Tritheism charged upon Dr. Sherlock's new notion of the Trinity and the charge made good in an answer to the defense of the said notion against the Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's book, entituled, A vindication of the holy and ever-blessed Trinity, &c. / by a divine of the Church of England.
         South, Robert, 1634-1716.
      
       
         
           1695
        
      
       Approx. 651 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 171 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
       
         Text Creation Partnership,
         Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :
         2003-05 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).
         A60953
         Wing S4744
         ESTC R10469
         13780153
         ocm 13780153
         101780
         
           
            This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
             Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
            . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
          
        
      
       
         Early English books online.
      
       
         (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A60953)
         Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 101780)
         Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 850:44)
      
       
         
           
             Tritheism charged upon Dr. Sherlock's new notion of the Trinity and the charge made good in an answer to the defense of the said notion against the Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's book, entituled, A vindication of the holy and ever-blessed Trinity, &c. / by a divine of the Church of England.
             South, Robert, 1634-1716.
          
           [24], 316 p.
           
             Printed for John Whitlock ...,
             London :
             1695.
          
           
             Written by Robert South. Cf. DNB.
             Errata: p. [24]
             Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.
          
        
      
    
     
       
         Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
         Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors.
      
       
         EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
         EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
         The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
         Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
         Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
         Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
         The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
         Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
         
          Keying and markup guidelines are available at the
           Text Creation Partnership web site
          .
        
      
       
         
         
      
    
     
       
         eng
      
       
         
           Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. -- Vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed Trinity.
           Trinity -- Early works to 1800.
        
      
    
     
        2003-01 TCP
        Assigned for keying and markup
      
        2003-02 SPi Global
        Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
      
        2003-03 Emma (Leeson) Huber
        Sampled and proofread
      
        2003-03 Emma (Leeson) Huber
        Text and markup reviewed and edited
      
        2003-04 pfs
        Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
      
    
  
   
     
       
         
         
         
           TRITHEISM
           CHARGED
           UPON
           D
           r
           
           SHERLOCK's
           New
           Notion
           of
           the
           TRINITY
           .
           AND
           The
           Charge
           made
           good
           ,
           in
           an
           Answer
           to
           the
           
             Defense
             of
             the
             said
             Notion
          
           against
           The
           Animadversions
           UPON
           Dr.
           
           Sherlock's
           Book
           ,
           Entituled
           ,
           
             A
             Vindication
             of
             the
             Doctrine
             of
             the
             Holy
             and
             ever
             Blessed
             Trinity
             ,
          
           &c.
           
           By
           a
           Divine
           of
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           .
        
         
           LONDON
           ,
           Printed
           for
           
             Iohn
             Whitlock
          
           ,
           near
           Stationers-Hall
           ,
           MDCXCV
           .
        
      
       
         
         
         
           TO
           ALL
           Professors
           of
           Divinity
           in
           the
           Two
           UNIVERSITIES
           OF
           THIS
           KINGDOM
           .
        
         
           
             Reverend
             and
             Learned
             Sirs
             ,
          
        
         
           SInce
           the
           Work
           ,
           I
           here
           present
           you
           with
           ,
           needs
           so
           great
           a
           Patronage
           ,
           it
           were
           to
           be
           wished
           ,
           that
           it
           could
           bring
           something
           
             with
             it
          
           ,
           besides
           the
           Cause
           defended
           
             by
             it
          
           ,
           worthy
           of
           such
           Patrons
           ,
           as
           I
           address
           it
           to
           .
           But
           ,
           as
           much
           below
           you
           ,
           as
           I
           know
           it
           to
           be
           ,
           I
           could
           think
           of
           none
           ,
           to
           whom
           I
           could
           so
           properly
           apply
           my self
           ,
           as
           Those
           ,
           whose
           eminent
           Stations
           in
           our
           Vniversities
           have
           made
           them
           the
           Fittest
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           Ablest
           to
           countenance
           a
           Defense
           of
           so
           
             high
             a
             Point
          
           ,
           and
           so
           
             vital
             a
             Part
          
           of
           our
           Religion
           .
           Our
           Church's
           Enemies
           of
           late
           seem
           to
           have
           diverted
           their
           main
           Attacks
           from
           her
           Out-Works
           in
           matters
           of
           Discipline
           and
           Ceremony
           ;
           and
           now
           ,
           it
           is
           no
           less
           than
           her
           very
           Capitol
           which
           they
           invade
           ;
           her
           Palladium
           (
           if
           I
           may
           allude
           to
           such
           Expressions
           )
           which
           they
           would
           rob
           her
           of
           ;
           even
           the
           Prime
           ,
           the
           Grand
           ,
           and
           Distinguishing
           Article
           of
           our
           Christianity
           ,
           the
           Article
           of
           the
           
             Blessed
             Trinity
          
           it self
           ;
           without
           the
           Belief
           of
           which
           ,
           I
           dare
           aver
           ,
           that
           a
           Man
           can
           no
           more
           be
           a
           Christian
           ,
           than
           he
           can
           ,
           without
           a
           Rational
           Soul
           ,
           be
           a
           Man.
           And
           this
           is
           now
           the
           Point
           so
           fiercely
           laid
           at
           ,
           and
           assaulted
           both
           by
           Socinianism
           on
           the
           one
           hand
           ,
           and
           by
           Tritheism
           or
           rather
           Paganism
           on
           the
           other
           .
           For
           ,
           as
           the
           former
           would
           run
           it
           down
           by
           stripping
           the
           Godhead
           of
           a
           
             Ternary
             of
             Persons
          
           ,
           so
           the
           other
           would
           as
           effectually
           ,
           but
           more
           scandalously
           overthrow
           it
           by
           introducing
           a
           
             Trinity
             of
             Gods
          
           ;
           as
           they
           inevitably
           do
           ,
           who
           assert
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           to
           be
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
             or
             Spirits
          
           ;
           
           which
           I
           positively
           affirm
           ,
           is
           equivalent
           to
           the
           asserting
           the
           said
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           to
           be
           
             Three
             Gods.
          
           And
           I
           doubt
           not
           of
           your
           learned
           Concurrence
           
             with
             me
          
           ,
           and
           Abettment
           
             of
             me
          
           in
           this
           Affirmation
           .
        
         
           And
           I
           do
           moreover
           refer
           it
           to
           your
           profound
           ,
           and
           known
           Learning
           ,
           to
           consider
           and
           to
           judge
           ,
           whether
           ever
           the
           Catholick
           Church
           explained
           the
           Trinity
           by
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           as
           that
           
             [
             wherein
          
           ]
           the
           
             Personality
             ,
             Personal
             Unity
             ,
             and
             Distinction
             of
             each
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             does
             properly
             and
             formally
             consist
             :
          
           and
           by
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           as
           that
           
             [
             wherein
             ]
             consists
             the
             Essential
             Unity
             of
             the
             said
             Persons
             ,
             and
             [
             whereby
             ]
             they
             are
             all
             Three
             essentially
             one
             God
             :
          
           together
           with
           several
           other
           such
           like
           Terms
           set
           down
           in
           the
           Collection
           immediately
           subjoined
           to
           this
           Epistle
           :
           And
           lastly
           ,
           whether
           the
           Primitive
           Church
           having
           decreed
           ,
           and
           denounced
           an
           Anathema
           to
           all
           Vsers
           of
           any
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           in
           these
           Mysteries
           ,
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           ,
           and
           the
           Nurseries
           thereof
           ,
           the
           Universities
           ,
           ought
           to
           suffer
           the
           greatest
           Mystery
           of
           our
           Christian
           Faith
           to
           be
           perplexed
           ,
           confounded
           ,
           and
           even
           ridiculed
           by
           this
           Man
           's
           pretending
           to
           explain
           it
           by
           such
           odd
           ,
           Vncouth
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           new
           Expressions
           ;
           which
           were
           never
           entertained
           as
           Terms
           of
           any
           Note
           or
           Vse
           even
           in
           Philosophy
           ,
           till
           
             Des
             Cartes
          
           and
           his
           Followers
           introduced
           them
           ;
           and
           that
           without
           the
           least
           thought
           (
           that
           appears
           )
           of
           applying
           them
           to
           the
           Trinity
           .
           I
           desire
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           all
           our
           Learned
           Divines
           seriously
           to
           consider
           ,
           what
           this
           must
           tend
           to
           ,
           and
           will
           ,
           in
           all
           likelihood
           ,
           end
           in
           .
        
         
           The
           Arguments
           which
           this
           daring
           Innovator
           (
           whom
           I
           write
           against
           )
           pretends
           to
           support
           his
           Tritheism
           ,
           and
           Innovations
           by
           ,
           are
           but
           slight
           and
           trivial
           ;
           or
           rather
           indeed
           bare
           bold
           Assertions
           without
           Arguments
           :
           And
           those
           also
           (
           in
           the
           Opinion
           of
           most
           )
           so
           throughly
           broken
           ,
           and
           confuted
           already
           ,
           that
           what
           they
           need
           more
           ,
           is
           rather
           a
           Discountenance
           ,
           than
           a
           Confutation
           .
           Nor
           indeed
           is
           there
           any
           
           thing
           formidable
           in
           the
           whole
           Book
           ,
           (
           which
           I
           have
           here
           answered
           )
           but
           that
           one
           word
           appearing
           in
           the
           Front
           of
           it
           ,
           
             viz.
             [
             licensed
             ]
          
           :
           and
           that
           I
           must
           confess
           looks
           very
           formidably
           and
           threatningly
           ,
           both
           upon
           our
           Church
           and
           Religion
           :
           and
           it
           cannot
           but
           go
           to
           the
           heart
           of
           every
           Well-wisher
           to
           Both
           ,
           to
           consider
           what
           Advantage
           our
           watchful
           Enemies
           the
           Papists
           will
           be
           sure
           to
           make
           of
           it
           ;
           who
           in
           such
           Cases
           never
           fail
           to
           take
           whatsoever
           is
           given
           them
           .
        
         
           And
           now
           ,
           Reverend
           Sirs
           ,
           what
           can
           my
           design
           be
           in
           thus
           applying
           my self
           to
           you
           ?
           Surely
           it
           is
           not
           so
           to
           offer
           you
           my
           poor
           Iudgment
           ,
           as
           at
           all
           to
           prescribe
           to
           Yours
           .
           No
           ;
           I
           understand
           you
           and
           my self
           too
           well
           ,
           to
           be
           guilty
           of
           so
           sottish
           a
           Presumption
           ;
           Nor
           is
           it
           to
           put
           you
           upon
           writing
           Books
           against
           this
           Innovator
           ;
           for
           that
           I
           think
           extreamly
           below
           you
           .
           But
           since
           the
           World
           has
           heard
           of
           such
           a
           Thing
           ,
           as
           the
           
             Decretum
             Oxoniense
          
           (
           and
           that
           so
           justly
           to
           the
           Credit
           of
           that
           Vniversity
           ;
           )
           If
           now
           ,
           Both
           our
           Vniversities
           would
           concur
           in
           passing
           their
           
             Theological
             Censure
          
           upon
           such
           Propositions
           as
           have
           of
           late
           so
           much
           impugned
           our
           Faith
           ,
           and
           disgraced
           our
           Church
           ;
           as
           that
           of
           Oxford
           had
           passed
           before
           upon
           such
           Doctrines
           ,
           as
           undermined
           and
           struck
           at
           our
           
             Civil
             Government
          
           ,
           (
           as
           I
           think
           all
           Christians
           should
           be
           at
           least
           as
           zealous
           for
           the
           former
           ,
           as
           for
           the
           latter
           )
           it
           could
           not
           but
           highly
           vindicate
           the
           Honour
           of
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           ,
           the
           Orthodoxy
           of
           our
           Clergy
           ,
           and
           of
           our
           Two
           great
           Seminaries
           of
           Learning
           ;
           which
           ,
           I
           assure
           you
           ,
           many
           Foreigners
           (
           how
           undeservedly
           soever
           )
           begin
           to
           be
           something
           suspicious
           of
           ,
           and
           dissatisfied
           about
           ,
           by
           reason
           of
           some
           late
           Books
           published
           amongst
           us
           ,
           and
           not
           yet
           answered
           by
           us
           .
           And
           for
           what
           concerns
           this
           Author's
           
             first
             Discourse
          
           concerning
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           I
           have
           been
           assured
           from
           a
           very
           Authentick
           hand
           ,
           corresponding
           with
           several
           Persons
           of
           Note
           for
           Learning
           in
           Germany
           ,
           that
           it
           had
           given
           no
           small
           offence
           to
           the
           Divines
           abroad
           ;
           and
           particularly
           ,
           
           that
           those
           learned
           Gentlemen
           at
           Lipsick
           (
           who
           write
           the
           Transactions
           )
           would
           have
           censured
           the
           new
           ,
           Heterodox
           Notions
           ,
           and
           equally
           new
           ,
           and
           unjustifiable
           Expositions
           of
           Scripture
           (
           which
           it
           is
           full
           of
           ,
           and
           those
           not
           wholly
           
             unreflected
             upon
          
           by
           them
           neither
           ,
           )
           at
           much
           another
           rate
           ,
           than
           they
           have
           done
           in
           the
           Remarks
           of
           the
           Year
           
             1691.
             p.
             216.
          
           but
           that
           out
           of
           a
           peculiar
           respect
           to
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           ,
           they
           forbore
           ,
           in
           expectation
           that
           some
           Divine
           of
           her
           own
           Communion
           would
           undertake
           the
           Confutation
           of
           it
           .
           And
           therefore
           since
           those
           Animadversions
           upon
           it
           ,
           came
           out
           so
           opportunely
           ,
           as
           an
           Answer
           to
           so
           just
           an
           Expectation
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           to
           so
           Ill
           a
           Book
           ;
           which
           had
           both
           given
           such
           offence
           to
           foreign
           Churches
           ,
           and
           brought
           such
           Scandal
           upon
           our
           own
           ,
           I
           hope
           this
           Defence
           of
           them
           will
           find
           an
           Acceptance
           worthy
           of
           Those
           Great
           Injured
           Truths
           asserted
           in
           that
           Discourse
           ,
           and
           re-asserted
           in
           this
           .
           For
           ,
           high
           time
           certainly
           it
           is
           ,
           for
           all
           who
           heartily
           espouse
           the
           Concerns
           of
           our
           Excellent
           Church
           (
           so
           
             Practised
             upon
          
           on
           all
           Hands
           )
           now
           ,
           if
           ever
           ,
           to
           appear
           for
           Her
           ;
           Considering
           ,
           That
           from
           a
           
             New
             Christianity
          
           (
           the
           Grand
           Project
           of
           some
           of
           late
           )
           the
           Natural
           and
           Next
           step
           is
           to
           None
           .
        
         
           And
           so
           ,
           Reverend
           Sirs
           ,
           to
           create
           you
           no
           further
           trouble
           ,
           having
           with
           all
           the
           Respect
           and
           Reverence
           due
           to
           such
           great
           and
           renowned
           Bodies
           ,
           given
           you
           an
           account
           of
           the
           Occasion
           of
           this
           Address
           to
           you
           ,
           as
           a
           Thing
           well
           deserving
           your
           most
           serious
           Thoughts
           ,
           and
           representing
           the
           cause
           of
           our
           Venerable
           ,
           Old
           Religion
           now
           at
           stake
           ,
           (
           as
           in
           truth
           it
           is
           )
           I
           humbly
           leave
           the
           whole
           matter
           before
           you
           ,
           and
           remain
        
         
           
             
               (
               As
               by
               Duty
               ,
               and
               Inclination
               equally
               bound
               ,
               )
            
             Honoured
             Sirs
             ,
             
               Your
               most
               faithful
               ,
               and
               devoted
               Servant
               ,
            
             A.
             A.
             
          
        
      
       
         
         
           A
           Collection
           of
           several
           Choice
           ,
           New
           Theological
           Terms
           made
           use
           of
           in
           Two
           Books
           ;
           One
           Entituled
           ,
           
             A
             Vindication
             of
             the
             Doctrine
             of
             the
             Holy
             and
             ever
             Blessed
             Trinity
             ,
          
           &c.
           The
           other
           ,
           
             A
             Defense
             of
             Dr.
          
           Sherlock
           
             's
             Notion
             of
             the
             Trinity
          
           ,
           &c.
           and
           first
           Introduced
           by
           the
           said
           Doctor
           ,
           for
           giving
           the
           Church
           a
           better
           Explication
           and
           a
           clearer
           Notion
           of
           a
           
             Trinity
             in
             Unity
          
           than
           it
           has
           had
           for
           above
           sixteen
           hundred
           years
           before
           .
           Which
           Collection
           is
           as
           follows
           .
        
         
           
             SElf-Consciousness
             ,
             
               Vind.
               p.
            
             49.
             l.
             27.
             
          
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             
               Vind.
               p.
            
             52.
             l.
             4.
             
          
           
             Natural
             Self-Consciousness
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             8.
             l.
             7.
             
          
           
             Natural
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             18.
             l.
             8.
             
          
           
             Intimate
             conscious
             Knowledge
             ,
             
               Vind.
               p.
            
             59.
             l.
             4.
             
          
           
             Conscious
             life
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             60.
             l.
             20.
             
          
           
             Self
             conscious
             Principle
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             67.
             l.
             16.
             
          
           
             Natural
             Principle
             of
             mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             67.
             l.
             22.
             
          
           
             Conscious
             Union
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             9.
             l.
             10.
             
          
           
             Natural
             Unity
             of
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             33.
             l.
             2.
             
          
           
             Communion
             of
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             72.
             l.
             9.
             
          
           
             Self-Conscious
             Love
             ,
             and
             Self-Conscious
             Complacency
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             68.
             l.
             2
             ,
             &
             4.
             
          
           
             Intellectual
             Sensation
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             77.
             l.
             16.
             
          
           
             Self-Sensation
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             39.
             l.
             24.
             
          
           
             Conscious
             Sensation
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             8.
             l.
             4.
             
          
           
             Self
             Conscious
             Sensation
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             7.
             l.
             15.
             
          
           
             Natural
             Self
             Conscious
             Sensation
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             7.
             l.
             30.
             
          
           
             Natural
             Mutual
             Conscious
             Sensation
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             8.
             l.
             2.
             
          
           
             Feeling
             each
             other's
             Knowledge
             ,
             
               Vind.
               p.
            
             56.
             l.
             24.
             
          
           
             
             Self-Consciousness
             between
             the
             Father
             and
             the
             Son
             ,
             
               Vind.
               p.
            
             60.
             l.
             14.
             
          
           
             The
             Son
             's
             feeling
             the
             Father's
             Will
             and
             Wisdom
             in
             himself
             ,
             
               Vind.
               p.
            
             60.
             l.
             22.
             
          
           
             The
             Son
             ,
             the
             Self
             Conscious
             Image
             of
             his
             Father's
             Will
             and
             Knowledge
             ,
             
               Vind.
               p.
            
             60.
             at
             the
             end
             .
          
           
             Continuity
             of
             Sensation
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             7.
             l.
             12
             ,
             13.
             
          
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
             
               Vind.
               p.
            
             66.
             l.
             22.
             
          
           
             One
             Individual
             Nature
             subsisting
             thrice
             ,
             not
             by
             multiplying
             but
             only
             by
             Repeating
             it self
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             24.
             l.
             2
             ,
             3.
             
          
           
             The
             Divine
             Nature
             repeated
             in
             its
             Image
             without
             multiplication
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             37.
             l.
             1.
             
          
           
             The
             same
             Substance
             repeated
             in
             Three
             distinct
             Subsistences
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             91.
             l.
             8.
             
          
           
             The
             same
             Individual
             Nature
             repeated
             in
             its
             living
             Image
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             70.
             l.
             4.
             
          
           
             One
             Eternal
             Infinite
             Mind
             repeated
             in
             Three
             Subsistences
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             94.
             l.
             6
             ,
             &c.
             
          
        
         
           Which
           Terms
           (
           with
           some
           others
           like-them
           )
           are
           to
           be
           substituted
           in
           the
           room
           of
           
             Nature
             ,
             Essence
             ,
             Substance
             ,
             Subsistence
             ,
             Suppositum
             ,
             Person
             ,
             Hypostasis
             ,
          
           and
           Relation
           .
        
         
           All
           which
           (
           though
           constantly
           used
           hitherto
           both
           by
           Fathers
           and
           Councils
           )
           yet
           serving
           only
           (
           as
           this
           Author
           affirms
           )
           to
           
             pervert
             and
             confound
             mens
             Notions
             and
             Discourses
             about
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             and
             Persons
             ,
          
           ought
           utterly
           to
           be
           exploded
           and
           laid
           aside
           ,
           as
           
             meer
             Gibberish
          
           and
           
             Gipsie
             Cant
          
           ;
           especially
           by
           such
           as
           account
           all
           Greek
           and
           Latin
           so
           too
           .
        
      
       
         
         
           Several
           New
           ,
           Heterodox
           ,
           and
           Extraordinary
           Propositions
           ,
           partly
           in
           Divinity
           ,
           and
           partly
           in
           Philosophy
           ,
           extracted
           out
           of
           the
           Two
           forementioned
           Books
           .
        
         
           
             1.
             
          
           
             THE
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             
               Three
               distinct
               Infinite
               Minds
               or
               Spirits
            
             ;
             and
             not
             to
             hold
             so
             ,
             is
             both
             Heresie
             and
             Non-sense
             ,
             
               Vind.
               p.
            
             66.
             l.
             25.
             
          
           
             2.
             
          
           
             Unless
             every
             Person
             of
             the
             Blessed
             Trinity
             ,
             considered
             as
             a
             
               distinct
               Person
            
             ,
             be
             allowed
             to
             be
             a
             distinct
             Infinite
             Eternal
             Mind
             ,
             we
             shall
             have
             nothing
             left
             us
             but
             a
             Trinity
             of
             meer
             
               Modes
               ,
               Names
            
             ,
             and
             
               Postures
               ,
               Defen
               .
               pag.
            
             8.
             lin
             .
             24.
             
               &
               pag.
            
             30.
             lin
             .
             24.
             
          
           
             3.
             
          
           
             That
             which
             makes
             a
             Spirit
             (
             whether
             Finite
             or
             Infinite
             )
             and
             consequently
             each
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             (
             which
             according
             to
             this
             Author
             are
             
               Three
               distinct
               Infinite
               Spirits
            
             )
             
               One
               with
               it self
            
             ,
             and
             
               distinct
               from
               all
               others
            
             ,
             is
             Self-Consciousness
             ,
             and
             
               Nothing
               else
               .
               Vind.
               p.
            
