the other controverted Articles 
 and Dcdrines of the Catholic Church', the Strife was be- 
 got by a AIifreprefe?jting by one fide, and AitJHnderfiand- 
 tng by the other fide : and this, not only in the Contro- 
 verfies about the Fanh^ but in thofe alfo about the Difci- 
 pline of the Church. There needs no more to a Coalition 
 among Chriflians^ more efpecialiy among Froteflants^ but 
 onlv, I. Arm^ Reprefentation, and ^<r.vf ?-(??« Propofal, of 
 the Catholick Faith and Difcipline. 2. That, the (fup- 
 pofed) contrary Parties excufe in one another but as 
 much, as they all tolerate in the Members of their refpec- 
 tive Parties. Which thing, if I have opportunity *, by 
 retreati^and ieifure : I ihall clear to the Hnprejiidicedo^ d\\ 
 Perfwafions. I have had this Defign, not only in my 
 xMind, bu,t 0n my Hands, thefe many Years. It looks 
 1 indeed 
 
Part 11. cofJcerK7f7g the Holy Trinity, 195 
 
 indeed very much like to the ProjeAs of (bme Mathema- 
 ticians \ to fquare the Circle^ double the Cuhe^ give the 
 perpetual Motion \ or if there be any thing elfe that more 
 b|ears the Countenance of ImpofTible. But things of this 
 nature feem not more impoflible, before they are done •, 
 than facile, after Men are ihown the manner of doing 
 them. But thefe Defigns are in the hand of Providence : 
 and I owe nothing to the Publick, if that owes nothing 
 to Me. 
 
 X. I will conclude with it, that*, whenwefpeak (or 
 write ) to the Veople^ and not as they fpeak, we ought to 
 explain our felves, otherways we miflead 'em \ and the Er- 
 rors, whether in their Faith or Practice, to which we (o 
 give occafion, (hall be imputed to us by God. The Terms 
 Perfons^ Father^ Son^ Spirit^ Eternal Generation^ and the 
 reft, in the Language of the People, imply lb many di- 
 filnii adual Beings \ and are always fo underftoocl by 
 them : But it is certain, if we leave them in this Error, by 
 negleAing to explain to 'em thole Terms, and the Faith 
 intended in 'em ^ they cannot avoid to be Tritheifts and 
 Idolaters. When we go before 'em every Lords- day, and 
 every Wednelday and Friday, in thefe words ^ O God^ 
 the Father, have inercy upon m miferahle Sinners ^ O God^ 
 the Son, have mercy upon m mijerable Sinners-^ God^ 
 the Holy Ghoft, have mercy upon m miferahle Sinners, 
 When we fay fo often, to the Father, concerning the Son 
 and Holy Spirit^ WhoUveth^ andreigneth^ with thee and 
 the Holy Ghofl^ H^orld without end. And at other times, 
 To whomj with Thee and the Holy Ghoji^ he all Honour 
 and Glory ^ now and for ever. When we fay, in the ^- 
 thanafian Creed, There is one Verfon of the Father^ another 
 of the Son^ another of the Holy Ghofi •, and, the Father is 
 Godj the Son is God^ and the Holy Ghoji is God. And in the 
 lame Creed, concerning the Son, he is God., of the Sitb- 
 Itance of the Father ^ he fore all Worlds. And in the Nicene 
 Creed, ' I^ believe in one God the Father, Almighty, 
 ' maker of Heaven and Earth : And in one Lord Je- 
 * fus Chrill, begotten of the Father before all Worlds ; 
 ' God of God, very God of very God '.j who came down 
 ^ from Heaven, and was Incarnate. I believe in the'Fio- 
 ' ly Ghoft, the Lord and giver of Life, who proceeds 
 ' from the Father and the Son, and is worfhipped to- 
 
 *• gether 
 
l<)6 \A Scholafiick^ Djjfertdtiofi^ &c. 
 
 * gcther with the Father and Son. I fay, when otii 
 Words arc fuch, is it not necefTary that, we inform qui 
 People with great care and explicitnefs, that fince th^ 
 compiling iht l»iturgyy and thofe Creeds^ the word Perfoi 
 hath received a new fignification in common and ordinar\l 
 Speech, from what it then had : and that, the other Phrafd 
 and Expreilions were intended, and ard to be underftood 
 0ior§e7na^ ? That, we no more intend by any of thofe 
 cxprf ffions to imjpute to God a Vhyfical Generation or Pro- 
 ceffion, or to reprefent the Divinity as three Beings, or 
 three diftin(!!l Objeds of Worfliip \ than when we fpeak 
 of God's Anger or Love^ his Eyes or Bowels^ we mean he 
 hath real Vaffms or organical ?ans •, or than when we 
 fay in the (anie Creeds, He came down from Heaven ^ and 
 w'as Incarnate^ we mean to deny Jiis Infinity dLV\d Immobi- 
 lity f In (hort. that J we interpret to them, widi^reat ex- 
 adnefs, and often, the true Dodriue^^f the Cimrch in 
 thefe Articles, apd the true meaning^ofj^ Terms aud 
 Forms we ufe ? The unwillingnefs of fo many, to explain 
 (as they fpeak) thefe Mysteries^ I hope, is from fome 
 better Caufe than a fecret Tritheifm, or culpable igno-. 
 ranee of the Churches Faith : But if they had t\.A^^ tear 
 and certain Knowledg of the Dodrine of the Catholic 
 Church concerning the Holy Trinity, or that abhorrence 
 of Tritheifm and Paganifm, that they ought to have v it 
 is matter of wonder to me that, their Caution and Zeal 
 is not ( almoft ) wholly on the other fide. That is, that 
 they are not as mindful and as forward, to explain the 
 Article of the Trinity, and the manner of our Saviour's 
 Divinity, as now they are referved in both. 
 
 By explaining^ in this whole Treatife, I mean, expound- 
 in2 or (rather) declaring our own (and the Churches) 
 meaning-, not, explaining the Myfteries, either of the 
 Vnity or Trinity, For God is more perteCtiy One than 
 we can comprehend : And the immanent Alls ih^^i make 
 the Perfonsj and by which God is denominated Three^ 
 are as much above our apprehenfion ^ as to their Nature, 
 acd (efpecially) their Manner. 
 
 F I N I S.