             67.
             lin
             .
             11.
             p.
             68.
             lin
             .
             5.
             
             &
             13.
             
             &
             74.
             lin
             .
             15
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           
             4.
             
          
           
             A
             natural
             Self-Consciousness
             makes
             a
             Natural
             Person
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             8.
             lin
             .
             7.
             
          
           
             5.
             
          
           
             If
             the
             
               formal
               Reason
               of
               Personality
            
             be
             that
             which
             makes
             a
             Mind
             or
             Person
             (
             which
             with
             this
             Author
             are
             always
             Terms
             convertible
             )
             one
             with
             it self
             ,
             and
             distinguishes
             it
             from
             all
             others
             ,
             then
             
               Self-Consciousness
               is
               the
               formal
               Reason
               of
               Personality
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             37.
             l.
             8
             ,
             9
             ,
             10
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           
             
             6.
             
          
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             is
             that
             which
             formally
             unites
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             in
             Nature
             or
             Essence
             ,
             and
             makes
             them
             all
             essentially
             and
             numerically
             one
             God
             ,
             
               Vind.
               p.
            
             68.
             l.
             6
             ,
             7
             ,
             8.
             and
             p.
             84
             ▪
             l.
             29
             ▪
             and
             elsewhere
             frequently
             .
          
           
             7.
             
          
           
             There
             is
             no
             other
             mutual
             In-being
             or
             In-dwelling
             of
             the
             Father
             in
             the
             Son
             ,
             and
             of
             the
             Son
             in
             the
             Father
             (
             called
             by
             the
             Fathers
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             )
             conceivable
             or
             possible
             ,
             but
             by
             mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             9.
             l.
             15
             ,
             16
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           
             8.
             
          
           
             The
             Son
             and
             the
             Holy
             Ghost
             are
             in
             the
             Father
             as
             in
             
               their
               Cause
               ,
               Vind.
               p.
            
             69.
             l.
             29.
             
             Which
             Term
             Divines
             generally
             decline
             the
             use
             of
             ,
             using
             the
             word
             [
             Principle
             ]
             instead
             thereof
             .
             However
             this
             overthrows
             the
             foregoing
             Proposition
             ,
             
               viz.
               That
               the
               Son
               can
               be
               no
               otherwise
               in
               the
               Father
               ,
               than
               by
               mutual
               Consciousness
               .
            
          
           
             9.
             
          
           
             The
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             used
             ,
             (
             with
             reference
             to
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             )
             by
             the
             Nicene
             Fathers
             ,
             is
             not
             sufficient
             to
             prove
             a
             
               Numerical
               Vnity
               of
               Nature
            
             or
             Essence
             in
             the
             said
             Persons
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             69.
             l.
             1
             ,
             2
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           
             10.
             
          
           
             The
             Unity
             of
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             in
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             is
             partly
             specifick
             ,
             partly
             
               numerical
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             17.
             l.
             27.
             
          
           
             11.
             
          
           
             It
             is
             impossible
             to
             conceive
             a
             more
             close
             and
             intimate
             Union
             in
             Nature
             than
             mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             35.
             l.
             22.
             
             
               Whereas
               an
               Vnion
               in
               one
               Numerical
               Essence
               or
               Nature
               is
               and
               must
               be
               (
               in
               the
               very
               Conception
               
               or
               Notion
               of
               it
               )
               greater
               and
               more
               intimate
               ,
               as
               being
               the
               Ground
               ,
               the
               Reason
               ,
               and
               Foundation
               of
               the
               other
               .
            
          
           
             12.
             
          
           
             The
             
               very
               Nature
            
             and
             Subsistence
             of
             the
             Father
             ,
             Son
             ,
             and
             Holy
             Ghost
             is
             
               wholly
               Relative
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             27.
             l.
             21.
             
             And
             for
             their
             Subsistence
             ,
             I
             grant
             it
             to
             be
             so
             ;
             but
             if
             their
             Nature
             be
             
               wholly
               Relative
            
             too
             ,
             I
             am
             sure
             there
             is
             nothing
             absolute
             belonging
             to
             the
             Deity
             .
          
           
             13.
             
          
           
             The
             Case
             of
             
               a
               Man
            
             and
             his
             
               living
               Image
            
             (
             though
             even
             by
             this
             Author
             's
             own
             confession
             a
             meer
             Fiction
             or
             Supposition
             )
             
               is
               a
               plain
               Account
               of
               the
               essential
               Vnity
               between
               God
               the
               Father
               and
               God
               the
               Son
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             21.
             l.
             10.
             
             That
             is
             to
             say
             ,
             in
             a
             Romance
             we
             have
             a
             clear
             Explication
             of
             the
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             of
             the
             first
             and
             second
             Person
             of
             the
             Trinity
             .
             And
             in
             Two
             ,
             who
             are
             actually
             separate
             and
             loco-distant
             from
             one
             another
             ,
             we
             have
             a
             
               plain
               Account
            
             of
             the
             Union
             of
             Two
             ,
             who
             both
             in
             their
             Essence
             and
             Persons
             are
             actually
             and
             absolutely
             inseparable
             .
          
           
             14.
             
          
           
             If
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             be
             considered
             as
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
             distinguished
             from
             each
             other
             by
             a
             
               Self-Consciousness
               of
               their
               own
            
             ,
             and
             essentially
             united
             to
             each
             other
             by
             a
             
               mutual
               Consciousness
               (
               which
               is
               the
               only
               way
               of
               distinguishing
               and
               uniting
               Minds
               )
            
             then
             a
             Trinity
             in
             Unity
             is
             a
             very
             plain
             and
             intelligible
             Notion
             ,
             
               Vind.
               p.
            
             73.
             l.
             17.
             from
             whence
             follows
             another
             Proposition
             ,
             viz.
             the
          
           
             15.
             
          
           
             That
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             have
             no
             other
             Distinction
             but
             what
             they
             have
             by
             Self-Consciousness
             ,
             and
             no
             other
             Vnion
             but
             what
             they
             have
             by
             
               mutual
               Consciousness
            
             .
             And
             
             consequently
             ,
             That
             the
             Trinity
             thus
             stated
             ,
             really
             amounts
             to
             no
             more
             than
             a
             Council
             or
             
               Cabal
               of
               Gods
            
             ;
             and
             that
             it
             is
             in
             no
             degree
             so
             much
             Prophaneness
             ,
             for
             the
             Socinians
             to
             
               call
               it
               so
            
             ,
             as
             for
             this
             Man
             ,
             by
             his
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
             
               to
               make
               it
               so
            
             .
          
           
             16.
             
          
           
             The
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             in
             the
             Godhead
             are
             not
             
               only
               modally
               distinguished
               ,
               Vind.
               p.
            
             83.
             l.
             last
             But
             generally
             all
             the
             Divines
             in
             Christendom
             hold
             them
             to
             be
             so
             distinguished
             ,
             and
             no
             otherwise
             .
          
           
             17.
             
          
           
             There
             are
             
               no
               Modes
            
             ,
             no
             more
             than
             there
             are
             Qualities
             and
             Accidents
             in
             the
             Deity
             ,
             
               Vind.
               p.
            
             84.
             
               l.
               first
            
             .
          
           
             18.
             
          
           
             Persons
             distinct
             ,
             yet
             not
             separate
             ,
             but
             
               essentially
               one
            
             by
             
               mutual
               Consciousness
            
             ,
             do
             not
             
               act
               upon
            
             each
             other
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             73.
             l.
             23.
             
          
           
             19.
             
          
           
             The
             Divine
             Nature
             or
             Essence
             is
             not
             a
             single
             or
             singular
             
               Nature
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             18.
             l.
             13.
             
          
           
             20.
             
          
           
             It
             is
             absurd
             to
             say
             ,
             That
             the
             one
             Divine
             Nature
             of
             the
             Father
             ,
             the
             Son
             ,
             and
             Holy
             Ghost
             is
             Incarnate
             ,
             and
             yet
             none
             but
             the
             Son
             Incarnate
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             18.
             
               l.
               last
            
             and
             p.
             19.
             
               l.
               first
            
             .
          
           
             21.
             
          
           
             One
             single
             Essence
             can
             
               subsist
               but
               once
            
             ,
             or
             have
             but
             one
             Subsistence
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             19.
             l.
             23.
             and
             p.
             24.
             l.
             29.
             and
             yet
             (
             for
             all
             this
             )
             it
             follows
             .
          
           
             22.
             
          
           
             One
             Eternal
             Infinite
             Mind
             is
             [
             repeated
             ]
             in
             
               Three
               Subsistences
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             94.
             l.
             6.
             
          
           
             
             23.
             
          
           
             There
             is
             
               no
               Distinction
            
             between
             
               the
               Divine
               Essence
            
             and
             
               a
               Divine
               Person
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             91.
             l.
             28.
             
             And
             yet
             all
             Divines
             speak
             of
             the
             Divine
             Essence
             as
             communicable
             or
             common
             to
             the
             Persons
             ;
             and
             account
             of
             the
             former
             as
             Absolute
             ,
             and
             of
             the
             latter
             as
             Relative
             ;
             and
             that
             surely
             ●mports
             Distinction
             .
          
           
             24.
             
          
           
             The
             Divine
             Essence
             makes
             the
             
               Person
               ,
               ibid.
            
             
          
           
             25.
             
          
           
             The
             Divine
             Essence
             must
             be
             acknowledged
             to
             be
             a
             
               Person
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             92.
             l.
             19.
             
          
           
             26.
             
          
           
             No
             man
             has
             an
             Idea
             of
             an
             
               Intelligent
               Nature
            
             or
             Essence
             distinguished
             from
             a
             
               Person
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             92.
             l.
             10.
             
          
           
             27.
             
          
           
             [
             
               Infinite
               Mind
            
             ]
             and
             [
             
               Infinite
               Intelligent
               Person
            
             ]
             are
             Terms
             as
             equipollent
             and
             convertible
             as
             [
             God
             ]
             and
             
               [
               infinite
               Mind
               ]
               Def.
               p.
            
             81.
             l.
             23
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           
             28.
             
          
           
             There
             are
             in
             God
             Acts
             of
             Sensation
             ,
             of
             a
             
               different
               kind
            
             and
             species
             from
             Acts
             of
             Knowledge
             :
             and
             Self-Consciousness
             and
             mutual
             Consciousness
             are
             of
             the
             former
             sort
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             77.
             l.
             10
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           
             29.
             
          
           
             It
             is
             the
             Soul
             only
             that
             can
             be
             happy
             or
             
               miserable
               ,
               rewarded
            
             or
             
               punished
               in
            
             or
             out
             of
             the
             Body
             ,
             Def.
             54.
             l.
             31.
             
             And
             if
             so
             ;
             what
             need
             (
             say
             I
             )
             can
             there
             be
             of
             a
             Resurrection
             ?
             Such
             Doctrines
             certainly
             (
             back'd
             with
             Licence
             and
             Authority
             )
             may
             come
             to
             something
             in
             time
             .
          
           
             30.
             
          
           
             We
             can
             frame
             no
             Idea
             of
             Substance
             ,
             but
             what
             we
             have
             from
             
               Matter
               ,
               Vind.
               p.
            
             69.
             
               l.
               first
            
             .
          
           
             
             31.
             
          
           
             We
             cannot
             imagine
             how
             any
             Substance
             should
             be
             
               without
               a
               Beginning
               ,
               Vind.
               p.
            
             70.
             l.
             6.
             
             And
             if
             that
             be
             true
             ,
             then
             I
             affirm
             that
             Nothing
             can
             be
             imagined
             to
             be
             so
             .
          
           
             32.
             
          
           
             The
             Nature
             of
             a
             Spirit
             consists
             in
             
               Vital
               internal
               Sensation
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             7.
             l.
             11.
             
          
           
             33.
             
          
           
             The
             Unity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             consists
             in
             
               Continuity
               of
               Sensation
               ,
               Def.
               ibid.
               
            
          
           
             34.
             
          
           
             One
             Numerical
             Nature
             ,
             whether
             Finite
             or
             Infinite
             ,
             may
             be
             repeated
             without
             being
             multiplied
             :
             Of
             the
             first
             whereof
             he
             often
             gives
             us
             an
             Instance
             in
             a
             man
             and
             
               his
               living
               Image
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             91.
             l.
             10.
             and
             of
             the
             other
             in
             the
             
               Divine
               Nature
            
             ,
             it self
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             31.
             
               l.
               first
            
             .
          
           
             35.
             
          
           
             A
             man
             and
             his
             
               living
               Image
            
             are
             two
             
               distinct
               men
            
             ,
             though
             the
             Image
             is
             not
             
               another
               man
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             31.
             l.
             19
             ,
             &
             21.
             
          
           
             36.
             
          
           
             An
             Image
             is
             wholly
             and
             
               entirely
               the
               same
            
             with
             the
             Prototype
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             28.
             l.
             16.
             
          
           
             37.
             
          
           
             The
             Soul
             is
             the
             person
             ,
             and
             the
             Body
             only
             the
             Organ
             or
             Instrument
             of
             it
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             51.
             l.
             2.
             p.
             57.
             l.
             11.
             and
             p.
             58.
             l.
             16.
             
          
           
             38.
             
          
           
             The
             whole
             entire
             Personality
             is
             in
             the
             Soul
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             50.
             l.
             20.
             
          
           
             
             39.
             
          
           
             The
             Soul
             is
             the
             person
             ▪
             and
             the
             Body
             is
             taken
             into
             the
             Unity
             of
             the
             said
             person
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             60.
             l.
             22.
             
          
           
             40.
             
          
           
             The
             Soul
             is
             not
             properly
             
               part
               of
               the
            
             Person
             ,
             
               Def
               :
               p.
            
             61.
             l.
             3.
             
          
           
             41.
             
          
           
             The
             Body
             is
             not
             a
             Part
             of
             the
             Person
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             60.
             l.
             23.
             
          
           
             42.
             
          
           
             The
             Soul
             is
             a
             Complete
             Being
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             49.
             l.
             30.
             
          
           
             43.
             
          
           
             The
             Soul
             may
             be
             a
             complete
             and
             
               perfect
               Person
            
             ,
             and
             yet
             not
             a
             
               perfect
               Man
               ,
               Def.
               p.
            
             49.
             l.
             28
             ▪
             Whereas
             a
             Person
             implies
             all
             the
             essential
             perfections
             of
             a
             Man
             ,
             and
             something
             more
             .
          
           
             44.
             
          
           
             A
             Man
             with
             a
             Body
             Blind
             ,
             Deaf
             ,
             and
             Lame
             ,
             is
             not
             a
             
               perfect
               Man
            
             ,
             [
             viz.
             upon
             a
             Natural
             and
             essential
             Account
             ,
             not
             so
             .
             ]
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             50.
             l.
             10.
             
          
           
             45.
             
          
           
             All
             Union
             between
             Natures
             is
             a
             Natural
             Union
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             49.
             l.
             16.
             
          
           
             46.
             
          
           
             The
             Soul
             is
             as
             much
             the
             same
             with
             or
             without
             the
             Body
             ,
             as
             the
             Body
             with
             or
             without
             its
             Cloaths
             ,
             
               Def.
               p.
            
             60.
             l.
             29.
             
          
           
             47.
             
          
           
             Unless
             there
             be
             
               two
               Personalities
            
             as
             well
             as
             
               Two
               Natures
            
             (
             viz.
             Soul
             and
             Body
             )
             the
             
               Two
               Natures
            
             cannot
             be
             two
             parts
             of
             one
             
               human
               Personality
            
             ,
             as
             they
             are
             parts
             of
             a
             
               Man
               ,
               Def.
            
             45.
             l.
             25.
             
             Now
             ,
             what
             gross
             Ignorance
             is
             this
             !
             For
             an
             
               human
               Personality
            
             ,
             no
             less
             than
             
             a
             Particular
             
               Humanity
               ,
               essentially
            
             and
             metaphysically
             implies
             and
             connotes
             Parts
             ▪
             Though
             only
             the
             Person
             and
             Man
             himself
             in
             the
             Concrete
             is
             actually
             and
             Physically
             compounded
             of
             them
             .
             To
             which
             I
             add
             ,
             that
             
               Two
               Personalities
            
             can
             never
             be
             
               two
               parts
            
             of
             any
             essential
             compound
             whatsoever
             ,
             but
             
               Two
               Natures
            
             may
             ,
             and
             in
             the
             Present
             instance
             certainly
             are
             .
             See
             this
             further
             explained
             ,
             p.
             115
             ,
             116.
             
          
        
         
           These
           Propositions
           (
           with
           several
           others
           like
           them
           )
           are
           his
           New
           Dogmata
           in
           Divinity
           and
           Philosophy
           :
           which
           as
           they
           are
           most
           absurd
           and
           false
           in
           themselves
           ,
           so
           the
           Consequences
           of
           many
           of
           them
           ,
           with
           reference
           to
           the
           Incarnation
           of
           our
           Blessed
           Saviour
           ,
           I
           leave
           to
           the
           Thinking
           and
           Judicious
           Reader
           himself
           to
           draw
           out
           ,
           and
           to
           the
           Church
           ●o●
           judge
           of
           .
           And
           possibly
           some
           time
           or
           other
           ,
           Foreigners
           also
           may
           be
           presented
           with
           a
           View
           of
           them
           ,
           in
           a
           Language
           ,
           which
           they
           understand
           better
           than
           
             they
             do
             ours
          
           .
        
      
       
         
         
           THE
           CONTENTS
           Humbly
           Presented
           To
           the
           Reader
           's
           perusal
           before
           he
           proceeds
           to
           read
           the
           following
           BOOK
           .
        
         
           
             AN
             Account
             of
             the
             Civil
             Language
             bestowed
             by
             the
             Defender
             upon
             the
             Animadverter
             ,
             and
             Animadversions
          
           
             
               Pag.
               2
               ,
               3
            
          
           
             The
             Objection
             about
             the
             word
             
               [
               Mystery
            
             ]
             proved
             only
             the
             Blunder
             of
             the
             Objector
          
           
             4.
             
          
           
             The
             Defender
             wearies
             the
             Reader
             with
             a
             nauseous
             Repetition
             of
             his
             old
             confuted
             Hypothesis
             ,
             without
             any
             new
             Argument
             to
             enforce
             it
          
           
             7
          
           
             He
             begins
             it
             with
             a
             gross
             Vntruth
          
           
             
               7
               ,
               8
               ,
               9
            
          
           
             He
             adds
             another
             as
             gross
          
           
             
               9
               ,
               10
               ,
               &c.
            
             
          
           
             He
             does
             not
             (
             as
             he
             falsly
             affirms
             )
             concur
             perfectly
             with
             the
             School-men
             in
             stating
             the
             
               Unity
               of
               the
               Godhead
            
          
           
             11
          
           
             The
             Vnconceivableness
             of
             the
             Mystery
             of
             the
             Trinity
             ,
             never
             accounted
             by
             the
             Christian
             Church
             any
             Objection
             against
             it
             at
             all
          
           
             12
          
           
             The
             Fathers
             way
             of
             explaining
             the
             Trinity
             wrongfully
             slighted
             and
             reflected
             upon
             by
             this
             Author
          
           
             
               12
               ,
               13
               ,
               14
            
          
           
             There
             is
             no
             such
             thing
             as
             
               Spiritual
               Sensation
            
             ;
             it
             being
             no
             better
             than
             a
             Contradiction
             
               in
               Adjecto
            
          
           
             
               15
               ,
               16
               ,
               &c.
            
             
          
           
             The
             Nature
             of
             a
             Spirit
             proved
             not
             to
             consist
             in
             
               Vital
               internal
               Sensation
            
          
           
             
               17
               ,
               18
               ,
               19
            
          
           
             The
             Trinity
             in
             Vnity
             ,
             not
             explicable
             by
             Sensation
             and
             
               Continuity
               of
               Sensation
            
          
           
             
               20
               ,
               21
            
          
           
             No
             man's
             feeling
             himself
             a
             
               distinct
               Person
            
             ,
             can
             be
             the
             Reason
             of
             his
             being
             so
          
           
             
               22
               ,
               23
            
          
           
             The
             Defender's
             Complement
             to
             the
             Animadverter
             returned
          
           
             24
          
           
             
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             can
             never
             make
             three
             distinct
             Spirits
             essentially
             one
          
           
             
               26
               ,
               27
            
          
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             (
             according
             to
             this
             Author's
             Principles
             )
             must
             consist
             of
             three
             distinct
             Acts
          
           
             
               27
               ,
               28
            
          
           
             His
             profane
             Assertion
             concerning
             the
             Trinity
          
           
             30
          
           
             Each
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             as
             a
             
               distinct
               Person
            
             ,
             is
             not
             a
             
               distinct
               Infinite
               Mind
            
             ;
             with
             a
             Refutation
             of
             his
             Argument
             brought
             to
             prove
             it
             so
          
           
             
               31
               ,
               32
               ,
               33
               ,
               34
            
          
           
             His
             absurd
             Assertions
             concerning
             the
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
          
           
             
               35
               ,
               36
               ,
               37
            
          
           
             His
             vain
             endeavour
             to
             justifie
             his
             Hypothesis
             of
             three
             distinct
             infinite
             Minds
             ,
             from
             the
             Allusions
             used
             by
             the
             Fathers
             about
             the
             Trinity
          
           
             
               38
               ,
               39
            
          
           
             An
             extraordinary
             Discovery
             made
             by
             this
             Author
             of
             Resemblance
             without
             Likeness
          
           
             
               40
               ,
               41
            
          
           
             His
             gross
             Mistakes
             and
             precarious
             Assertions
             concerning
             the
             sence
             and
             use
             of
             the
             Term
             
               [
               Person
            
             ]
             from
          
           
             
               p.
               41
            
             ,
             to
             50
          
           
             His
             ridiculous
             pleading
             
               [
               Theological
               use
            
             ]
             for
             the
             word
             
               [
               Minds
            
             ]
             as
             importing
             the
             same
             with
             
               [
               Persons
               ]
            
             ,
             while
             none
             can
             be
             proved
             to
             use
             it
             so
             but
             himself
             ,
             and
             some
             few
             Hereticks
             besides
          
           
             
               46
               ,
               47
            
          
           
             The
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             a
             sufficient
             proof
             of
             a
             Numerical
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             or
             Essence
             in
             the
             Divine
             Persons
          
           
             51
          
           
             All
             Specifick
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             (
             or
             any
             thing
             analogous
             to
             it
             )
             in
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             proved
             absurd
             ,
             and
             impossible
          
           
             
               52
               ,
               53
            
          
           
             The
             Divine
             Nature
             proved
             against
             this
             Author
             to
             be
             a
             single
             or
             singular
             Nature
             ,
             together
             with
             a
             Refutation
             of
             some
             other
             of
             his
             false
             and
             heretical
             Assertions
             ,
             from
          
           
             
               p.
               54
            
             ,
             to
             60
          
           
             The
             Vnity
             of
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             in
             the
             three
             Persons
             proved
             not
             to
             be
             (
             as
             this
             Defender
             would
             have
             it
             )
             partly
             Specifical
             ,
             and
             partly
             Numerical
          
           
             
               55
               ,
               56
            
          
           
             The
             Testimony
             of
             
               Victorinus
               Afer
            
             of
             little
             or
             no
             Authority
             with
             Reference
             to
             the
             Doctrine
             of
             the
             Trinity
          
           
             
               60
               ,
               61
            
          
           
             Two
             other
             of
             this
             Defender's
             scandalous
             Assertions
             refuted
          
           
             
               61
               ,
               62
            
          
           
             His
             Romance
             of
             a
             Man
             and
             his
             
               living
               Image
            
             ,
             so
             absurdly
             and
             profanely
             
             brought
             by
             him
             as
             an
             Explication
             of
             the
             
               Essential
               Union
               of
               the
               Divine
               Persons
               ,
            
             examined
             and
             exploded
             ,
             from
          
           
             
               p.
               63
            
             ,
             to
             80
          
           
             His
             gross
             Ignorance
             of
             the
             sence
             and
             import
             of
             the
             term
             Emanation
          
           
             73
          
           
             The
             proper
             and
             true
             Sence
             of
             it
             explained
          
           
             ibid.
             
          
           
             An
             account
             both
             of
             the
             Nature
             of
             an
             Image
             in
             general
             ,
             and
             of
             an
             Image
             by
             Reflexion
             in
             particular
          
           
             
               65
               ,
               66
            
          
           
             The
             Animadverter's
             Objection
             ,
             That
             Dr.
             Sherlock
             has
             stated
             a
             Trinity
             in
             Vnity
             so
             ,
             as
             utterly
             
               to
               overthrow
               the
               Mysteriousness
            
             of
             it
             ,
             enforced
             and
             made
             good
          
           
             
               81
               ,
               82
            
          
           
             The
             Mysteriousness
             of
             the
             same
             denied
             also
             by
             Le-Clerk
             in
             his
             Theological
             Epistles
             under
             the
             Name
             of
             
               Liberius
               de
               Sancto
               Amore
            
             :
             where
             the
             Reader
             may
             find
             the
             Materials
             of
             this
             Author
             's
             new
             Hypothesis
             ;
             and
             where
             this
             Author
             himself
             may
             be
             supposed
             also
             to
             have
             found
             them
             before
             ;
             from
          
           
             
               p.
               82
            
             ,
             to
             85
          
           
             The
             School-Terms
             defended
             ,
             and
             the
             Vse
             of
             them
             asserted
             against
             this
             Illiterate
             Innovator
          
           
             
               86
               ,
               87
            
          
           
             The
             Term
             
               [
               Formal
               Reason
               of
               a
               Thing
               ]
            
             further
             explained
             and
             insisted
             upon
          
           
             
               89
               ,
               90
            
          
           
             The
             true
             state
             of
             the
             Point
             in
             dispute
             between
             Dr.
             Sherlock
             and
             the
             Animadverter
             ,
             fully
             and
             particularly
             represented
             ,
             from
          
           
             
               p.
               91
            
             ,
             to
             99
          
           
             His
             Blunder
             about
             Convertibility
             and
             
               Proprium
               quarto
               modo
            
          
           
             
               99
               ,
               100
               ,
               &c.
            
             
          
           
             His
             flying
             from
             the
             Act
             of
             Self-Consciousness
             to
             the
             Principle
             thereof
             ,
             proved
             a
             meer
             shift
             and
             an
             utter
             change
             of
             the
             Question
          
           
             
               101
               ,
               102
               ,
               &c.
            
             
          
           
             The
             Animadverter's
             first
             Argument
             ,
             proving
             Self-Consciousness
             neither
             Act
             nor
             Principle
             to
             be
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             in
             created
             Beings
             ,
             enforced
             ,
             from
          
           
             
               p.
               101
            
             ,
             to
             108
          
           
             The
             second
             Argument
             vindicated
             ;
             and
             the
             defects
             of
             the
             Boetian
             Definition
             of
             a
             Person
             noted
             ,
             from
          
           
             
               p.
               108
            
             ,
             to
             112
          
           
             The
             third
             Argument
             for
             the
             same
             confirmed
             also
          
           
             
               112
               ,
               113
               ,
               &c.
            
             
          
           
             The
             Dispute
             concerning
             the
             Personality
             of
             the
             Soul
             both
             in
             and
             out
             
             of
             the
             Body
             ,
             resumed
             and
             carried
             on
             against
             this
             Author
             and
             all
             his
             H●terodox
             ,
             Vnphilosophical
             Assertions
             concerning
             it
             ,
             throughly
             canvased
             and
             confuted
             ,
             from
          
           
             
               p.
               114
            
             ,
             to
             151
          
           
             Every
             man
             constituted
             such
             (
             according
             to
             this
             Author
             's
             avowed
             Principles
             )
             not
             by
             an
             
               Essential
               Composition
            
             ,
             but
             by
             an
             
               Hypostatick
               Union
            
             of
             the
             Soul
             with
             the
             Body
             ,
             from
          
           
             
               p.
               147
            
             ,
             to
             150
          
           
             The
             Defender's
             pretended
             Answer
             to
             the
             fourth
             Chapter
             of
             the
             Animadversions
             ,
             proving
             Self-Consciousness
             not
             to
             be
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             in
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             examined
             ,
             and
             the
             several
             Arguments
             ,
             there
             produced
             against
             it
             ,
             made
             good
             ,
             from
          
           
             p.
             152
             ,
             to
             171
          
           
             He
             manifestly
             gives
             up
             the
             Point
             in
             dispute
             between
             him
             and
             his
             Adversary
             ,
             and
             that
             in
             several
             places
             ,
          
           
             
               viz.
               153
               ,
               154.
               item
               160
               ,
               161.
            
             and
             168.
             and
             
               204
               ,
               &c.
            
             
          
           
             His
             Blasphemy
          
           
             170
          
           
             The
             Animadverter's
             Arguments
             brought
             to
             prove
             ,
             That
             
               mutual
               Consciousness
               cannot
               be
               that
               which
               makes
            
             (
             as
             this
             Author
             affirms
             )
             
               the
               three
               Divine
               Persons
               essentially
               one
               God
               ,
            
             in
             like
             manner
             confirmed
             and
             enforced
             ,
             from
          
           
             
               p.
               171
            
             ,
             to
             
               183
               ,
               &c.
            
             
          
           
             His
             Shifting
             Pretence
             ,
             That
             by
             
               Mutual
               Consciousness
            
             he
             means
             the
             Principle
             ,
             not
             the
             Act
             thereof
             ,
             irrefragably
             overthrown
             from
             his
             own
             repeated
             Expressions
             and
             Assertions
          
           
             
               p.
               172
               ,
               to
               178
            
          
           
             The
             
               Thing
               it self
            
             effectually
             disprov'd
             by
             Reason
             and
             Argument
          
           
             
               p.
               178
               ,
               to
               182
            
          
           
             How
             the
             Divine
             Knowledge
             is
             diversify'd
          
           
             
               190
               ,
               191
            
          
           
             The
             Communion
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             with
             one-another
             asserted
             and
             prov'd
             not
             to
             be
             formally
             the
             same
             with
             the
             Union
             of
             the
             said
             Persons
          
           
             
               193
               ,
               194
            
          
           
             A
             downright
             ,
             shameless
             ,
             unconscionable
             Lye
             affirmed
             by
             this
             Defender
             ,
          
           
             
               195
               ,
               196
            
          
           
             His
             silly
             Cavils
             about
             
               [
               Union
               of
               Nature
            
             ]
             and
             about
             
               [
               Personality
            
             ]
             answer'd
          
           
             
               156
               ,
               157
               ,
               158
            
          
           
             No
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             ,
             or
             Mutual
             Indwelling
             of
             Minds
             in
             one
             another
          
           
             199
          
           
             This
             Author
             's
             great
             Ignorance
             in
             exploding
             all
             Priority
             and
             Posteriority
             from
             our
             Conceptions
             and
             Discourses
             of
             God
             ,
             expos'd
             and
             
             laid
             open
             ,
             and
             the
             Necessity
             of
             admitting
             the
             same
             ,
             unanswerably
             prov'd
             against
             him
          
           
             
               p.
               199
               ,
               to
               203
            
          
           
             His
             Pretence
             of
             not
             disputing
             about
             the
             
               Essences
               of
               Things
            
             shewn
             impertinent
             to
             the
             purpose
             he
             alledges
             it
             for
             ;
             and
             withal
             ,
             grosly
             contradictious
             to
             what
             he
             himself
             had
             positively
             affirmed
             elsewhere
          
           
             
               204
               ,
               205
            
          
           
             How
             Knowledge
             ,
             and
             how
             all
             Arts
             and
             Sciences
             are
             distinguish'd
             and
             denominated
             from
             their
             respective
             Objects
             ,
             (
             which
             this
             Author
             is
             utterly
             ignorant
             of
             ,
             )
             shewn
             and
             explained
          
           
             
               207
               ,
               208
            
          
           
             Sensation
             in
             God
             ,
             as
             wholly
             differing
             (
             according
             to
             this
             Author
             ,
             )
             in
             kind
             from
             the
             
               Divine
               Knowledge
            
             ,
             disproved
             and
             exploded
          
           
             
               p.
               208
               ,
               to
               213
            
          
           
             His
             scandalous
             Falsification
             in
             quite
             changing
             the
             state
             of
             the
             present
             Question
             ,
             contrary
             to
             his
             own
             positive
             ,
             frequent
             ,
             and
             express
             Assertions
             throughout
             the
             Vindication
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           
             
               p.
               214
               ,
               to
               218
            
          
           
             The
             same
             made
             yet
             more
             manifest
             ,
             by
             collating
             what
             
               he
               says
               here
            
             ,
             with
             what
             he
             had
             
               affirmed
               there
            
             ,
          
           
             ibid.
             
          
           
             The
             
               true
               state
            
             of
             the
             Question
             substituted
             in
             the
             room
             of
             the
             preceding
             false
             one
             ,
          
           
             219
          
           
             His
             vain
             Endeavour
             to
             rescue
             his
             Hypothesis
             of
             three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             from
             the
             Charge
             of
             Tritheism
             ,
          
           
             220
          
           
             His
             Assertion
             of
             the
             Equipollency
             of
             the
             Terms
             
               [
               Infinite
               Mind
            
             ]
             and
             
               [
               Infinite
               Intelligent
               Person
            
             ]
             proved
             intolerably
             false
             ,
             and
             absurd
             ,
          
           
             
               223
               ,
               224
               ,
               &c.
            
             
          
           
             The
             difference
             between
             
               [
               Three
               Infinite
               Persons
            
             ]
             and
             
               [
               Three
               Infinite
               Minds
            
             ]
          
           
             228
          
           
             A
             Syllogism
             very
             learnedly
             form'd
             by
             this
             Defender
             for
             his
             old
             Friends
             the
             Socinians
             ,
             with
             two
             Terms
             and
             no
             more
             ,
          
           
             229
          
           
             The
             Nature
             ,
             Import
             ,
             and
             Force
             of
             the
             Equipollency
             of
             Terms
             declar'd
             ,
          
           
             
               234
               ,
               235
               ,
               236
            
          
           
             The
             Assertion
             of
             
               [
               Three
               distinct
               Infinite
               Minds
            
             ]
             inevitably
             inferrs
             a
             plurality
             of
             Gods
             ;
             but
             the
             Assertion
             of
             
               [
               Three
               distinct
               Infinite
               Persons
            
             ]
             does
             not
             so
             ;
             and
             the
             reason
             of
             the
             Difference
             plainly
             shown
             ,
          
           
             
               237
               ,
               238
               ,
               239
               ,
               &c.
               
            
          
           
             
             The
             Defender
             confuted
             by
             his
             own
             express
             concession
             ,
          
           
             244
          
           
             His
             New-coin'd
             ,
             and
             never
             before
             heard
             of
             ▪
             Expression
             ,
             viz.
             That
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             is
             
               [
               Repeated
            
             ]
             in
             
               Three
               Subsistences
            
             ought
             by
             no
             means
             to
             be
             endur'd
             ,
             but
             utterly
             rejected
             ;
             (
             as
             absurd
             both
             in
             Philosophy
             and
             Theology
             )
          
           
             
               242
               ,
               item
               260
               ,
               &c.
               
            
          
           
             This
             Defender
             manifestly
             ignorant
             what
             the
             true
             definition
             of
             Substance
             is
             ,
          
           
             247
          
           
             His
             equally
             gross
             and
             ridiculous
             Ignorance
             ,
             in
             supposing
             a
             
               Res
               Cogitans
            
             to
             be
             a
             different
             thing
             from
             a
             
               Substantia
               Cogitans
            
             or
             Intelligens
             ,
          
           
             249
          
           
             
               Naturae
               Rationalis
               Individua
               Substantia
            
             ,
             an
             
               Essential
               Predicate
            
             indeed
             ,
             but
             not
             the
             Definition
             of
             a
             Person
          
           
             250
          
           
             The
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             proved
             not
             to
             be
             
               Three
               distinct
               Substances
            
             ,
             but
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             proved
             necessarily
             to
             be
             so
             ,
          
           
             251
          
           
             Proved
             ,
             That
             the
             Fathers
             ,
             by
             the
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             ,
             as
             apply'd
             to
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             never
             meant
             to
             conclude
             a
             Specifick
             ,
             but
             only
             a
             Numerical
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             or
             Substance
             belonging
             to
             them
             ,
             by
             shewing
             how
             far
             they
             argued
             against
             the
             Arians
             from
             the
             said
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
          
           
             
               253
               ,
               254
            
          
           
             That
             the
             Ancients
             never
             admitted
             
               three
               individual
               Substances
            
             in
             the
             Godhead
             ,
             proved
             from
             the
             Latine
             Churche's
             refusing
             (
             for
             a
             long
             time
             )
             the
             use
             of
             the
             words
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
          
           
             255
          
           
             This
             Author
             's
             fulsome
             Ignorance
             in
             supposing
             a
             
               Numerical
               Difference
            
             not
             to
             be
             an
             
               Essential
               Difference
            
          
           
             257
          
           
             It
             is
             impossible
             for
             three
             Minds
             to
             exist
             in
             one
             infinite
             Mind
             or
             Substance
             ,
             so
             as
             thereby
             to
             become
             
               essentially
               one
            
          
           
             259
          
           
             It
             is
             impossible
             for
             any
             two
             or
             more
             Substances
             to
             be
             
               absolutely
               inseparable
            
             ;
             which
             is
             another
             Demonstration
             ,
             That
             the
             three
             Divine
             Persons
             cannot
             be
             three
             distinct
             
               Substances
               ,
               Minds
               ,
               or
               Spirits
            
          
           
             ibid.
             
          
           
             The
             Animadverter's
             Argument
             against
             
               three
               Substances
            
             in
             the
             Godhead
             asserted
             and
             confirmed
             ,
          
           
             262
          
           
             The
             Defender's
             scandalous
             Assertion
             concerning
             the
             
               Divine
               Essence
            
             and
             a
             
               Divine
               Person
            
             examin'd
             and
             overthrown
             ,
          
           
             
               p.
               263
               ,
               to
               267
            
          
           
             
             A
             notable
             Passage
             out
             of
             Faustinus
             ,
             against
             the
             admission
             of
             Three
             Individual
             Substances
             in
             the
             Godhead
             ,
          
           
             268
          
           
             The
             Animadverter's
             Third
             Argument
             against
             the
             
               Three
               Divine
               Persons
            
             being
             
               Three
               distinct
               Minds
            
             ,
             vindicated
             ;
             and
             the
             force
             of
             it
             prov'd
             to
             be
             founded
             not
             in
             the
             meer
             Opposition
             of
             the
             Numeral
             Terms
             
               [
               One
            
             ]
             and
             
               [
               Three
               ]
            
             ,
             but
             in
             the
             peculiar
             Nature
             and
             Condition
             of
             the
             Subject
             which
             they
             are
             here
             apply'd
             to
             ,
          
           
             
               270
               ,
               271
            
          
           
             
               Three
               Infinite
               Minds
            
             can
             no
             more
             be
             essentially
             One
             Infinite
             Mind
             ,
             than
             
               Three
               Persons
            
             can
             upon
             any
             account
             whatsoever
             be
             naturally
             One
             Person
          
           
             272
          
           
             For
             
               Three
               to
               be
               One
            
             ,
             and
             
               One
               to
               be
               Three
            
             ,
             in
             respect
             of
             one
             and
             the
             same
             kind
             of
             Unity
             or
             Diversity
             ,
             is
             impossible
             ,
          
           
             ibid.
             
          
           
             A
             Ridiculous
             Cavil
             of
             the
             Defender
             ,
             proceeding
             from
             his
             gross
             Ignorance
             of
             the
             Sence
             and
             Vse
             of
             the
             word
             
               [
               Attribute
            
             ]
             as
             apply'd
             to
             God.
             
          
           
             275
          
           
             The
             Defender's
             perpetual
             Blunder
             ,
             in
             concluding
             each
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             to
             be
             a
             
               distinct
               Infinite
               Mind
            
             ,
             because
             
               [
               Infinite
               Mind
            
             ]
             belongs
             distinctly
             to
             each
             of
             them
          
           
             
               p.
               277
               ,
               to
               280
            
          
           
             To
             assert
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             to
             be
             
               Three
               Infinite
               Minds
            
             utterly
             irreconcilable
             to
             the
             form
             of
             the
             Athanasian
             Creed
             ,
          
           
             ibid.
             
          
           
             The
             same
             Individual
             Divine
             Nature
             belongs
             in
             common
             to
             all
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ;
             but
             upon
             the
             same
             account
             on
             which
             it
             is
             
               common
               to
               them
               all
            
             ,
             it
             does
             not
             belong
             distinctly
             to
             each
             or
             any
             of
             them
             ,
          
           
             279
          
           
             A
             Notable
             Passage
             out
             of
             a
             Latin
             Tract
             inserted
             into
             
             Athanasius's
             Works
             expresly
             denying
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             to
             be
             
               Three
               Spirits
            
             ,
          
           
             281
          
           
             The
             Blasphemy
             charged
             upon
             the
             Passages
             extracted
             out
             of
             Dr.
             
             Sherlock's
             Book
             of
             
               the
               Knowledge
               of
               Jesus
            
             ,
             by
             the
             Animadverter
             in
             his
             Preface
             ,
             still
             insisted
             upon
             ,
             and
             the
             Charge
             made
             good
             against
             him
             ,
          
           
             
               283
               ,
               284
            
          
           
             Good
             and
             Charitable
             Advice
             given
             to
             this
             Author
             ,
          
           
             
               285
               ,
               286
            
          
           
             A
             summary
             Account
             of
             the
             several
             Ways
             and
             Shifts
             made
             use
             of
             by
             the
             Defender
             throughout
             this
             whole
             Defence
             ,
          
           
             
               p.
               286
            
             ,
             to
             289
          
           
             
             Some
             Instances
             of
             the
             extraordinary
             Vertues
             of
             Mr.
             Dean's
             
               [
               Meaning
               ]
            
             ,
             shewing
             of
             what
             singular
             use
             it
             is
             to
             him
             upon
             more
             occasions
             than
             One
          
           
             
               p.
               289
            
             ,
             to
             292
          
           
             The
             Complaint
             made
             by
             some
             against
             the
             Animadverter
             ,
             as
             if
             he
             had
             treated
             Mr.
             Dean
             (
             forsooth
             )
             with
             too
             much
             sharpness
             ,
             shewn
             to
             be
             partial
             and
             unreasonable
             ,
             and
             consequently
             not
             worth
             regarding
             ,
          
           
             
               293
               ,
               294
            
          
           
             The
             Animadverter's
             Resolution
             how
             to
             deal
             with
             him
             for
             the
             future
          
           
             294
          
           
             His
             Scurrility
             towards
             the
             Animadverter
             ,
             in
             six
             several
             Instances
             ,
             laid
             open
             and
             remarked
             upon
             :
             such
             as
             ,
             for
             example
             ,
             his
             traducing
             him
             as
             ,
             
               One
               who
               can
               only
               make
               a
               shift
               to
               read
               and
               to
               transcribe
            
             ;
             and
             as
             
               one
               who
               must
               be
               taught
               to
               construe
               the
               Fathers
            
             ;
             calling
             him
             withal
             
               Grinning
               Dog
            
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           
             
               p.
               294
            
             ,
             to
             302
          
           
             A
             brief
             Vindication
             of
             the
             Animadverter
             against
             the
             Objections
             and
             unprovok'd
             Spight
             of
             the
             
               Socinian
               Considerer
            
             ,
          
           
             
               p.
               302
            
             ,
             to
             312
          
           
             A
             memorable
             Saying
             of
             a
             certain
             Dean
             to
             a
             poor
             Widow
             ,
             desiring
             to
             renew
             her
             Lease
             with
             him
             ,
          
           
             308
          
           
             Dr.
             Sherlock
             ,
             and
             not
             the
             Animadverter
             ,
             a
             Favourite
             of
             the
             Socinians
             ,
          
           
             
               302
               ,
               303
               ,
               304
            
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           
             A
             Remark
             or
             two
             upon
             the
             little
             
             Oxford-Excommunicate
             ,
             lately
             expell'd
             from
             
               Exeter
               College
            
             ,
          
           
             313
          
           
             This
             New
             Hypothesis
             sufficiently
             debated
             and
             confuted
             already
             ,
             and
             the
             Truth
             asserted
             against
             it
             by
             Argument
             ;
             and
             consequently
             the
             Exertion
             of
             the
             Episcopal
             Censure
             and
             Authority
             the
             fittest
             way
             to
             deal
             both
             with
             That
             and
             
               its
               Author
            
             for
             the
             future
             ,
          
           
             315
          
           
             The
             whole
             closed
             up
             with
             a
             remarkable
             Expression
             apply'd
             to
             the
             
               present
               Subject
            
             .
          
           
        
      
       
         
           Some
           ERRATA
           of
           the
           Press
           .
        
         
           IN
           the
           Table
           of
           
             New
             Heterod
             .
             Propositions
          
           page
           the
           last
           lin
           .
           15.
           for
           of
           judge
           of
           r.
           to
           judge
           of
           ,
           p.
           22.
           l.
           5.
           for
           intire
           read
           entire
           ,
           p.
           49.
           l.
           12.
           for
           26th
           r.
           25th
           ,
           p.
           60.
           l.
           14.
           for
           singulur
           r.
           singular
           ,
           p.
           73.
           l.
           5.
           dele
           E.
           p.
           76.
           l.
           25.
           for
           Effential
           r.
           Essential
           ,
           p.
           83.
           l.
           11.
           
             for
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             r.
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             ,
             p.
          
           174.
           l.
           15.
           
             for
             coutradicting
             r.
             contradicting
             ,
             p.
          
           236.
           l.
           14.
           for
           In●inite
           r.
           infinite
           ,
           p.
           244.
           l.
           31.
           for
           Thnig
           r.
           Thing
           ,
           p.
           246.
           l.
           27.
           for
           consist
           ▪
           r.
           consist
           ?
           p.
           251.
           l.
           1.
           for
           Substancs
           r.
           Substance
           ,
           p.
           280.
           l.
           22.
           
             for
             is
             evident
             r.
             is
             as
             evident
             ,
             p.
          
           302.
           l.
           15.
           for
           7.
           r.
           6.
           
           Where
           Adimadverter
           occurrs
           ,
           
             r.
             Animadverter
          
           .
           For
           
             and
             indeed
             ,
             r.
             or
             rather
             indeed
             ,
             p.
          
           313.
           last
           line
           but
           two
           .
        
      
    
     
       
         
         
           TRITHEISM
           CHARGED
           ,
           &c.
           
        
         
           AS
           it
           may
           justly
           be
           accounted
           a
           needless
           ,
           so
           it
           is
           certainly
           a
           Nauseous
           Task
           to
           attempt
           the
           Confutation
           of
           a
           Book
           more
           than
           sufficiently
           confuted
           already
           ,
           by
           the
           
             very
             Book
          
           ,
           which
           it
           was
           wrote
           against
           .
           For
           so
           much
           I
           dare
           ,
           and
           shall
           averr
           ,
           That
           there
           is
           not
           one
           Passage
           in
           all
           this
           Defence
           of
           Dr.
           
           Sherlock's
           
             Notion
             of
             the
             Trinity
          
           ,
           (
           as
           it
           is
           called
           )
           carrying
           with
           it
           so
           much
           as
           the
           Face
           of
           an
           Argument
           ,
           (
           as
           none
           carries
           with
           it
           any
           more
           )
           but
           what
           may
           be
           fully
           ,
           throughly
           ,
           and
           with
           advantage
           answered
           out
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           .
           Nevertheless
           the
           Expectation
           of
           the
           World
           may
           possibly
           claim
           an
           Answer
           ,
           though
           such
           a
           Pamphlet
           can
           neither
           require
           nor
           deserve
           one
           .
           And
           were
           not
           the
           World
           so
           severe
           an
           Exactor
           in
           such
           Cases
           ,
           this
           
             pittiful
             Piece
          
           should
           for
           me
           lie
           unanswered
           ,
           and
           despised
           for
           ever
           ;
           so
           little
           do
           I
           think
           it
           for
           the
           Credit
           of
           any
           one
           to
           fight
           with
           a
           
           Shaddow
           ,
           or
           a
           Vizard
           ,
           or
           to
           combat
           an
           Adversary
           ,
           who
           is
           better
           a
           great
           deal
           at
           Hiding
           than
           at
           Defending
           himself
           .
           The
           Animadverter
           from
           the
           very
           first
           declared
           ,
           That
           in
           this
           Controversie
           he
           would
           concern
           himself
           with
           none
           but
           the
           Author
           himself
           ,
           whom
           he
           first
           wrote
           against
           ;
           nor
           with
           him
           neither
           ,
           but
           in
           case
           of
           a
           Iust
           and
           
             Scholastick
             Reply
          
           made
           to
           his
           whole
           Discourse
           .
           And
           now
           ,
           how
           this
           
             puny
             Thing
          
           ,
           called
           a
           Defence
           ,
           comes
           up
           to
           the
           first
           of
           these
           Qualifications
           ,
           viz.
           the
           Iustness
           or
           Commensuration
           of
           it
           to
           the
           Book
           it
           pretends
           to
           answer
           ,
           will
           be
           quickly
           se●n
           :
           For
           if
           we
           measure
           that
           Book
           by
           all
           the
           Particulars
           contained
           in
           it
           ,
           it
           answers
           not
           so
           much
           as
           the
           
             fortieth
             Part
          
           of
           it
           ;
           and
           if
           we
           measure
           it
           by
           the
           Number
           of
           Chapters
           ,
           it
           catches
           indeed
           or
           rather
           snapps
           at
           several
           Parts
           of
           three
           Chapters
           ,
           (
           far
           from
           examining
           the
           whole
           even
           of
           these
           Three
           )
           but
           as
           for
           the
           other
           Nine
           Chapters
           ,
           and
           the
           whole
           Preface
           ,
           they
           are
           entirely
           pass'd
           over
           by
           it
           ,
           not
           only
           not
           answered
           ,
           but
           (
           upon
           the
           Matter
           )
           scarce
           so
           much
           as
           touch'd
           .
           So
           that
           by
           a
           new
           and
           rare
           Metonymy
           of
           the
           fourth
           or
           fifth
           ,
           and
           in
           some
           respect
           of
           the
           fortieth
           Part
           for
           the
           whole
           ,
           this
           doughty
           Piece
           must
           be
           called
           an
           Answer
           to
           the
           Animadversions
           .
           For
           if
           the
           Reader
           will
           needs
           have
           such
           an
           Answer
           ,
           he
           must
           seek
           for
           it
           in
           the
           Title-Page
           ,
           for
           in
           the
           Book
           it self
           he
           shall
           never
           find
           it
           .
           And
           then
           ,
           in
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           for
           what
           concerns
           the
           
             Scholastick
             Character
          
           of
           the
           same
           ,
           that
           will
           eminently
           appear
           from
           those
           choice
           and
           
             Scholastick
             Terms
          
           ,
           which
           it
           is
           all
           along
           embellished
           and
           set
           off
           with
           .
           Such
           as
           are
           these
           ,
           that
           follow
           ,
           with
           Reference
           to
           the
           Animadverter
           himself
           ,
           
             viz.
             Ingenious
             Blunderer
             ,
             Trifling
             Author
             ,
             Wandring
             Wit
             ,
             Wrangling
             Wit
             ,
             Leviathan
             ,
             One
             whose
             Risibility
             will
             
             prove
             him
             a
             Man
             ,
             though
             he
             is
             seldom
             in
             so
             good
             a
             Humour
             as
             to
             laugh
             without
             grinning
             ,
             which
             belongs
             to
             another
             Species
             ,
          
           viz.
           
             a
             Dog.
             A
             notable
             Man
             ,
             and
             one
             that
             can
             make
             a
             shift
             to
             read
             ,
             and
             to
             transcribe
             .
          
           And
           then
           for
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           they
           are
           characteriz'd
           by
           
             senseless
             Mistakes
             ,
             School-Terms
             instead
             of
             Sence
             ,
             Gypsy-Cant
             ,
             perfect
             Gibberish
             ,
             Ignorance
             and
             Raving
             ,
             an
             hundred
             Absurdities
             and
             Fooleries
             ,
             Huffing
             ,
             Swaggering
             and
             Scolding
             ,
             a
             great
             scolding
             Book
             ,
             Want
             of
             Sence
             ,
          
           &c.
           with
           several
           more
           of
           the
           like
           Gravel-Lane
           Elegancies
           ;
           and
           all
           of
           them
           such
           peculiar
           Strictures
           of
           this
           Author's
           Genius
           ,
           that
           he
           might
           very
           well
           spare
           his
           Name
           ,
           where
           he
           had
           made
           himself
           so
           well
           known
           by
           his
           Mark.
           For
           all
           the
           foregoing
           Oyster-Wive-Kennel-Rhetorick
           ,
           seems
           so
           naturally
           to
           flow
           from
           him
           who
           had
           been
           so
           long
           Rector
           of
           St.
           
           Botolph's
           (
           with
           the
           well-spoken
           Billingsgate
           under
           his
           Cure
           )
           that
           (
           as
           much
           a
           Teacher
           as
           he
           was
           )
           it
           may
           well
           be
           questioned
           ,
           whether
           he
           has
           learned
           more
           from
           his
           Parish
           ,
           or
           his
           Parish
           from
           him
           .
           But
           after
           all
           ,
           may
           I
           not
           ask
           him
           this
           short
           Question
           ?
           Where
           is
           the
           Wit
           and
           Smartness
           of
           Thought
           ?
           Where
           are
           the
           peculiar
           Graces
           ,
           and
           lucky
           Hits
           of
           Fancy
           ,
           that
           should
           recommend
           the
           foregoing
           Expressions
           to
           the
           Learned
           and
           Ingenious
           ?
           No
           ,
           nothing
           of
           all
           this
           is
           to
           be
           found
           in
           this
           Man's
           Words
           or
           way
           of
           speaking
           .
           But
           all
           savour
           of
           the
           Porter
           ,
           the
           Car-Man
           ,
           and
           the
           Water-Man
           ,
           and
           a
           pleasant
           Scene
           it
           must
           needs
           be
           to
           the
           Reader
           ,
           to
           see
           the
           
             Master
             of
             the
             Temple
          
           thus
           laying
           about
           him
           in
           the
           Language
           of
           the
           Stairs
           .
           But
           what
           Men
           draw
           in
           from
           their
           Education
           ,
           generally
           sticks
           by
           them
           for
           Term
           of
           Life
           ,
           and
           it
           is
           not
           to
           be
           expected
           ,
           That
           a
           Mouth
           so
           long
           accustomed
           to
           throw
           Dirt
           ,
           should
           
           ever
           leave
           it
           off
           ,
           till
           it
           comes
           to
           be
           stopped
           with
           it
           .
        
         
           Leaving
           therefore
           his
           ill
           Language
           ,
           and
           worse
           Breeding
           to
           himself
           and
           others
           like
           him
           ,
           I
           shall
           now
           address
           my self
           to
           an
           Examination
           of
           the
           wonderful
           Work
           he
           has
           presented
           the
           World
           with
           .
           And
           in
           this
           I
           shall
           begin
           with
           the
           concluding
           Passage
           of
           it
           ,
           (
           especially
           since
           it
           relates
           to
           that
           which
           lyes
           first
           in
           the
           Animadversions
           .
           )
           And
           that
           is
           a
           Master-piece
           of
           Critical
           Learning
           indeed
           ;
           
           viz.
           His
           charging
           the
           Animadverter
           with
           a
           Blunder
           for
           deriving
           a
           Mystery
           from
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           or
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           .
           For
           says
           he
           very
           Learnedly
           ,
           
             A
             Mystery
             is
             a
             Thing
             ,
             and
             therefore
             how
             can
             it
             be
             derived
             from
             a
             Word
             ?
          
           And
           now
           is
           any
           Man
           alive
           able
           to
           stand
           his
           ground
           against
           such
           an
           over-bearing
           Objection
           ?
           Nevertheless
           ,
           to
           answer
           it
           as
           Calmly
           as
           may
           be
           ;
           Does
           the
           Animadverter
           indeed
           absolutely
           ,
           and
           in
           Terminis
           say
           ,
           
             That
             a
             Mystery
             is
             derived
             from
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             or
          
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           &
           c
           ?
           Or
           rather
           does
           not
           the
           Defender
           quote
           the
           Animadverter
           as
           the
           Devil
           quoted
           Scripture
           ,
           with
           the
           Principal
           words
           left
           out
           ,
           which
           should
           govern
           the
           whole
           Sentence
           ?
           For
           if
           we
           consult
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           The
           words
           are
           not
           ,
           
             A
             Mystery
             is
             derived
             from
          
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           &c.
           
           But
           
             A
             Mystery
             (
             according
             to
             the
             common
             signification
             of
             the
             word
             )
             is
             derived
             so
             or
             so
             .
          
           And
           will
           this
           Man
           of
           Criticism
           deny
           that
           there
           may
           be
           a
           Verbal
           as
           well
           as
           a
           Real
           Consideration
           of
           a
           Thing
           ,
           or
           that
           a
           Mystery
           ,
           or
           any
           other
           Thing
           whatsoever
           ,
           may
           not
           be
           considered
           and
           treated
           of
           according
           to
           it's
           Name
           as
           well
           as
           according
           to
           it's
           Nature
           ,
           and
           that
           these
           are
           two
           distinct
           Considerations
           of
           almost
           every
           Thing
           that
           falls
           under
           Discourse
           ,
           and
           so
           distinct
           ,
           that
           one
           may
           pass
           upon
           a
           Thing
           without
           the
           other
           ?
           Let
           him
           deny
           this
           if
           he
           can
           ,
           and
           shew
           some
           other
           Reason
           besides
           his
           
           own
           Spight
           and
           Ignorance
           for
           such
           a
           Partial
           ,
           Malicious
           Half-quotation
           of
           the
           Animadverters
           words
           .
           But
           perhaps
           he
           has
           here
           a
           Quarrel
           at
           the
           Particle
           [
           A
           ]
           and
           instead
           of
           [
           A
           Mystery
           ]
           would
           have
           it
           only
           [
           Mystery
           ]
           .
           But
           if
           this
           should
           pervert
           the
           meaning
           of
           the
           Sentence
           in
           English
           ,
           I
           suppose
           it
           will
           equally
           pervert
           the
           same
           in
           Latine
           too
           ;
           since
           what
           is
           sence
           or
           nonsence
           in
           one
           Language
           must
           be
           equally
           so
           in
           Another
           .
           And
           therefore
           we
           will
           try
           how
           the
           matter
           is
           like
           to
           prove
           ,
           according
           to
           this
           Method
           .
           For
           I
           think
           it
           may
           be
           no
           less
           a
           Charity
           to
           this
           Author
           sometimes
           to
           turn
           English
           for
           him
           into
           Latine
           ,
           than
           what
           was
           before
           shewn
           him
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           in
           now
           and
           then
           turning
           a
           piece
           of
           Latine
           for
           him
           into
           English.
           Now
           the
           words
           in
           the
           Animadverter
           being
           these
           .
           
             A
             Mystery
             ,
             according
             to
             the
             common
             signification
             of
             the
             word
             ,
             is
             derived
             either
             from
             the
             Greek
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             ,
             &c.
          
           must
           in
           Latine
           run
           thus
           .
           
             Mysterium
             secundùm
             vulgariter
             receptum
             vocis
             hujusce
             usum
             derivatur
             vel
             à
             Graeco
             vocabulo
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           Now
           let
           this
           ▪
           Aristarchus
           declare
           ,
           whether
           there
           is
           any
           failure
           either
           of
           Sence
           or
           Propriety
           in
           the
           Sentence
           thus
           translated
           ,
           and
           where
           it
           is
           .
           And
           if
           this
           be
           a
           true
           and
           proper
           Translation
           ,
           then
           I
           am
           sure
           that
           what
           appears
           so
           in
           Latine
           must
           be
           equally
           so
           in
           English.
           But
           why
           should
           I
           spend
           words
           in
           disputing
           a
           thing
           so
           obvious
           to
           any
           Man
           of
           Sence
           ?
           For
           will
           any
           one
           living
           ,
           who
           is
           so
           ,
           deny
           it
           to
           be
           a
           most
           pertinent
           and
           proper
           way
           to
           give
           an
           Account
           of
           Things
           by
           the
           signification
           of
           the
           words
           which
           they
           are
           couched
           under
           ?
           and
           withall
           ,
           to
           prove
           and
           make
           good
           that
           signification
           yet
           further
           ,
           by
           its
           derivation
           from
           another
           and
           more
           remote
           word
           ?
           What
           Judgment
           the
           Reader
           will
           pass
           
           upon
           this
           Man's
           Temper
           and
           Abilities
           for
           this
           Objection
           ,
           I
           know
           not
           ;
           but
           for
           my
           own
           part
           ,
           I
           protest
           I
           can
           hardly
           think
           him
           well
           in
           his
           Wits
           ,
           that
           he
           should
           offer
           such
           stuff
           to
           Publick
           View
           ,
           which
           one
           grain
           of
           sence
           would
           convince
           him
           deserves
           rather
           to
           be
           hooted
           at
           than
           replyed
           to
           .
        
         
           But
           this
           is
           not
           all
           ;
           for
           we
           have
           him
           again
           at
           his
           old
           Blunder
           about
           the
           
             Anti-Nicene
             Fathers
             ,
             p.
          
           17.
           l.
           2.
           though
           he
           had
           been
           so
           deservedly
           corrected
           and
           exposed
           for
           it
           before
           .
           But
           whosoever
           ,
           or
           whatsoever
           these
           
             Anti-Nicene
             Fathers
          
           were
           ,
           I
           find
           it
           past
           my
           skill
           to
           perswade
           the
           World
           that
           the
           Greek
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           and
           the
           Latine
           ante
           ,
           signify
           the
           same
           Thing
           ;
           though
           to
           this
           Author
           ,
           I
           confess
           they
           may
           ,
           to
           whom
           Hebrew
           ,
           Greek
           and
           Latine
           come
           all
           alike
           .
        
         
           And
           again
           ,
           in
           a
           Greek
           Quotation
           ,
           p.
           22.
           (
           in
           which
           sort
           of
           Quotations
           he
           never
           fails
           to
           shew
           his
           Parts
           )
           we
           have
           these
           words
           .
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           instead
           of
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           &c.
           which
           indeed
           is
           but
           a
           
             false
             Concord
          
           ;
           and
           that
           ,
           we
           know
           ,
           ought
           to
           pass
           but
           for
           a
           ●light
           thing
           in
           a
           Grammarian
           
             above
             Ordinances
          
           .
           So
           that
           we
           see
           here
           that
           the
           Trade
           of
           Blunders
           ,
           Solecisms
           ,
           and
           false
           Syntax
           (
           as
           dead
           as
           all
           other
           Trading
           is
           )
           continues
           as
           Quick
           and
           full
           upon
           this
           Author's
           hands
           as
           ever
           .
           And
           the
           truth
           is
           ,
           I
           have
           had
           such
           Experience
           of
           him
           ,
           and
           know
           him
           by
           so
           true
           a
           measure
           ,
           that
           wheresoever
           there
           is
           any
           thing
           of
           Grammar
           in
           the
           Case
           ,
           I
           never
           expect
           any
           other
           or
           better
           from
           him
           :
           And
           I
           heartily
           pitty
           all
           Greek
           or
           Latine
           that
           falls
           under
           his
           hands
           .
        
         
           And
           so
           I
           pass
           from
           his
           Critical
           to
           his
           Polemical
           Atchievements
           ;
           not
           doubting
           but
           I
           shall
           find
           him
           so
           extremely
           like
           himself
           in
           both
           ,
           that
           neither
           shall
           the
           
           Critick
           have
           any
           Cause
           to
           laugh
           at
           the
           Disputant
           ,
           nor
           the
           Disputant
           to
           reproach
           the
           Critick
           .
           Now
           his
           whole
           Work
           consists
           of
           these
           Two
           Parts
           .
        
         
           
             I.
             First
             ,
             A
             general
             Scheme
             or
             Draught
             of
             his
             Hypothesis
             .
          
           
             II.
             Secondly
             ,
             An
             Answer
             (
             as
             he
             calls
             it
             )
             to
             the
             
             Animadverter's
             Arguments
             .
          
        
         
           I.
           As
           to
           the
           First
           of
           which
           ,
           since
           it
           is
           not
           brought
           by
           way
           of
           Reply
           to
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           it
           might
           justly
           be
           slighted
           ,
           and
           ,
           according
           to
           all
           the
           Laws
           of
           Disputation
           ,
           passed
           over
           without
           the
           least
           notice
           taken
           of
           it
           :
           And
           so
           much
           the
           more
           ,
           because
           it
           is
           little
           else
           but
           a
           dull
           tedious
           
             Crambe
             recocta
          
           of
           his
           Self-Consciousness
           and
           Mutual-Consciousness
           served
           up
           again
           and
           again
           ,
           and
           obtruded
           upon
           the
           Reader
           
             ad
             nauseam
             usque
          
           :
           as
           if
           the
           bare
           Repetition
           of
           his
           baffled
           Notions
           were
           enough
           to
           recover
           and
           set
           them
           upon
           their
           leggs
           again
           .
           Nevertheless
           ,
           that
           he
           may
           not
           think
           Tautology
           a
           Thing
           of
           such
           Virtue
           ,
           as
           to
           be
           able
           to
           re-settle
           his
           broken
           Hypothesis
           upon
           any
           firmer
           ground
           than
           it
           stood
           on
           before
           ;
           what
           has
           been
           here
           offered
           by
           him
           ,
           by
           way
           of
           After-game
           in
           his
           forlorn
           Defence
           of
           it
           ,
           shall
           be
           duly
           and
           fairly
           examined
           .
        
         
           And
           here
           ,
           to
           shew
           the
           World
           that
           he
           can
           write
           with
           as
           little
           
             regard
             to
             Truth
          
           ,
           as
           
             sense
             of
             Shame
          
           ,
           he
           begins
           his
           Discourse
           with
           a
           very
           gross
           Falshood
           ,
           viz.
           That
           all
           that
           he
           affirmed
           in
           his
           Vindication
           ,
           &c.
           concerning
           a
           Trinity
           in
           Vnity
           ,
           was
           ,
           
             That
             it
             is
             a
             Possible
             and
             Intelligible
             Notion
             ,
             and
             no
             other
             in
             Sence
             and
             Substance
             than
             what
             the
             Ancient
             Fathers
             made
             use
             of
             to
             represent
             
             this
             great
             Mystery
             by
             ,
             though
             expressed
             in
             other
             Terms
             ,
          
           &c.
           p.
           4.
           l.
           18.
           
        
         
           Now
           the
           first
           part
           of
           this
           Assertion
           I
           affirm
           in
           the
           Face
           of
           the
           World
           to
           be
           scandalously
           false
           .
           For
           he
           has
           not
           only
           asserted
           his
           Notion
           of
           a
           
             Trinity
             in
             Vnity
          
           (
           the
           only
           Thing
           here
           in
           Debate
           )
           to
           be
           Possible
           and
           Intelligible
           ;
           but
           also
           Plain
           and
           
             Easie
             ,
             and
             such
             as
             solves
             all
             Doubts
             and
             Difficulties
             ,
             and
             ●lears
             off
             all
             seeming
             Contradictions
             about
             it
             .
          
           These
           are
           his
           Words
           ,
           
             Vindicat
             .
             Pref.
             p.
          
           1.
           l.
           13.
           
           
             B.
             p.
          
           66
           ,
           68
           ,
           &
           85.
           
           And
           I
           do
           here
           demand
           of
           him
           ,
           Whether
           they
           are
           so
           or
           no
           ?
           If
           they
           are
           not
           ,
           Let
           him
           declare
           me
           an
           Impudent
           Falsificator
           ;
           and
           if
           they
           are
           ,
           Let
           him
           ,
           or
           any
           of
           his
           Friends
           of
           the
           
             Tritheistical
             Tribe
          
           ,
           prove
           ,
           That
           barely
           Possible
           and
           Intelligible
           (
           which
           is
           all
           that
           he
           here
           pretends
           to
           )
           signifie
           the
           same
           with
           Plain
           and
           Easie
           ,
           and
           
             solving
             all
             Doubts
             and
             Difficulties
             about
             the
             Trinity
             ,
          
           (
           which
           are
           the
           very
           Words
           of
           his
           Vindication
           )
           if
           they
           can
           .
        
         
           As
           for
           the
           next
           Thing
           asserted
           by
           him
           ,
           and
           that
           with
           every
           whit
           as
           great
           a
           Falshood
           as
           the
           former
           ,
           viz.
           
             That
             his
             Doctrine
             is
             the
             same
             with
             that
             of
             the
             Fathers
             ,
             though
             expressed
             in
             other
             Words
             .
          
           He
           ought
           (
           as
           he
           has
           been
           several
           times
           urged
           and
           required
           )
           to
           have
           given
           the
           World
           a
           solid
           Reason
           ,
           why
           the
           Fathers
           Meaning
           should
           not
           be
           rather
           gathered
           from
           their
           own
           than
           from
           his
           Words
           ?
           And
           why
           ,
           if
           they
           had
           the
           same
           meaning
           with
           him
           ,
           they
           did
           not
           express
           it
           in
           the
           same
           Words
           ;
           the
           Words
           being
           so
           easie
           ,
           and
           obvious
           at
           hand
           to
           be
           made
           use
           of
           ,
           and
           the
           Fathers
           withal
           so
           great
           Masters
           of
           
             Philosophy
             ,
             Rhetorick
          
           ,
           and
           Expression
           ?
           And
           I
           defie
           any
           Man
           of
           Sense
           alive
           to
           give
           a
           satisfactory
           Answer
           to
           these
           Queries
           ;
           But
           not
           one
           Tittle
           does
           this
           Author
           answer
           to
           these
           ,
           or
           to
           all
           
           that
           have
           been
           alledged
           or
           argued
           at
           large
           ,
           against
           this
           his
           confident
           bold-begging
           Asseveration
           in
           the
           6
           th
           ,
           7
           th
           ,
           and
           8
           th
           Chapters
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           .
        
         
           In
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           with
           the
           same
           Assurance
           and
           Untruth
           ,
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Substance
             of
             the
             Article
             of
             the
             Trinity
             is
             not
             concerned
             in
             his
             Hypothesis
             ,
          
           Defen
           .
           p.
           4.
           
           And
           
             that
             there
             is
             no
             Innovation
             made
             by
             it
             in
             the
             Faith
             ,
             nor
             any
             Alteration
             of
             the
             least
             Term
             in
             it
             ,
             p.
          
           5.
           
           Which
           (
           as
           I
           said
           )
           is
           a
           very
           confident
           Assertion
           ,
           and
           it
           were
           well
           if
           the
           Truth
           of
           it
           could
           support
           the
           Confidence
           .
           For
           notorious
           it
           is
           ,
           that
           this
           Man
           has
           advanced
           not
           only
           such
           Terms
           but
           Notions
           too
           ,
           in
           his
           Explication
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           as
           the
           
             Catholick
             Church
          
           never
           yet
           made
           use
           of
           ,
           and
           such
           as
           the
           generality
           of
           our
           
             own
             Church
          
           do
           at
           this
           day
           condemn
           as
           Novel
           and
           Heretical
           .
           And
           then
           ,
           can
           this
           Man
           say
           ,
           That
           he
           has
           innovated
           nothing
           upon
           the
           Substance
           of
           this
           Article
           ,
           which
           certainly
           does
           not
           consist
           meerly
           in
           the
           Words
           of
           it
           ?
           Suppose
           an
           Arian
           should
           come
           and
           brazen
           it
           out
           ,
           and
           pretend
           Orthodoxy
           as
           to
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           by
           saying
           ,
           
             That
             he
             owns
             Three
             Persons
             and
             One
             God
          
           ;
           as
           in
           a
           certain
           sence
           of
           his
           own
           ,
           he
           may
           ,
           and
           no
           doubt
           ,
           upon
           occasion
           ,
           would
           :
           Shall
           this
           Profession
           now
           warrant
           him
           Orthodox
           in
           this
           Article
           ,
           when
           if
           he
           should
           be
           put
           to
           it
           ,
           to
           explain
           this
           Profession
           ,
           he
           would
           never
           acknowledge
           
             those
             Three
             Persons
             to
             be
             That
             One
             God
             ?
          
           It
           is
           therefore
           mere
           Trifling
           to
           alledge
           the
           Verbal
           Profession
           of
           a
           Form
           ,
           where
           it
           is
           evident
           that
           a
           Man
           maintains
           such
           Doctrines
           as
           utterly
           overthrow
           the
           Sence
           of
           that
           Form.
           For
           whosoever
           holds
           any
           Proposition
           inconsistent
           with
           ,
           or
           subversive
           of
           another
           Proposition
           held
           by
           him
           ,
           can
           no
           more
           be
           said
           truly
           to
           own
           that
           other
           Proposition
           ,
           than
           if
           he
           actually
           
           and
           
             in
             terminis
          
           denied
           it
           ;
           since
           surely
           there
           may
           be
           a
           Real
           and
           Vertual
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           a
           Verbal
           and
           Express
           Denial
           of
           Things
           .
           But
           this
           Author
           thinks
           it
           an
           abundant
           Proof
           of
           his
           Orthodoxy
           in
           the
           Point
           before
           us
           ,
           that
           he
           pleads
           his
           entire
           acknowledgment
           of
           the
           
             Athanasian
             Creed
             in
             all
             the
             Parts
             and
             Expressions
             of
             it
             .
          
           But
           by
           his
           favour
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           neither
           is
           this
           sufficient
           ,
           unless
           he
           could
           prove
           that
           he
           cannot
           Contradict
           Himself
           .
           Forasmuch
           as
           a
           Man
           (
           He
           himself
           especially
           )
           may
           make
           a
           Verbal
           profession
           even
           of
           that
           Creed
           also
           ,
           and
           yet
           own
           and
           maintain
           Assertions
           directly
           contrary
           to
           ,
           and
           inconsistent
           with
           the
           Sence
           and
           Design
           of
           it
           .
           Now
           the
           Design
           of
           this
           Creed
           is
           to
           assert
           such
           a
           perfect
           Vnity
           in
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           or
           Essence
           ,
           and
           every
           
             essential
             Attribute
          
           of
           it
           ,
           as
           shall
           exclude
           all
           Multiplication
           of
           each
           ,
           notwithstanding
           the
           Plurality
           and
           incommunicable
           Distinction
           of
           the
           
             Divine
             Persons
          
           .
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           is
           the
           Design
           of
           the
           
             Athanasian
             Creed
          
           ,
           and
           does
           our
           Author's
           Hypothesis
           fall
           in
           and
           agree
           with
           it
           ?
           If
           so
           ,
           let
           us
           make
           Trial
           of
           it
           ,
           by
           casting
           the
           Principal
           Part
           of
           his
           Hypothesis
           into
           the
           
             Athanasian
             Form
          
           ,
           thus
           .
           The
           Father
           is
           [
           Infinite
           Spirit
           ]
           ,
           the
           Son
           is
           [
           Infinite
           Spirit
           ]
           ,
           and
           the
           Holy
           Ghost
           is
           [
           Infinite
           Spirit
           ]
           and
           yet
           they
           are
           not
           Three
           Infinite
           Spirits
           ,
           but
           one
           Infinite
           Spirit
           .
           So
           runs
           the
           
             Athanasian
             Form
          
           ;
           but
           then
           the
           illative
           Proposition
           ,
           viz.
           
             That
             they
             are
             not
             Three
             Infinite
             Spirits
             ,
          
           is
           a
           direct
           Contradiction
           to
           this
           Author's
           Hypothesis
           ,
           who
           positively
           affirms
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             Three
             Infinite
             Spirits
          
           ;
           and
           I
           as
           positively
           affirm
           ,
           
             That
             Three
             Infinite
             Spirits
             are
             Three
             Gods.
          
           And
           this
           ,
           I
           suppose
           ,
           makes
           an
           Alteration
           in
           this
           Article
           with
           a
           vengeance
           ,
           an
           Alteration
           in
           the
           very
           Substance
           of
           it
           ,
           if
           a
           
           Total
           Subversion
           can
           with
           any
           Propriety
           of
           Speech
           be
           called
           an
           Alteration
           .
           But
           this
           Author
           defends
           not
           himself
           only
           by
           his
           Acknowledgment
           of
           the
           
             Athanasian
             Creed
          
           ,
           but
           also
           by
           alledging
           his
           perfect
           Concurrence
           with
           the
           School-Men
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             he
             asserts
             the
             Vnity
             of
             the
             Godhead
             in
             as
             high
             Terms
             as
             ever
             the
             Schools
             did
             ,
             even
             a
             Natural
             Numerical
             Vnity
             thereof
             ,
             p.
          
           5.
           lin
           .
           3.
           
           But
           does
           not
           this
           Man
           in
           his
           
             Vindication
             ,
             p.
          
           114.
           lin
           .
           26.
           tell
           us
           ,
           That
           the
           Fathers
           (
           and
           
             Gregory
             Nyssen
          
           in
           particular
           )
           asserted
           a
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           of
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           and
           meant
           no
           other
           by
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           than
           an
           Vnion
           in
           such
           an
           one
           ,
           and
           that
           for
           so
           holding
           ,
           
             none
             ought
             to
             quarrel
             or
             find
             fault
             with
             them
             ,
          
           forasmuch
           as
           they
           asserted
           also
           a
           
             Numerical
             Vnity
          
           of
           the
           said
           Nature
           ?
           And
           therefore
           if
           this
           Author
           did
           indeed
           hold
           
             the
             Vnity
             of
             the
             Godhead
             ,
             in
             as
             high
             Terms
             as
             the
             Schools
             did
             ,
          
           I
           would
           Know
           ,
           what
           should
           make
           him
           talk
           thus
           of
           a
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           of
           the
           Deity
           in
           the
           forecited
           place
           ,
           and
           not
           only
           there
           ,
           but
           of
           something
           Analogous
           
             to
             this
             Specifick
             Vnity
             ,
             even
             in
             this
             Defence
          
           also
           ,
           p.
           17.
           l.
           19.
           
           For
           I
           am
           sure
           the
           Schools
           allow
           of
           no
           such
           Thing
           .
           Nor
           is
           this
           all
           ,
           but
           he
           also
           advances
           an
           Absurdity
           so
           peculiarly
           his
           own
           ,
           (
           how
           falsly
           soever
           he
           may
           charge
           the
           Fathers
           )
           that
           none
           ,
           who
           had
           but
           drank
           in
           the
           
             first
             Elements
          
           of
           Logick
           and
           Philosophy
           ,
           ever
           held
           ,
           or
           ,
           I
           believe
           ,
           so
           much
           as
           dreamed
           of
           before
           ;
           viz.
           Such
           an
           Vnity
           in
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           as
           is
           partly
           Specifical
           ,
           and
           partly
           Numerical
           ;
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           partly
           Vniversal
           ,
           and
           partly
           
             Particular
             ,
             p.
          
           17.
           l.
           26.
           
           A
           thing
           so
           monstrously
           illogical
           and
           contradictious
           ,
           That
           to
           mention
           it
           is
           to
           confute
           it
           .
           So
           that
           the
           Reader
           may
           here
           see
           how
           grosly
           he
           is
           like
           to
           be
           imposed
           upon
           ;
           if
           he
           takes
           this
           Author's
           
           word
           for
           a
           Just
           and
           True
           Account
           of
           his
           Hypothesis
           .
        
         
           But
           he
           is
           now
           entring
           upon
           his
           
             Grand
             Project
          
           (
           and
           a
           great
           one
           it
           is
           undoubtedly
           )
           viz.
           To
           give
           the
           World
           a
           fuller
           ,
           a
           clearer
           ,
           and
           a
           more
           Intelligible
           Notion
           of
           a
           
             Trinity
             in
             Unity
          
           ,
           than
           all
           the
           Fathers
           and
           the
           
             Catholick
             Church
          
           ever
           had
           of
           it
           for
           above
           sixteen
           hundred
           Years
           before
           .
           And
           ,
           as
           a
           Preparation
           to
           this
           ,
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           pag.
           5.
           lin
           .
           16.
           
           That
           the
           
             Great
             Objection
             all
             along
             against
             the
             Article
             of
             the
             Trinity
             has
             been
             the
             Unconceivableness
             of
             it
             :
          
           And
           therefore
           ,
           no
           doubt
           ,
           there
           must
           needs
           be
           the
           highest
           Reason
           and
           Necessity
           in
           the
           World
           for
           the
           Churches
           admitting
           this
           Man
           's
           
             New
             Explication
          
           of
           it
           ,
           as
           the
           only
           
             sure
             Expedient
          
           to
           remove
           this
           
             mighty
             Objection
          
           ,
           and
           so
           to
           render
           a
           
             Trinity
             in
             Unity
          
           for
           ever
           after
           
             Plain
             ,
             Easie
          
           ,
           and
           Intelligible
           .
           But
           I
           must
           remind
           this
           Author
           ,
           by
           the
           way
           ,
           That
           the
           
             Catholick
             Church
          
           ,
           having
           ever
           looked
           upon
           this
           as
           the
           greatest
           of
           Mysteries
           ,
           never
           made
           the
           Unconceivableness
           of
           it
           any
           
             Objection
             against
             it
          
           at
           all
           :
           and
           She
           had
           been
           very
           inconsistent
           with
           Her self
           ,
           if
           she
           had
           .
           But
           he
           tells
           us
           here
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Fathers
             indeed
             endeavour'd
             to
             help
             our
             Conceptions
             and
             Imaginations
             of
             this
             mysterious
             Union
             by
             some
             sensible
             Images
             ,
             such
             as
             the
             Union
             of
             the
             Sun
             ,
             its
             Light
             ,
             and
             Splendour
             ,
             of
             a
             Fountain
             and
             its
             Streams
             ,
             and
             of
             a
             Tree
             and
             its
             Branches
             ;
             p.
          
           6.
           l.
           5.
           
           Adding
           very
           gravely
           ,
           
             That
             every
             one
             Knows
             this
             ,
             who
             has
             looked
             into
             the
             Fathers
             ,
          
           (
           as
           no
           doubt
           Mr.
           Dean
           has
           ,
           and
           so
           have
           most
           Book-Sellers
           too
           )
           .
           But
           he
           proceeds
           and
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             these
             material
             Images
             might
             serve
             to
             render
             the
             Notion
             of
             a
             Trinity
             in
             Unity
             Possible
          
           and
           
             Credible
             ,
             p.
          
           6.
           
           And
           if
           they
           did
           so
           much
           ,
           I
           affirm
           ,
           that
           they
           did
           that
           ,
           which
           the
           
             Catholick
             
             Church
          
           (
           being
           otherwise
           certain
           of
           the
           Article
           it self
           from
           the
           Scripture
           )
           then
           fully
           acquiesced
           in
           ,
           without
           venturing
           or
           proceeding
           any
           further
           .
           And
           where
           then
           ,
           I
           pray
           ,
           was
           the
           Defect
           of
           these
           
             material
             Images
             and
             Resemblances
          
           ,
           as
           they
           were
           used
           and
           applied
           by
           the
           Fathers
           ?
           Why
           ,
           our
           Author
           in
           the
           next
           Words
           tells
           us
           ,
           That
           the
           Defect
           of
           them
           was
           in
           this
           ,
           
             That
             they
             could
             not
             help
             us
             to
             conceive
             what
             kind
             of
             Union
             it
             is
             that
             is
             between
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             p.
          
           6.
           l.
           16.
           
           But
           this
           I
           deny
           ,
           as
           utterly
           false
           .
           For
           first
           ,
           this
           
             Mysterious
             Union
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
          
           which
           the
           Fathers
           endeavoured
           to
           give
           the
           World
           some
           Resemblance
           of
           ,
           was
           ,
           as
           to
           the
           
             Kind
             of
             it
          
           ,
           an
           Union
           in
           
             Nature
             ,
             Essence
          
           ,
           or
           Substance
           ;
           and
           that
           in
           Opposition
           to
           an
           Union
           by
           bare
           Consent
           ,
           or
           any
           other
           Union
           whatsoever
           ,
           less
           than
           that
           in
           Nature
           or
           Essence
           .
           So
           that
           the
           
             Kind
             of
             Union
          
           is
           here
           assigned
           .
           And
           then
           ,
           as
           for
           what
           he
           says
           of
           the
           Inability
           of
           these
           Resemblances
           
             to
             help
             us
             to
             conceive
             of
             this
             Kind
             of
             Vnion
          
           ;
           If
           he
           means
           ,
           that
           they
           could
           not
           help
           us
           to
           any
           
             Conception
             of
             it
             at
             all
          
           ,
           this
           also
           is
           false
           ;
           for
           so
           farr
           as
           the
           Resemblance
           reach'd
           ,
           the
           Conception
           formed
           thereupon
           might
           reach
           too
           ;
           the
           first
           indeed
           was
           but
           Imperfect
           ,
           and
           consequently
           the
           other
           could
           be
           but
           Proportionable
           .
           But
           if
           He
           means
           ,
           that
           the
           said
           Resemblances
           could
           not
           help
           us
           to
           a
           
             full
             and
             perfect
             Conception
          
           of
           this
           Union
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           neither
           did
           the
           Fathers
           then
           pretend
           to
           it
           ,
           nor
           the
           Church
           to
           this
           Day
           need
           it
           .
           And
           I
           demand
           of
           him
           whether
           he
           ,
           or
           any
           Man
           living
           ,
           can
           frame
           in
           his
           Mind
           such
           a
           Conception
           of
           it
           ?
           Or
           can
           inform
           us
           how
           ,
           and
           by
           what
           particular
           Way
           this
           Substantial
           Union
           passes
           through
           all
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           so
           ,
           that
           with
           
           full
           reserve
           of
           their
           Personal
           Incommunicable
           distinctions
           they
           shall
           yet
           become
           one
           ,
           in
           ,
           and
           by
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Numerical
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           common
           to
           them
           all
           ?
           No
           ;
           the
           Learnedest
           Doctors
           of
           the
           Christian
           Church
           have
           always
           looked
           upon
           this
           as
           a
           Mystery
           beyond
           their
           Reach
           ;
           and
           though
           they
           were
           sufficiently
           satisfied
           of
           the
           Possibility
           and
           Credibility
           of
           the
           Thing
           it self
           by
           the
           forementioned
           Resemblances
           ,
           and
           (
           which
           was
           a
           much
           greater
           Conviction
           )
           stood
           assured
           of
           the
           Truth
           of
           it
           by
           Divine
           Revelation
           ,
           yet
           as
           to
           a
           full
           and
           comprehensive
           Knowledge
           of
           the
           matter
           of
           the
           Article
           ,
           they
           ever
           accounted
           it
           above
           their
           Conceptions
           or
           Explications
           ,
           and
           revered
           it
           with
           a
           Distance
           sutable
           to
           such
           Apprehensions
           .
           This
           I
           say
           was
           the
           Judgment
           and
           discreet
           Conduct
           of
           the
           Catholick
           Church
           about
           this
           important
           Point
           of
           Faith.
           
        
         
           But
           this
           Author
           ,
           it
           seems
           ,
           is
           of
           another
           Mind
           ,
           and
           having
           took
           up
           a
           quite
           different
           design
           is
           resolved
           upon
           a
           very
           different
           Method
           ;
           and
           accordingly
           he
           here
           declares
           ,
           
             that
             the
             Dean
          
           (
           that
           is
           himself
           )
           
             is
             certainly
             in
             the
             Right
          
           (
           as
           he
           always
           is
           ,
           if
           you
           will
           take
           his
           own
           word
           for
           it
           )
           
             in
             searching
             for
             some
             Image
             or
             Resemblance
             of
             this
             Mysterious
             Vnion
             in
             the
             Unity
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           ;
           giving
           us
           this
           Reason
           for
           it
           ,
           
             That
             God
             is
             a
             Spirit
             ,
             and
             that
             a
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
             is
             the
             truest
             Image
             of
             God
             that
             is
             in
             Nature
             ,
             page
          
           6.
           lin
           .
           21.
           
           And
           this
           may
           be
           allowed
           him
           for
           a
           good
           Reason
           ,
           provided
           it
           be
           joined
           with
           Another
           ,
           without
           which
           it
           is
           no
           Reason
           at
           all
           ;
           And
           that
           is
           ,
           That
           he
           himself
           Knows
           ,
           or
           (
           in
           the
           Language
           of
           
             des
             Cartes
          
           from
           whom
           he
           is
           now
           borrowing
           )
           has
           
             a
             clear
             and
             distinct
             perception
             ,
             what
             a
             Spirit
             ,
          
           and
           what
           
             the
             Unity
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           is
           ,
           
             and
             wherein
             it
             consists
          
           ;
           for
           otherwise
           he
           goes
           about
           to
           explain
           one
           unknown
           
           Thing
           by
           another
           ,
           which
           is
           equally
           unknown
           it self
           .
           Which
           kind
           of
           method
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           the
           Fathers
           in
           the
           Resemblances
           they
           gave
           of
           a
           Trinity
           (
           and
           which
           he
           so
           much
           slights
           )
           were
           too
           good
           Disputants
           to
           make
           use
           of
           .
           And
           therefore
           't
           is
           to
           be
           hoped
           ,
           that
           this
           Author
           both
           has
           himself
           ,
           and
           will
           impart
           to
           us
           ,
           such
           a
           clear
           and
           distinct
           Notion
           of
           
             a
             Spirit
          
           ,
           and
           of
           the
           
             Unity
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           ,
           as
           may
           be
           fit
           to
           found
           such
           an
           Explication
           of
           the
           Trinity
           upon
           ,
           as
           he
           has
           promised
           to
           oblige
           the
           World
           with
           .
           And
           this
           we
           must
           expect
           to
           find
           (
           if
           we
           find
           it
           at
           all
           )
           in
           the
           following
           Propositions
           ,
           viz.
           
        
         
           
             That
             we
             know
             nothing
             of
             a
             Spirit
             ,
             nor
             of
             the
             Unity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             neither
             ,
             but
             what
             we
             feel
             in
             our selves
             ,
             p.
          
           6.
           
             at
             the
             end
          
           .
           And
           this
           we
           are
           to
           look
           upon
           as
           the
           Corner-stone
           in
           the
           New
           Structure
           he
           intends
           us
           of
           a
           Cartesian
           Trinity
           .
           After
           which
           he
           advances
           two
           other
           Propositions
           ,
           p.
           7.
           
        
         
           
             1.
             
             
               That
               the
               very
               Nature
               of
               a
               Spirit
               consists
               in
               Internal
               or
               vital
               Sensation
               .
            
          
           
             2.
             
             
               That
               the
               Vnity
               of
               a
               Spirit
               consists
               in
               the
               Continuity
               of
               its
               Sensation
               .
            
          
        
         
           Both
           which
           Propositions
           must
           be
           Examined
           .
           And
           here
           in
           the
        
         
           First
           place
           ,
           I
           deny
           that
           there
           is
           any
           such
           Thing
           as
           Sensation
           ,
           whether
           Internal
           or
           External
           ,
           belonging
           to
           Spirits
           not
           vitally
           united
           to
           Organized
           Bodies
           .
           For
           Sensation
           is
           properly
           
             the
             perception
             of
             a
             sensible
             Object
             by
             a
             sensible
             Species
             of
             it
             imprinted
             upon
             and
             received
             into
             the
             proper
             Organ
             by
             which
             each
             sensitive
             faculty
             operates
             and
             exerts
             it self
             .
          
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           is
           Sensation
           ,
           and
           accordingly
           ,
           as
           it
           is
           External
           or
           Internal
           ,
           so
           it
           has
           External
           or
           Internal
           Organs
           allotted
           to
           it
           ;
           but
           still
           both
           of
           
           them
           Corporeal
           .
           And
           therefore
           for
           this
           Man
           to
           talk
           of
           
             Spiritual
             Sensation
          
           is
           non-sense
           and
           a
           contradiction
           in
           the
           Terms
           ,
           and
           consequently
           not
           to
           be
           allowed
           .
           It
           is
           true
           indeed
           that
           the
           word
           [
           Sence
           ]
           with
           the
           derivatives
           of
           it
           [
           sensible
           ]
           [
           sentiment
           ]
           and
           the
           like
           ,
           do
           often
           signify
           intellectually
           ,
           as
           [
           
             sic
             sentio
          
           ]
           is
           as
           much
           as
           
             sic
             judico
             ,
             sic
             existimo
          
           .
           And
           [
           
             this
             is
             my
             sence
             of
             such
             a
             Thing
          
           ]
           is
           all
           one
           as
           to
           say
           [
           this
           is
           my
           opinion
           of
           it
           ]
           and
           accordingly
           so
           far
           it
           may
           and
           does
           agree
           to
           Spirits
           (
           though
           yet
           I
           cannot
           remember
           that
           I
           ever
           read
           the
           Term
           [
           Sensation
           ]
           signifying
           intellectually
           but
           amongst
           the
           Cartesians
           .
           )
           But
           the
           Question
           here
           is
           not
           about
           the
           word
           [
           Sence
           ]
           so
           taken
           ,
           viz.
           in
           a
           large
           ,
           popular
           ,
           and
           improper
           signification
           ;
           but
           ,
           as
           this
           Author
           still
           takes
           it
           ,
           
             Strictly
             ,
             Properly
          
           ,
           and
           Philosophically
           ,
           and
           as
           contra-distinct
           to
           Knowledge
           ,
           and
           as
           he
           speaks
           of
           it
           ,
           
             Defen
             .
             p.
          
           77.
           lin
           .
           21.
           
           Where
           he
           says
           ,
           that
           
             he
             who
             cannot
             distinguish
             between
             Intellectual
             Sence
             and
             Knowledge
             ,
             is
             as
             unfit
             to
             meddle
             in
             this
             controversy
             ,
             as
             a
             blind
             man
             is
             to
             dispute
             of
             Colours
             .
          
           I
           say
           ,
           in
           this
           sence
           ,
           and
           as
           thus
           taken
           by
           this
           Author
           ,
           I
           absolutely
           deny
           that
           there
           is
           any
           such
           Thing
           as
           Sensation
           belonging
           to
           separate
           Spirits
           .
           For
           all
           cognitive
           or
           perceptive
           Acts
           ,
           that
           a
           Spirit
           is
           capable
           of
           ,
           are
           Acts
           of
           Cogitation
           or
           Intellection
           ,
           direct
           or
           reflex
           .
           And
           I
           do
           here
           further
           affirm
           ,
           that
           nothing
           can
           be
           alledged
           as
           perceivable
           by
           this
           supposed
           Sensation
           ,
           which
           a
           Spirit
           does
           not
           fully
           perceive
           by
           the
           said
           Acts
           of
           Cogitation
           or
           Intellection
           .
           So
           that
           if
           there
           really
           were
           such
           a
           thing
           as
           this
           Sensation
           ,
           it
           could
           be
           of
           no
           use
           at
           all
           to
           a
           Spirit
           to
           perceive
           any
           thing
           by
           ,
           whether
           without
           or
           within
           it self
           .
           And
           therefore
           I
           would
           have
           this
           Author
           take
           notice
           ,
           that
           I
           both
           deny
           the
           thing
           ,
           and
           challenge
           
           him
           in
           his
           next
           Defence
           to
           prove
           ,
           by
           Argument
           ,
           that
           there
           are
           in
           Spirits
           ,
           not
           vitally
           united
           to
           Bodies
           ,
           any
           such
           Things
           as
           Acts
           of
           
             Spiritual
             Sensation
          
           ,
           distinct
           from
           Acts
           of
           Cogitation
           or
           Intellection
           .
           For
           all
           Sensation
           ,
           in
           the
           very
           essential
           Notion
           of
           it
           ,
           imports
           a
           dependance
           upon
           Matter
           :
           and
           it
           is
           not
           this
           Author
           's
           getting
           a
           Cartesian
           mis-applied
           Word
           by
           the
           end
           that
           can
           over-rule
           the
           Sense
           ,
           which
           both
           Philosophers
           and
           Divines
           have
           universally
           hitherto
           understood
           ,
           and
           used
           it
           in
           .
           In
           the
        
         
           2
           d.
           place
           ,
           I
           affirm
           it
           to
           be
           the
           greatest
           Absurdity
           and
           Paradox
           in
           the
           World
           to
           hold
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Nature
             of
             any
             Thing
             consists
             in
             any
             Act
             proceeding
             from
             that
             Thing
          
           ;
           and
           consequently
           I
           deny
           that
           the
           
             Nature
             of
             a
             Spirit
             does
             or
             can
             consist
             in
             Sensation
             ,
          
           (
           allowing
           the
           Word
           here
           for
           Disputation
           sake
           )
           .
           Forasmuch
           as
           this
           Sensation
           (
           still
           supposing
           such
           a
           Thing
           in
           a
           Spirit
           )
           must
           proceed
           and
           flow
           from
           the
           Nature
           of
           that
           Spirit
           ;
           and
           ,
           upon
           that
           account
           being
           Postnate
           to
           it
           ,
           cannot
           be
           that
           wherein
           the
           said
           Nature
           does
           consist
           .
           This
           I
           know
           to
           be
           in
           effect
           the
           same
           Argument
           with
           the
           first
           ,
           brought
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           to
           prove
           it
           Impossible
           for
           Self-Consciousness
           to
           be
           that
           wherein
           the
           Personality
           of
           
             Created
             Beings
          
           doth
           consist
           .
           And
           so
           long
           as
           the
           Being
           or
           Entity
           of
           the
           Agent
           must
           in
           Order
           of
           Nature
           precede
           its
           Action
           ,
           I
           affirm
           the
           Argument
           to
           be
           unanswerable
           ,
           and
           am
           not
           ashamed
           again
           and
           again
           to
           own
           it
           for
           a
           Demonstration
           .
           Nevertheless
           ,
           since
           this
           Author
           ,
           to
           evade
           the
           force
           of
           the
           forementioned
           Argument
           ,
           shamefully
           changes
           the
           Terms
           of
           it
           ,
           by
           putting
           the
           Principle
           instead
           of
           the
           
             Act
             it self
             ,
             pag.
          
           39.
           it
           is
           not
           impossible
           but
           that
           (
           in
           his
           next
           Defence
           )
           he
           may
           do
           the
           same
           here
           ,
           and
           tell
           us
           ,
           That
           
           by
           Sensation
           he
           means
           not
           the
           Act
           but
           the
           Principle
           of
           Sensation
           ;
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           that
           he
           means
           that
           by
           it
           ,
           which
           the
           word
           never
           did
           ,
           or
           can
           properly
           signify
           .
           In
           short
           therefore
           ,
           I
           demand
           of
           this
           Man
           ,
           whether
           this
           Term
           [
           Sensation
           ]
           so
           often
           used
           by
           him
           signifies
           the
           Act
           ,
           or
           the
           
             Principle
             of
             Action
          
           .
           If
           he
           owns
           it
           to
           signify
           the
           Act
           (
           as
           all
           Men
           of
           Sence
           and
           Philosophy
           know
           it
           does
           )
           then
           I
           affirm
           ,
           that
           it
           cannot
           signify
           the
           Principle
           of
           Action
           but
           by
           a
           Metonymy
           of
           the
           effect
           for
           the
           Cause
           :
           And
           I
           do
           affirm
           further
           ,
           that
           (
           since
           in
           declaring
           the
           strict
           and
           Philosophical
           Truth
           of
           Things
           ,
           Tropes
           and
           Metonymies
           are
           by
           no
           means
           to
           be
           allowed
           of
           )
           no
           Man's
           after-meaning
           ought
           in
           dispute
           to
           be
           admitted
           in
           bar
           of
           the
           Confutation
           of
           his
           express
           words
           .
           For
           if
           this
           should
           take
           place
           ,
           there
           could
           be
           no
           discoursing
           
             ad
             idem
          
           ,
           and
           consequently
           no
           Argumentation
           in
           any
           Case
           .
           And
           yet
           this
           is
           this
           Author
           's
           constant
           way
           (
           and
           that
           even
           to
           the
           Degree
           of
           Impudence
           )
           that
           being
           baffled
           in
           his
           words
           he
           still
           takes
           Sanctuary
           in
           his
           meaning
           ,
           which
           practice
           we
           shall
           have
           frequent
           occasion
           to
           expose
           him
           for
           .
           But
           however
           to
           cut
           off
           all
           subterfuge
           from
           this
           Shifter
           ,
           if
           we
           here
           admit
           Sensation
           to
           be
           taken
           for
           the
           
             Principle
             of
             Sensation
          
           ,
           it
           is
           certain
           ,
           that
           this
           Principle
           must
           be
           the
           Essence
           of
           the
           Spirit
           which
           this
           Sensation
           is
           said
           to
           belong
           to
           ;
           (
           the
           Essence
           of
           every
           Thing
           being
           the
           proper
           Productive
           Principle
           of
           all
           the
           Operations
           of
           that
           Thing
           ;
           )
           But
           then
           we
           must
           observe
           also
           ,
           That
           the
           Essence
           of
           every
           Thing
           sustains
           the
           office
           of
           a
           double
           Principle
           .
           First
           of
           an
           
             Internal
             Principle
          
           giving
           Being
           to
           the
           Thing
           of
           which
           it
           is
           the
           Essence
           ;
           and
           Secondly
           of
           an
           
             efficient
             Principle
          
           of
           all
           the
           Actions
           or
           Operations
           
           belonging
           to
           that
           Thing
           ;
           and
           it
           discharges
           the
           office
           of
           the
           former
           antecedently
           in
           Nature
           to
           that
           of
           the
           Latter
           :
           So
           that
           the
           same
           Essence
           is
           a
           Principle
           of
           Being
           before
           it
           is
           a
           Principle
           of
           Action
           ,
           even
           with
           reference
           to
           the
           same
           Agent
           ;
           and
           consequently
           as
           it
           is
           a
           
             Principle
             of
             Action
          
           it
           is
           not
           properly
           and
           formally
           a
           
             Principle
             of
             Being
          
           .
           And
           this
           Argument
           with
           any
           one
           acquainted
           with
           the
           True
           Principles
           of
           Philosophy
           (
           of
           which
           this
           Author
           understands
           not
           one
           Tittle
           )
           quite
           overthrows
           that
           assertion
           of
           his
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             the
             very
             Nature
             of
             a
             Spirit
             consists
             in
             Sensation
             ,
          
           and
           that
           whether
           we
           take
           it
           for
           the
           Act
           ,
           or
           
             Principle
             of
             Sensation
          
           ;
           and
           plucks
           it
           up
           by
           the
           very
           roots
           .
           But
           I
           shall
           refer
           the
           Reader
           ,
           for
           his
           further
           satisfaction
           ,
           to
           my
           Vindication
           of
           the
           forementioned
           Argument
           ,
           where
           I
           shall
           more
           fully
           canvas
           and
           confute
           this
           pittiful
           shift
           ;
           not
           being
           willing
           to
           anticipate
           that
           here
           ,
           which
           will
           come
           in
           more
           directly
           and
           naturally
           in
           another
           place
           .
           Thirdly
           ,
           As
           I
           have
           shewn
           ,
           That
           the
           
             Nature
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           cannot
           consist
           in
           Sensation
           ,
           so
           I
           affirm
           ,
           That
           neither
           can
           the
           
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           consist
           in
           the
           fame
           .
           For
           Unity
           being
           the
           first
           Transcendental
           mode
           or
           Affection
           of
           Being
           ,
           and
           so
           in
           reality
           the
           same
           with
           it
           ,
           and
           consequently
           in
           order
           of
           Nature
           preceding
           all
           Acts
           flowing
           from
           it
           ,
           can
           never
           consist
           in
           any
           such
           Act
           or
           Number
           of
           Acts
           whatsoever
           .
           These
           Arguments
           I
           know
           are
           wholly
           Metaphysical
           ;
           but
           the
           Dispute
           being
           about
           Spirits
           ,
           as
           to
           the
           Nature
           ,
           Unity
           ,
           and
           Actings
           of
           them
           (
           things
           essentially
           abstracted
           from
           matter
           )
           the
           very
           condition
           of
           the
           subject
           neither
           affords
           not
           admits
           of
           any
           other
           .
        
         
           Well
           ;
           but
           notwithstanding
           what
           has
           been
           argued
           against
           bare
           Sensation
           ,
           may
           not
           the
           
             Unity
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           
           consist
           in
           
             continuity
             of
             Sensation
          
           ?
           For
           this
           is
           it
           ,
           which
           this
           Author
           here
           expresly
           asserts
           ,
           p.
           7.
           
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           I
           must
           demand
           of
           him
           ,
           whether
           he
           has
           a
           clear
           and
           distinct
           Knowledge
           what
           this
           
             continuity
             of
             Sensation
          
           is
           ,
           and
           wherein
           it
           does
           consist
           ?
           If
           he
           has
           such
           a
           Knowledge
           of
           it
           ,
           why
           then
           does
           he
           usher
           it
           in
           with
           those
           Terms
           of
           doubting
           and
           uncertainty
           (
           
             as
             I
             may
             so
             speak
          
           )
           for
           [
           
             so
             speaks
          
           ,
           and
           
             so
             says
          
           ]
           must
           not
           be
           admitted
           in
           giving
           a
           Philosophical
           state
           and
           account
           of
           Things
           .
           But
           if
           on
           the
           other
           side
           this
           Author
           has
           not
           a
           distinct
           Knowledge
           of
           
             Continuity
             of
             Sensation
          
           (
           as
           it
           is
           manifest
           from
           his
           inability
           clearly
           to
           express
           it
           ,
           that
           he
           has
           not
           )
           then
           let
           us
           consider
           what
           an
           Explication
           of
           an
           Unity
           in
           Trinity
           he
           is
           like
           to
           give
           us
           from
           a
           Thing
           which
           he
           neither
           distinctly
           knows
           ,
           nor
           can
           clearly
           express
           .
           For
           if
           he
           could
           do
           the
           former
           ,
           what
           Reason
           can
           there
           be
           why
           he
           should
           not
           be
           able
           to
           do
           the
           latter
           ?
           Now
           his
           method
           in
           explaining
           the
           Trinity
           (
           which
           he
           promises
           us
           such
           great
           Things
           from
           )
           is
           this
           .
           He
           first
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             he
             is
             certainly
             in
             the
             right
             in
             seeking
             for
             an
             Image
             of
             the
             mysterious
             Vnity
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             in
             the
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             ,
             p.
          
           6.
           l.
           21.
           and
           in
           the
           next
           place
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             we
             can
             know
             nothing
             of
             the
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             but
             what
             we
             feel
             in
             our selves
             .
          
           And
           here
           in
           the
           last
           place
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             all
             that
             we
             feel
             in
             our selves
             is
             this
             Continuity
             of
             Sensation
          
           :
           but
           what
           this
           is
           he
           does
           not
           express
           ,
           and
           gives
           us
           but
           too
           much
           Reason
           from
           his
           own
           words
           to
           conclude
           that
           he
           cannot
           .
           So
           that
           here
           we
           have
           an
           Explication
           of
           Unity
           in
           Trinity
           by
           
             Continuity
             of
             Sensation
          
           ,
           but
           who
           shall
           explain
           to
           us
           this
           Explication
           it self
           ?
           For
           admit
           that
           the
           Unity
           of
           a
           Created
           Spirit
           ●arries
           in
           it
           the
           nearest
           Resemblance
           to
           the
           Unity
           of
           
           the
           Godhead
           in
           the
           Three
           Persons
           ,
           yet
           how
           can
           this
           Unity
           of
           a
           Created
           Spirit
           be
           explain'd
           by
           
             Continuity
             of
             Sensation
          
           ,
           when
           the
           very
           Terms
           of
           this
           Explication
           import
           a
           direct
           contradiction
           to
           the
           Nature
           of
           the
           Thing
           pretended
           to
           be
           explained
           by
           them
           ?
           For
           I
           defy
           all
           Mankind
           to
           form
           in
           their
           Minds
           such
           a
           Conception
           of
           Continuity
           as
           does
           not
           essentially
           imply
           in
           it
           connexion
           of
           Parts
           ;
           and
           where
           there
           are
           Parts
           there
           must
           be
           extension
           ,
           and
           consequently
           Divisibility
           :
           So
           that
           the
           sum
           of
           all
           is
           this
           ,
           That
           the
           mysterious
           Unity
           of
           the
           Trinity
           is
           explained
           to
           us
           by
           the
           
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           ;
           and
           the
           
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           which
           can
           have
           neither
           Parts
           ,
           Extension
           ,
           nor
           Divisibility
           ,
           is
           explained
           to
           us
           by
           something
           which
           necessarily
           implies
           them
           all
           .
           For
           in
           giving
           an
           Account
           of
           the
           Nature
           of
           a
           Thing
           by
           Continuity
           ,
           nothing
           but
           a
           Real
           Continuity
           ,
           a
           Continuity
           properly
           so
           called
           can
           take
           place
           .
           And
           it
           will
           be
           in
           vain
           here
           for
           this
           Author
           to
           plead
           that
           we
           Know
           not
           the
           Nature
           of
           a
           Spirit
           .
           For
           this
           he
           had
           told
           us
           before
           (
           in
           the
           7
           th
           ,
           and
           8
           
             th
             pages
          
           of
           his
           Vindication
           )
           and
           that
           therefore
           not
           being
           able
           to
           express
           it
           adequately
           ,
           
             we
             must
             be
             contented
             to
             express
             it
             as
             well
             as
             we
             can
             ,
             viz.
          
           [
           by
           
             so
             speaks
          
           ,
           and
           
             so
             says
          
           ,
           and
           by
           Continuity
           where
           there
           can
           be
           no
           Parts
           ]
           ;
           for
           such
           a
           Plea
           ,
           though
           admitted
           ,
           would
           manifestly
           give
           up
           his
           Cause
           ,
           by
           shewing
           that
           he
           had
           undertook
           to
           explain
           the
           
             Vnity
             in
             Trinity
          
           by
           such
           an
           Vnity
           as
           he
           himself
           can
           neither
           conceive
           nor
           express
           .
           We
           have
           seen
           therefore
           what
           these
           
             two
             Propositions
          
           ,
           viz.
           
             That
             the
             very
             Nature
             of
             a
             Spirit
             consists
             in
             Internal
             Sensation
          
           ;
           and
           
             the
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             in
             Continuity
             of
             Sensation
          
           ;
           amount
           to
           :
           but
           let
           us
           now
           see
           how
           he
           proves
           them
           ;
           for
           ,
           I
           fansie
           ,
           the
           World
           will
           hardly
           take
           them
           upon
           his
           bare
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           .
        
         
         
           And
           here
           ,
           supposing
           that
           I
           need
           not
           tell
           the
           Reader
           ,
           That
           this
           Author
           ,
           by
           Sensation
           ,
           and
           
             Continuity
             of
             Sensation
          
           ,
           means
           Self-Consciousness
           ;
           we
           shall
           find
           that
           his
           Argument
           runs
           thus
           .
           
             So
             far
             as
             a
             Man
             feels
             himself
             ,
             or
             is
             self-conscious
             ,
             so
             far
             he
             is
             one
             ●●tire
             Person
             .
             For
             it
             is
             a
             self-evident
             Proposition
             ,
             That
             in
             an
             Intelligent
             Self-Conscious
             Being
             ,
          
           [
           self
           ]
           
             can
             reach
             no
             further
             than
             he
             feels
             himself
             .
             And
             I
             would
             desire
             any
             thinking
             Man
             to
             tell
             me
             ,
             how
             he
             Knows
             himself
             to
             be
             a
             distinct
             and
             separate
             Person
             from
             all
             other
             Men
             ,
             but
             only
             by
             this
             ,
             That
             he
             feels
             his
             own
             Thoughts
             ,
             Volitions
             ,
             Passions
             ,
          
           &c.
           
             but
             feels
             nothing
             of
             all
             this
             in
             other
             Men
             ,
          
           p.
           7.
           l.
           14.
           
        
         
           But
           what
           wretched
           Inconsequences
           are
           these
           ?
           
             Self
             can
             reach
             or
             exist
             no
             further
             than
             a
             Man
             feels
             himself
             ,
          
           and
           therefore
           a
           Man's
           
             feeling
             himself
          
           and
           his
           Existence
           is
           that
           wherein
           Self
           and
           the
           
             Existence
             of
             self
          
           does
           consist
           :
           It
           follows
           indeed
           from
           hence
           ,
           That
           his
           Feeling
           is
           the
           measure
           of
           his
           Existence
           .
           So
           that
           one
           cannot
           extend
           beyond
           the
           other
           ,
           but
           that
           does
           not
           therefore
           place
           his
           Existence
           in
           
             his
             feeling
             that
             he
             does
             exist
             .
          
           A
           particular
           determined
           Portion
           of
           Matter
           cannot
           reach
           or
           exist
           beyond
           the
           Quantity
           that
           bounds
           or
           determines
           it
           ;
           but
           does
           the
           Existence
           and
           Being
           of
           that
           Matter
           therefore
           consist
           in
           this
           Quantity
           ?
           The
           Body
           of
           a
           Man
           cannot
           extend
           further
           than
           its
           just
           Stature
           ,
           but
           does
           the
           Body
           therefore
           consist
           in
           its
           Stature
           ?
           Again
           ,
           
             A
             Man
             cannot
          
           (
           as
           this
           Author-says
           )
           
             Know
             himself
             to
             be
             a
             separate
             distinct
             Person
             from
             all
             other
             Men
             ,
             but
             by
             Self-Consciousness
             and
             Internal
             Sensation
             ,
          
           and
           therefore
           ,
           forsooth
           ,
           these
           are
           and
           must
           be
           the
           Things
           wherein
           
             his
             being
             a
             distinct
             Person
             does
             consist
             .
          
           And
           let
           any
           one
           alive
           shew
           that
           this
           Argument
           proves
           any
           more
           if
           he
           can
           .
           But
           this
           Man
           confounds
           the
           
             Principle
             
             of
             Knowledge
          
           with
           the
           
             Principle
             of
             Being
          
           all
           along
           .
           Whereas
           the
           Point
           here
           is
           ,
           Whether
           the
           Vnity
           and
           Distinction
           of
           a
           Spirit
           consists
           in
           
             Internal
             Sensation
          
           as
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           it
           ,
           not
           whether
           Internal
           Sensation
           be
           that
           ,
           whereby
           alone
           a
           Spirit
           can
           Know
           it self
           to
           be
           one
           with
           it self
           ,
           and
           distinct
           from
           all
           others
           ?
           For
           though
           this
           latter
           be
           granted
           to
           this
           Author
           as
           often
           as
           he
           pleases
           ;
           yet
           the
           former
           will
           be
           as
           stiffly
           denied
           him
           .
           I
           find
           and
           feel
           my self
           to
           be
           one
           Man
           ,
           and
           to
           be
           distinct
           and
           separate
           from
           all
           others
           ;
           but
           does
           this
           therefore
           make
           me
           to
           be
           so
           ?
           Or
           does
           my
           being
           so
           consist
           in
           my
           feeling
           my self
           to
           be
           so
           ?
           One
           would
           think
           that
           a
           Man
           should
           be
           ashamed
           to
           argue
           at
           this
           Rate
           ;
           especially
           having
           been
           baffled
           in
           it
           more
           than
           once
           .
           But
           it
           is
           a
           Custom
           ,
           which
           he
           is
           grown
           old
           in
           ,
           
             To
             be
             baffled
             and
             to
             talk
             on
             ,
          
           and
           it
           is
           too
           late
           to
           cure
           him
           of
           it
           now
           .
        
         
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           there
           are
           some
           other
           choice
           Things
           ,
           which
           deserve
           our
           consideration
           ,
           and
           particularly
           this
           :
           
             So
             far
          
           (
           says
           He
           )
           
             as
             a
             man
             feels
             himself
             ,
             or
             is
             Self-Conscious
             ,
             he
             is
             one
             entire
             Person
             ,
             where
             this
             Self-Conscious
             Sensation
             ends
             he
             becomes
             a
             distinct
             and
             separate
             Person
             ,
             p.
          
           7.
           l.
           13.
           
           But
           is
           it
           possible
           for
           the
           mind
           of
           Man
           to
           imagine
           any
           one
           to
           be
           an
           
             entire
             Person
          
           ,
           and
           consequently
           
             one
             in
             himself
          
           ,
           and
           yet
           nor
           distinct
           from
           all
           others
           besides
           ?
           when
           the
           very
           essential
           Notion
           of
           Vnity
           connotes
           Distinction
           too
           ;
           and
           when
           according
           to
           all
           the
           Rules
           of
           Philosophy
           ,
           that
           which
           is
           the
           Principle
           of
           Constitution
           to
           any
           thing
           ,
           is
           the
           Principle
           also
           of
           Distinction
           to
           the
           same
           .
           Every
           Thing
           being
           distinguished
           from
           all
           other
           Things
           by
           what
           it
           is
           in
           it self
           .
           Continuity
           of
           Sensation
           (
           he
           says
           )
           makes
           a
           Man
           one
           in
           himself
           ,
           and
           the
           ending
           ,
           or
           
             ne
             plus
             ultrà
          
           of
           that
           
           Sensation
           
             makes
             him
             a
             distinct
             Person
          
           .
           And
           yet
           he
           appeals
           to
           
             every
             Thinking
             Man
             whether
             he
             knows
             himself
             to
             be
             a
             distinct
             Person
             any
             other
             way
             than
             by
             this
             Self-Conscious
             Sensation
             .
          
           Whereas
           he
           had
           said
           but
           just
           before
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           the
           
             ending
             of
             this
             Self-Conscious
             Sensation
             which
             makes
             him
             a
             distinct
             Person
             :
          
           and
           if
           so
           ,
           can
           he
           then
           know
           himself
           to
           be
           a
           distinct
           and
           
             separate
             Person
          
           by
           that
           which
           must
           be
           at
           an
           end
           before
           he
           can
           be
           a
           distinct
           Person
           ?
           Certainly
           a
           grosser
           and
           more
           fullsome
           contradiction
           scarce
           ever
           dropped
           from
           the
           Tongue
           or
           Pen
           of
           Man
           :
           and
           if
           this
           be
           not
           Non-sence
           in
           the
           highest
           ,
           and
           gibberish
           truly
           so
           called
           ,
           I
           dare
           averr
           ,
           that
           Bedlam
           affords
           none
           .
        
         
           But
           his
           Complement
           to
           the
           Animadverter
           must
           not
           be
           passed
           over
           so
           ;
           for
           whose
           Instruction
           ,
           (
           forsooth
           )
           he
           says
           ,
           he
           was
           so
           large
           in
           his
           Discourse
           about
           Sensation
           and
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           p.
           7.
           
           For
           since
           he
           is
           so
           very
           kind
           ,
           he
           must
           give
           me
           leave
           to
           be
           as
           Charitable
           in
           my
           Admonitions
           ,
           as
           he
           was
           liberal
           in
           his
           Instructions
           ;
           and
           accordingly
           to
           advise
           him
           for
           the
           future
           to
           keep
           his
           Instructions
           to
           himself
           ,
           and
           what
           he
           can
           spare
           ,
           to
           bestow
           upon
           his
           Boys
           ,
           that
           so
           they
           may
           not
           at
           their
           Father's
           Age
           come
           to
           need
           such
           correction
           as
           their
           Father
           has
           had
           .
           And
           whereas
           he
           says
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           
             understood
             not
             one
             word
          
           of
           his
           Hypothesis
           ,
           I
           must
           here
           tell
           him
           in
           the
           Animadverter's
           Name
           ,
           That
           he
           accounts
           it
           no
           disparagement
           at
           all
           to
           any
           Man
           of
           Sence
           not
           to
           understand
           Him
           ,
           who
           speaks
           none
           .
        
         
           But
           he
           proceeds
           ,
           and
           to
           shew
           us
           how
           methodical
           he
           is
           in
           his
           Absurdities
           ,
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Dean
          
           (
           as
           certainly
           no
           man
           living
           was
           ever
           so
           much
           a
           
             Dean
             in
             his
             own
             Eyes
          
           )
           
             having
             observed
             ,
             That
             the
             Vnity
             
             of
             a
             single
             Spirit
             consists
             in
             such
             a
             Natural
             Self-Conscious
             Sensation
             ,
             this
             led
             him
             on
             to
             that
             other
             Notion
             of
             mutual
             Consciousness
             which
             may
             be
             between
             Three
             distinct
             Spirits
             ,
             and
             make
             them
             Naturally
             one
             (
             as
             much
             as
             Three
             can
             be
             one
             )
             .
             p.
          
           7.
           l.
           29.
           
           And
           that
           in
           good
           earnest
           is
           a
           limitation
           with
           a
           Witness
           ;
           a
           limitation
           amounting
           to
           an
           utter
           Negation
           of
           the
           Thing
           ,
           which
           it
           is
           applyed
           to
           :
           It
           being
           impossible
           for
           Three
           distinct
           Absolute
           Beings
           (
           which
           Three
           distinct
           Spirits
           certainly
           are
           )
           to
           be
           One
           by
           one
           Numerical
           Nature
           belonging
           in
           common
           to
           them
           .
           But
           besides
           ,
           observe
           the
           fallacy
           couched
           under
           this
           Ambiguous
           Parenthesis
           
             (
             as
             much
             as
             Three
             can
             be
             one
             )
          
           for
           by
           [
           Three
           ]
           here
           he
           may
           either
           mean
           
             Three
             Spirits
          
           ,
           or
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           :
           And
           he
           imposes
           grosly
           upon
           his
           Reader
           ,
           and
           begs
           the
           Question
           besides
           ,
           if
           he
           supposes
           that
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           cannot
           be
           more
           United
           than
           
             Three
             Spirits
          
           ;
           or
           that
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           is
           the
           greatest
           Union
           that
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           are
           capable
           of
           .
           Both
           which
           are
           utterly
           false
           ,
           and
           the
           very
           Things
           now
           under
           Dispute
           .
           And
           we
           shall
           presently
           shew
           the
           vast
           disparity
           between
           Persons
           and
           Spirits
           ,
           with
           reference
           to
           the
           Union
           ,
           which
           each
           of
           them
           may
           admit
           .
           But
           our
           Author
           goes
           on
           thus
           .
           If
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             a
             Natural
             Self-Conscious
             Sensation
             makes
             a
             Spirit
             one
             with
             it self
             ,
             why
             should
             not
             a
             mutual
             Conscious
             Sensation
             Vnite
             Three
             into
             One
             ?
             For
             if
             Natural
             Vnity
             extends
             as
             far
             as
             Conscious
             Sensation
             ,
             then
             if
             Conscious
             Sensation
             extends
             to
             Three
             ,
             why
             should
             not
             These
             Three
             be
             acknowledged
             to
             be
             Naturally
             One
             ?
             p.
          
           8.
           l.
           1.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           First
           ,
           That
           it
           has
           been
           already
           shewn
           ,
           that
           although
           this
           
             Conscious
             Sensation
          
           be
           that
           whereby
           a
           Spirit
           knows
           it self
           to
           be
           One
           and
           distinct
           from
           all
           others
           ,
           yet
           it
           is
           not
           that
           
           which
           
             makes
             it
             so
          
           (
           and
           the
           supposing
           of
           this
           is
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           which
           runs
           through
           this
           Man's
           whole
           Hypothesis
           )
           and
           consequently
           ,
           whatsoever
           is
           argued
           from
           this
           supposition
           ,
           towards
           the
           proving
           the
           same
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           with
           reference
           to
           Three
           Spirits
           ,
           which
           had
           been
           asserted
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           with
           reference
           to
           one
           ,
           must
           fall
           to
           the
           ground
           with
           it
           .
           But
           secondly
           ,
           Because
           he
           asks
           a
           Reason
           why
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           may
           not
           give
           Natural
           Unity
           to
           
             Three
             Spirits
          
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           Self-Consciousness
           does
           to
           one
           ?
           (
           though
           the
           former
           is
           the
           greater
           Absurdity
           of
           the
           Two
           )
           yet
           since
           both
           Assertions
           are
           equally
           false
           ,
           I
           shall
           give
           this
           one
           Reason
           against
           Both
           ,
           viz.
           Because
           Consciousness
           or
           Sensation
           is
           not
           properly
           Nature
           but
           an
           
             Affection
             of
             Nature
          
           ,
           or
           an
           Act
           springing
           from
           it
           ;
           and
           therefore
           Unity
           of
           Consciousness
           or
           Sensation
           cannot
           be
           properly
           
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
          
           ,
           nor
           consequently
           can
           it
           constitute
           the
           subject
           it
           belongs
           to
           ,
           
             Naturally
             One.
          
           And
           whereas
           ,
           according
           to
           his
           
             Sophistical
             way
          
           ,
           he
           calls
           it
           a
           
             Natural
             Self-Conscious
             Sensation
             ,
             p.
          
           7.
           l.
           30.
           
           If
           by
           Natural
           he
           means
           that
           wherein
           Nature
           does
           consist
           ,
           or
           which
           gives
           Being
           and
           Vnity
           to
           a
           Thing
           ,
           in
           that
           Sence
           ,
           (
           as
           it
           has
           been
           proved
           all
           along
           )
           Self-Consciousness
           cannot
           be
           termed
           Natural
           :
           But
           if
           by
           Natural
           he
           means
           that
           which
           proceeds
           from
           Nature
           that
           is
           true
           ,
           but
           comes
           not
           up
           to
           his
           Purpose
           .
           Well
           ;
           but
           supposing
           that
           Consciousness
           or
           Sensation
           were
           indeed
           the
           Nature
           of
           the
           Thing
           Conscious
           ,
           or
           (
           in
           other
           words
           )
           that
           ,
           wherein
           the
           Being
           of
           the
           said
           Thing
           did
           consist
           ,
           and
           consequently
           that
           Unity
           of
           Consciousness
           were
           Unity
           of
           Nature
           too
           (
           as
           it
           is
           certain
           that
           neither
           of
           them
           are
           )
           yet
           for
           that
           very
           cause
           I
           
           deny
           that
           this
           Consciousness
           ,
           and
           Unity
           of
           Consciousness
           can
           belong
           in
           common
           to
           
             Three
             distinct
             Absolute
             Beings
          
           .
           For
           as
           much
           as
           every
           
             Absolute
             Being
          
           is
           constituted
           such
           by
           a
           Particular
           ,
           Proper
           ,
           and
           
             Distinct
             Nature
          
           of
           it's
           own
           ,
           belonging
           to
           it
           and
           included
           in
           it
           ,
           and
           distinguishing
           it
           from
           every
           other
           
             Absolute
             Being
          
           besides
           ;
           and
           therefore
           it
           is
           impossible
           for
           any
           particular
           Nature
           Numerically
           one
           ,
           to
           be
           in
           any
           more
           Absolute
           Beings
           ,
           than
           in
           one
           Alone
           .
           In
           three
           several
           Persons
           indeed
           ,
           whose
           several
           Personalities
           ,
           and
           Personal
           Distinctions
           consist
           properly
           in
           
             Three
             Distinct
             Relations
          
           ,
           nothing
           hinders
           but
           that
           the
           same
           
             Numerical
             Nature
          
           (
           if
           Infinite
           )
           may
           be
           in
           them
           all
           ;
           for
           as
           much
           as
           the
           same
           
             Numerical
             Nature
          
           may
           sustain
           all
           these
           
             Three
             distinct
             Relations
          
           .
           And
           herein
           consists
           the
           great
           Disparity
           between
           Spirits
           which
           are
           absolute
           Beings
           ,
           and
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           which
           are
           not
           so
           ;
           and
           this
           is
           true
           Reason
           and
           Consequence
           ,
           and
           proof
           against
           all
           that
           this
           Novellist
           can
           alledge
           against
           it
           .
           But
           after
           all
           ,
           in
           the
           third
           and
           last
           place
           ,
           The
           very
           ground
           upon
           which
           this
           Man
           builds
           from
           first
           to
           last
           ,
           in
           proving
           That
           Mutual-Consciousness
           or
           Sensation
           gives
           
             natural
             Vnity
             to
             Three
             distinct
             Spirits
             ,
          
           is
           false
           ,
           and
           sinks
           under
           him
           .
           For
           he
           supposes
           all
           along
           ,
           that
           this
           Mutual-Consciousness
           is
           one
           Numerical
           
             Natural
             Act
          
           ,
           which
           upon
           his
           Principle
           ,
           viz.
           [
           
             That
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             Three
             Infinite
             Spirits
             .
          
           ]
           I
           utterly
           deny
           ;
           and
           on
           the
           contrary
           affirm
           it
           to
           be
           only
           a
           complex
           and
           collective
           Unity
           consisting
           of
           and
           containing
           in
           it
           Three
           distinct
           Acts
           of
           Consciousness
           ,
           whereof
           one
           belongs
           to
           each
           of
           his
           
             Three
             Spirits
          
           ,
           and
           is
           that
           whereby
           each
           Spirit
           
             knows
             or
             feels
          
           (
           let
           him
           call
           it
           which
           he
           will
           )
           all
           that
           
           is
           in
           ,
           or
           is
           known
           or
           felt
           by
           the
           other
           Two
           Spirits
           .
           This
           I
           affirm
           ,
           and
           challenge
           this
           Author
           ,
           when
           he
           enters
           upon
           this
           dispute
           again
           ,
           to
           disprove
           .
           For
           whatsoever
           is
           the
           Act
           of
           an
           
             Absolute
             ,
             distinct
             Being
          
           ,
           must
           it self
           be
           as
           distinct
           as
           that
           Being
           is
           .
           And
           so
           his
           Principal
           Notion
           of
           
             Three
             distinct
             Spirits
             being
          
           naturally
           one
           ,
           by
           one
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
          
           extending
           to
           them
           all
           ,
           falls
           to
           nothing
           .
           For
           surely
           
             Three
             distinct
             Consciousnesses
          
           ,
           or
           Acts
           of
           Consciousness
           (
           which
           this
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
          
           consists
           of
           )
           can
           never
           make
           Three
           Spirits
           naturally
           One
           ;
           since
           these
           Three
           Acts
           are
           not
           Naturally
           but
           only
           
             Collectively
             one
          
           themselves
           ;
           and
           accordingly
           under
           that
           Unity
           and
           no
           other
           can
           they
           be
           expressed
           by
           that
           one
           Denomination
           [
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
          
           .
           ]
        
         
           But
           he
           proceeds
           ,
           and
           to
           shew
           the
           World
           what
           an
           Iron-Necessity
           ,
           or
           rather
           what
           a
           Cruel
           Bondage
           one
           Imperious
           Absurdity
           will
           bring
           the
           Maintainer
           of
           it
           under
           ;
           he
           tells
           us
           in
           the
           8
           
             th
             page
             ,
             That
             it
             was
             This
             ,
             (
             viz.
          
           his
           Notion
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           and
           
             Mutual-Consciousness
             )
             that
             forced
             the
             Dean
          
           (
           as
           no
           Absurdity
           affects
           Mr.
           Dean's
           Priviledge
           of
           
             standing
             alone
             by
             it self
          
           )
           
             to
             speak
             of
             the
             Three
             Infinite
             and
             Eternal
             Persons
             in
             the
             Godhead
             ,
             under
             the
             Character
             of
             Three
             Infinite
             and
             Eternal
             Minds
             .
             For
             this
             Conscious
             Sensation
             ,
             whether
             Self-Consciousness
             or
             Mutual-Consciousness
             ,
             can
             belong
             only
             to
             Minds
             .
          
           Which
           latter
           I
           here
           absolutely
           deny
           ;
           and
           in
           this
           one
           word
           [
           Minds
           ]
           plurally
           used
           by
           him
           he
           manifestly
           begs
           the
           Question
           again
           ,
           and
           supposes
           the
           Chief
           Thing
           to
           be
           proved
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             there
             is
             a
             Plurality
             of
             Infinite
             Minds
             to
             which
             this
             Self-Consciousness
             and
             Mutual-Consciousness
             must
             belong
             :
          
           For
           what
           [
           Minds
           ]
           else
           can
           he
           here
           mean
           ?
           Not
           finite
           
           or
           created
           Minds
           ,
           For
           he
           himself
           in
           the
           67
           
             th
             page
          
           of
           his
           
             Vindication
             ,
             denies
             that
             this
             Mutual-Consciousness
             can
             belong
             to
             any
             created
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             .
          
           So
           that
           it
           is
           evident
           ,
           that
           he
           here
           speaks
           of
           
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ,
           (
           which
           (
           as
           I
           said
           )
           being
           the
           Thing
           chiefly
           disputed
           ,
           ought
           to
           have
           been
           proved
           by
           him
           before
           presumed
           :
           )
           and
           consequently
           that
           he
           speaks
           also
           of
           such
           a
           Self-Consciousness
           and
           such
           a
           Mutual-Consciousness
           as
           import
           
             Infinite
             Knowledge
          
           ;
           and
           since
           they
           do
           so
           ,
           I
           deny
           that
           they
           can
           belong
           to
           any
           more
           [
           Minds
           ]
           than
           one
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           than
           to
           
             One
             Eternal
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ,
           which
           is
           
             God
             blessed
             for
             ever
          
           .
           For
           being
           Acts
           of
           Knowledge
           they
           follow
           and
           flow
           from
           the
           Divine
           Essence
           and
           Nature
           common
           to
           the
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           ;
           and
           are
           no
           more
           than
           the
           Divine
           Omniscience
           terminating
           upon
           all
           and
           each
           of
           the
           Persons
           ,
           as
           so
           many
           Particular
           Objects
           contained
           within
           its
           adequate
           Object
           ,
           which
           is
           all
           Things
           Knowable
           .
           Admitting
           therefore
           that
           this
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           and
           Mutual-Consciousness
           (
           being
           nothing
           else
           but
           the
           Divine
           Omniscience
           thus
           diversly
           terminated
           )
           may
           inferr
           
             a
             Plurality
             of
             Persons
          
           Knowable
           in
           the
           Godhead
           ,
           yet
           I
           utterly
           deny
           that
           they
           do
           or
           can
           inferr
           in
           it
           a
           
             Plurality
             of
             Minds
          
           :
           forasmuch
           as
           the
           said
           Acts
           belong
           to
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           (
           as
           has
           been
           just
           now
           observed
           )
           by
           vertue
           of
           that
           
             One
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ,
           from
           which
           they
           flow
           ,
           and
           which
           is
           numerically
           one
           and
           the
           same
           in
           all
           Three
           .
        
         
           But
           this
           Author
           is
           now
           upon
           an
           higher
           strain
           ,
           and
           resolving
           (
           under
           the
           Protection
           of
           a
           Licence
           )
           to
           open
           himself
           farther
           than
           before
           ,
           tells
           us
           in
           plain
           Terms
           ,
           
             That
             if
             every
             Person
             in
             the
             Trinity
             ,
             considered
             as
             a
             distinct
             Person
             ,
             be
             not
             a
             distinct
             Infinite
             and
             Eternal
             Mind
             ,
             there
             is
          
           (
           he
           confesses
           )
           
             an
             end
             of
             his
             Notion
             ,
             
             p.
          
           8.
           
           And
           I
           think
           it
           had
           been
           well
           for
           the
           Church
           and
           himself
           too
           ,
           if
           it
           had
           never
           had
           a
           Beginning
           .
           But
           then
           he
           adds
           (
           with
           unsufferable
           Presumption
           and
           equal
           Falshood
           )
           ,
           
             That
             with
             that
             there
             will
             be
             an
             End
             of
             a
             Trinity
             of
             Persons
             also
             ,
             and
             that
             we
             shall
             have
             nothing
             left
             but
             a
             Trinity
             of
             Modes
             ,
             Postures
             ,
             and
             Names
             ,
             not
             in
             the
             Vnity
             of
             the
             Godhead
             ,
             but
             in
             the
             Vnity
             of
             One
             Person
             ,
             who
             is
             the
             whole
             Deity
             .
          
           These
           are
           his
           detestably
           Heretical
           and
           senseless
           Words
           .
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           I
           demand
           of
           this
           Confident
           Man
           ,
           How
           he
           dares
           ,
           in
           defiance
           of
           the
           Doctrine
           of
           the
           Catholick
           Church
           ,
           place
           a
           
             Trinity
             of
             Modes
             ,
             Postures
             ,
             and
             Names
          
           upon
           the
           same
           Level
           ,
           as
           if
           they
           all
           indifferently
           amounted
           but
           to
           the
           same
           Thing
           ?
           Whereas
           Names
           are
           certainly
           of
           Arbitrary
           Imposition
           ,
           whether
           God
           or
           Man
           imposes
           them
           ;
           and
           Postures
           none
           ascribe
           to
           God
           but
           that
           silly
           Sort
           of
           Men
           ,
           the
           Anthropomorphites
           .
           But
           as
           for
           Modes
           ,
           they
           result
           eternally
           and
           necessarily
           from
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           and
           eternally
           and
           inseparably
           remain
           in
           it
           ,
           and
           withal
           import
           such
           distinct
           Relations
           as
           can
           never
           coincide
           in
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Person
           :
           and
           how
           then
           can
           this
           Ignorant
           Man
           talk
           
             of
             the
             Vnity
             of
             one
             Person
             who
             is
             the
             whole
             Deity
             or
             Godhead
             ,
          
           when
           these
           Three
           Relations
           can
           never
           concur
           in
           such
           
             an
             Vnity
             of
             Person
          
           ,
           but
           all
           of
           them
           may
           and
           do
           concur
           in
           
             the
             Vnity
             of
             the
             Godhead
          
           ?
           In
           a
           word
           ,
           I
           do
           here
           ask
           this
           bold
           Man
           ,
           whether
           he
           will
           venture
           to
           affirm
           ,
           That
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           determined
           or
           modified
           by
           such
           a
           certain
           subsistence
           or
           subsisting
           Relation
           is
           a
           
             meer
             Mode
             or
             no
          
           ?
           and
           I
           do
           here
           leave
           it
           to
           his
           second
           Thoughts
           ,
           whether
           he
           will
           venture
           to
           say
           so
           .
           And
           if
           not
           ,
           why
           does
           he
           here
           against
           his
           Conscience
           reproach
           the
           Doctrine
           of
           the
           
           Catholick
           Church
           (
           for
           so
           it
           is
           )
           as
           if
           it
           established
           a
           Trinity
           of
           
             meer
             Modes
          
           ?
           Which
           it
           is
           so
           far
           from
           ,
           that
           I
           do
           here
           affirm
           against
           this
           Author
           ,
           and
           others
           who
           speak
           like
           him
           upon
           this
           Subject
           ,
           That
           according
           to
           the
           sence
           of
           the
           Catholick
           Church
           ,
           
             The
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Relative
             Modes
             of
             Subsistence
             ,
             or
             Three
             subsisting
             Relations
             of
             one
             and
             the
             same
             Infinite
             Divine
             Nature
             included
             in
             all
             and
             each
             of
             them
          
           ;
           or
           again
           ,
           
             They
             are
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             it self
             subsisting
             with
             Three
             distinct
             Relations
             .
          
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           I
           affirm
           ,
           and
           doubt
           not
           but
           that
           to
           all
           Men
           of
           sence
           it
           confutes
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           being
           Three
           
             meer
             Modes
          
           ,
           and
           shews
           ,
           withal
           ,
           what
           an
           irrational
           Blasphemous
           Cavil
           it
           is
           to
           call
           them
           so
           .
           For
           certainly
           a
           Mode
           in
           concretion
           with
           the
           Essence
           ,
           cannot
           with
           the
           least
           pretence
           of
           Reason
           be
           called
           a
           
             meer
             Mode
          
           .
           And
           This
           I
           do
           again
           avouch
           for
           the
           Doctrine
           of
           the
           Catholick
           Church
           concerning
           the
           Trinity
           ;
           and
           do
           over
           and
           over
           challenge
           this
           Pert
           Novellist
           to
           disprove
           it
           if
           he
           can
           .
        
         
           But
           in
           the
           next
           place
           he
           is
           for
           confirming
           his
           
             Tr●●●theistical
             Assertion
          
           with
           this
           Invincible
           Argument
           (
           as
           he
           thinks
           ,
           Poor
           Man
           !
           )
           p.
           8
           ,
           9.
           
           If
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             every
             distinct
             Person
             in
             the
             Godhead
             considered
             as
             Distinct
             ,
             be
             not
             an
             Infinite
             and
             Eternal
             Mind
             ,
             as
             it
             must
             be
             ,
             if
             every
             distinct
             Person
             be
             God
             (
             unless
             any
             Thing
             else
             than
             an
             Infinite
             Mind
             can
             be
             God
             )
             then
             ,
             though
             it
             be
             an
             unusual
             way
             of
             speaking
             to
             call
             them
             Three
             Eternal
             Minds
             ,
             yet
             there
             is
             no
             Heresy
             in
             it
             ,
             nor
             any
             intended
             by
             it
             .
          
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           I
           shall
           not
           much
           concern
           my self
           about
           what
           he
           intends
           (
           it
           being
           his
           old
           way
           ,
           when
           he
           is
           pressed
           with
           his
           Words
           ,
           to
           fly
           to
           his
           Intentions
           )
           but
           shall
           only
           consider
           what
           his
           words
           express
           or
           infer
           :
           And
           whether
           they
           carry
           any
           Heresy
           in
           
           them
           or
           no
           ,
           shall
           appear
           presently
           .
           And
           in
           order
           to
           this
           ,
           I
           must
           remind
           him
           of
           these
           Two
           Things
           .
        
         
           First
           ,
           That
           [
           God
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Eternal
             Mind
          
           ]
           are
           Terms
           perfectly
           equipollent
           .
           And
        
         
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           in
           Terms
           equipollent
           ,
           putting
           one
           in
           the
           room
           of
           the
           other
           ,
           you
           may
           argue
           with
           the
           same
           consequence
           from
           one
           ,
           that
           you
           can
           from
           the
           other
           .
        
         
           According
           to
           which
           rule
           we
           will
           try
           the
           force
           of
           his
           Argument
           ,
           by
           proposing
           it
           with
           the
           bare
           change
           of
           one
           of
           the
           forementioned
           Terms
           for
           the
           other
           ,
           Thus.
           
             If
             every
             distinct
             Person
             in
             the
             Godhead
             ,
             considered
             as
             distinct
             be
             [
             God
             ]
             as
             it
             must
             be
             if
             every
             distinct
             Person
             be
             an
             Infinite
             and
             Eternal
             Mind
             [
             unless
             any
             thing
             else
             than
             [
             God
             ]
             can
             be
             an
             [
             Infinite
             Mind
             ]
             then
             though
             it
             be
             an
             unusual
             way
             of
             speaking
             to
             call
             them
             Three
             Gods
             ,
             yet
             there
             is
             no
             Heresy
             in
             it
             ;
             nor
          
           (
           in
           spight
           of
           his
           words
           )
           
             any
             intended
             by
             it
          
           .
        
         
           Now
           let
           this
           Author
           consider
           how
           he
           will
           allow
           of
           this
           Conclusion
           ;
           for
           if
           his
           own
           Conclusion
           holds
           good
           ,
           this
           is
           certainly
           good
           also
           ;
           since
           the
           Validity
           of
           the
           Consequence
           is
           the
           same
           in
           Both
           ;
           the
           Matter
           of
           the
           Argument
           being
           the
           same
           ,
           and
           the
           Form
           of
           it
           the
           same
           too
           .
           There
           must
           be
           therefore
           a
           gross
           Fallacy
           in
           the
           Argument
           it self
           ,
           and
           it
           lies
           in
           the
           Homonomy
           of
           the
           Term
           [
           
             as
             distinct
          
           ]
           .
           For
           the
           English
           Particle
           [
           as
           ]
           ,
           and
           the
           Latine
           [
           quà
           or
           quatenus
           ]
           ,
           thus
           applied
           has
           Two
           Significations
           .
           1.
           
           The
           first
           importing
           any
           Qualification
           specifying
           ,
           affecting
           ,
           or
           any
           way
           denominating
           the
           Subject
           :
           and
           so
           [
           a
           Person
           
             as
             distinct
          
           ]
           ,
           signifies
           no
           more
           than
           [
           a
           Person
           
             who
             is
             distinct
          
           ,
           or
           a
           Person
           under
           this
           Qualification
           or
           Denomination
           ]
           :
           2.
           
           But
           ,
           secondly
           ,
           the
           other
           Signification
           
           of
           the
           Particle
           [
           as
           ]
           is
           causal
           ,
           and
           imports
           a
           causal
           Connexion
           of
           the
           Term
           to
           which
           it
           is
           joined
           ,
           with
           some
           Predicate
           or
           Attribute
           belonging
           to
           the
           Subject
           ;
           and
           so
           [
           a
           Person
           
             as
             distinct
          
           ]
           ,
           signifies
           as
           much
           as
           [
           a
           Person
           
             because
             distinct
          
           ,
           or
           by
           reason
           of
           his
           distinction
           ]
           .
           And
           this
           makes
           an
           Attribute
           to
           be
           necessarily
           and
           universally
           predicated
           of
           its
           Subject
           ;
           so
           that
           if
           the
           Subject
           be
           multiplied
           ,
           the
           Thing
           predicated
           of
           it
           must
           be
           multiplied
           too
           ;
           but
           in
           the
           former
           Signification
           of
           the
           Particle
           [
           as
           ]
           it
           is
           not
           so
           ;
           for
           as
           much
           as
           the
           Predication
           imported
           thereby
           is
           only
           Accidental
           ,
           and
           has
           no
           causal
           ,
           necessary
           ,
           nor
           Universal
           Connexion
           with
           it's
           Subject
           .
           Accordingly
           in
           the
           causal
           sence
           of
           the
           Term
           [
           
             as
             distinct
          
           ]
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           no
           Person
           in
           the
           Godhead
           [
           
             as
             distinct
          
           ]
           is
           an
           
             Infinite
             Eternal
             Mind
          
           ;
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           This
           Attribute
           belongs
           not
           formally
           to
           his
           Distinction
           ;
           and
           that
           his
           Distinction
           is
           not
           the
           cause
           or
           reason
           that
           it
           is
           affirmed
           of
           him
           .
           For
           it
           is
           an
           Attribute
           Springing
           from
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           which
           is
           in
           the
           Person
           ,
           and
           not
           from
           his
           Personality
           or
           Personal
           Distinction
           ;
           for
           as
           much
           as
           that
           does
           not
           properly
           and
           formally
           make
           him
           to
           be
           God
           ,
           nor
           is
           that
           wherein
           his
           Godhead
           does
           precisely
           consist
           ,
           though
           by
           Reason
           of
           the
           Persons
           including
           in
           him
           the
           Nature
           ,
           it
           does
           indeed
           imply
           and
           suppose
           him
           to
           be
           God.
           And
           thus
           all
           the
           Ancient
           Orthodox
           Divines
           and
           Doctors
           of
           the
           Church
           distinguish
           in
           each
           Person
           Two
           things
           ,
           though
           intimately
           and
           inseparably
           United
           ,
           viz.
           The
           Godhead
           or
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           and
           the
           Personal
           distinguishing
           Relation
           ,
           so
           that
           what
           agrees
           to
           the
           Person
           upon
           one
           Account
           ,
           does
           not
           properly
           belong
           to
           him
           upon
           the
           other
           ;
           and
           consequently
           to
           make
           the
           Personal
           Distinction
           the
           Proper
           
           Reason
           of
           any
           essential
           Predication
           ,
           is
           utterly
           false
           and
           illogical
           .
           And
           accordingly
           to
           say
           ,
           that
           [
           
             Infinite
             ,
             Eternal
             Mind
          
           ]
           ,
           which
           is
           an
           Essential
           Attribute
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           as
           such
           ,
           belongs
           to
           any
           One
           Person
           ,
           by
           reason
           of
           his
           
             Personal
             Distinction
          
           ,
           is
           false
           ;
           forasmuch
           as
           this
           would
           inferr
           it
           to
           belong
           to
           that
           Person
           only
           ,
           since
           his
           
             Personal
             Distinction
          
           belongs
           only
           to
           himself
           .
           It
           belongs
           indeed
           to
           him
           ,
           
             though
             distinct
          
           ,
           but
           not
           
             because
             distinct
          
           :
           but
           wholly
           because
           of
           his
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           which
           belonging
           equally
           to
           all
           the
           
             Divine
             Persons
          
           ,
           all
           the
           
             Essential
             Attributes
          
           of
           the
           said
           Nature
           must
           equally
           belong
           to
           all
           the
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           too
           .
           From
           all
           which
           it
           follows
           ,
           That
           since
           [
           
             Infinite
             Eternal
             Mind
          
           ]
           is
           an
           Attribute
           not
           springing
           from
           
             Personal
             Distinction
          
           even
           in
           
             Distinct
             Persons
          
           ,
           nor
           agreeing
           to
           the
           said
           Persons
           ▪
           upon
           that
           account
           ,
           but
           springing
           wholly
           from
           that
           
             One
             Divine
             Nature
          
           which
           is
           Common
           to
           them
           All
           ;
           it
           can
           never
           inferr
           ,
           the
           
             Three
             Persons
             ,
             though
             Distinct
          
           ,
           to
           be
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Eternal
             Minds
          
           ;
           since
           ,
           as
           I
           shew
           before
           ,
           the
           Connexion
           between
           [
           a
           
             Distinct
             Person
          
           ]
           as
           the
           Subject
           ,
           and
           between
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           as
           the
           Predicate
           ,
           not
           being
           causal
           ,
           the
           Multiplication
           of
           the
           Subject
           can
           never
           inferr
           the
           Multiplication
           of
           the
           Predicate
           .
           And
           this
           I
           affirm
           to
           be
           a
           full
           and
           true
           Account
           of
           this
           Matter
           ,
           and
           a
           clear
           Solution
           of
           the
           Fallacy
           which
           this
           Man
           's
           whole
           Argument
           depended
           upon
           ;
           and
           consequently
           that
           his
           
             Tritheistical
             Hypothesis
             ,
             That
             the
             Three
             Distinct
             Divine
             Persons
             must
             be
             therefore
             Three
             Distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             ,
          
           is
           ,
           even
           by
           his
           own
           Confession
           ,
           (
           would
           he
           stand
           to
           it
           )
           at
           an
           end
           .
           And
           the
           Truth
           is
           ,
           there
           is
           nothing
           in
           his
           
             whole
             Book
          
           but
           pittiful
           wretched
           Fallacy
           join'd
           with
           
             gross
             Ignorance
          
           of
           the
           Subject
           he
           writes
           of
           ,
           from
           first
           to
           last
           .
        
         
         
           And
           yet
           ,
           after
           all
           This
           ,
           he
           makes
           his
           Hypothesis
           the
           
             only
             Rule
          
           to
           understand
           most
           of
           the
           Scriptures
           by
           ,
           which
           represent
           to
           us
           the
           Vnion
           between
           the
           Father
           and
           the
           Son
           :
           and
           particularly
           that
           about
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           expressed
           Iohn
           14.
           v.
           11.
           by
           the
           Son
           's
           being
           
             in
             the
             Father
          
           ,
           and
           the
           
             Father
             in
             the
             Son.
          
           For
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             That
             the
             Father
             should
             be
             in
             the
             Son
             ,
             and
             the
             Son
             in
             the
             Father
             ,
             so
             as
             perfectly
             to
             comprehend
             and
             be
             comprehended
             ,
             with
             several
             like
             Expressions
             ,
             is
             made
             very
             Possible
             and
             Intelligible
             by
             a
             mutual
             conscious
             Sensation
             ,
             but
             nothing
             else
             will
             afford
             us
             any
             Conception
             of
             it
             ,
          
           Def.
           p.
           9.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           what
           if
           it
           does
           not
           ?
           And
           what
           Christian
           is
           concern'd
           to
           have
           any
           such
           Conception
           ?
           For
           did
           the
           Catholick
           Church
           ever
           pretend
           to
           any
           beyond
           the
           bare
           Knowledge
           of
           the
           Signification
           and
           Sense
           of
           the
           Terms
           in
           which
           it
           was
           revealed
           ?
           And
           did
           not
           the
           bare
           Revelation
           of
           it
           sufficiently
           make
           out
           the
           Possibility
           of
           it
           to
           us
           ,
           without
           any
           further
           Explication
           ?
           What
           does
           this
           Profane
           Man
           mean
           thus
           to
           state
           the
           very
           Possibility
           of
           a
           Thing
           expresly
           reveal'd
           in
           Scripture
           ,
           upon
           his
           
             New-found
             Exposition
          
           of
           it
           ;
           so
           that
           ,
           unless
           this
           be
           admitted
           ,
           we
           must
           (
           even
           in
           spight
           of
           Revelation
           )
           look
           upon
           it
           as
           Impossible
           ?
           Good
           God!
           whither
           are
           we
           running
           ?
           But
           to
           shew
           moreover
           ,
           That
           his
           Exposition
           is
           as
           Forced
           as
           New
           ,
           Our
           Saviour
           expresses
           this
           Circumincession
           by
           words
           importing
           
             mutual
             Inexistence
          
           :
           But
           ,
           says
           this
           Man
           ,
           (
           a
           Man
           made
           ,
           it
           seems
           ,
           to
           Correct
           Revelation
           it self
           ,
           by
           putting
           it
           into
           properer
           Words
           .
           )
           That
           such
           a
           
             mutual
             Inexistence
             cannot
             be
             conceived
             Possible
             ,
          
           unless
           we
           understand
           it
           of
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ;
           that
           is
           ,
           of
           quite
           another
           Thing
           from
           what
           the
           Words
           signifie
           :
           for
           certain
           it
           is
           ,
           that
           
             mutual
             Inexistence
          
           is
           not
           
             mutual
             
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           nor
           can
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           be
           
             mutual
             Inexistence
          
           .
           But
           ,
           in
           short
           ,
           will
           this
           Man
           say
           ,
           That
           the
           
             mutual
             Inexistence
             of
             the
             Father
             and
             the
             Son
          
           (
           understood
           according
           to
           the
           very
           Letter
           )
           implies
           in
           it
           a
           Contradiction
           ?
           I
           question
           whether
           he
           will
           dare
           say
           so
           ,
           whatsoever
           the
           Thing
           asserted
           by
           him
           may
           inferr
           :
           For
           as
           for
           that
           pittiful
           Objection
           ,
           against
           the
           same
           Thing
           's
           
             comprehending
             another
             Thing
          
           and
           
             being
             comprehended
             by
             it
             ,
             &c.
          
           it
           is
           a
           meer
           Toy
           ,
           founded
           only
           in
           that
           old
           Maxime
           ,
           
             Omne
             continens
             est
             majus
             contento
          
           ,
           drawn
           off
           from
           Material
           Quantitative
           Beings
           ,
           and
           so
           not
           applicable
           to
           Immaterial
           and
           Spiritual
           ;
           as
           has
           been
           fully
           shewn
           in
           the
           9
           th
           Chapter
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           p.
           299
           ,
           and
           300.
           
           But
           if
           this
           Author
           will
           not
           venture
           to
           say
           ,
           that
           such
           a
           
             mutual
             Inexistence
          
           (
           understood
           according
           to
           the
           Letter
           )
           implies
           in
           it
           a
           Contradiction
           ,
           then
           let
           him
           give
           the
           Church
           a
           Satisfactory
           Reason
           ,
           Why
           our
           Saviour's
           Words
           should
           not
           be
           understood
           in
           their
           own
           Natural
           ,
           Proper
           Sence
           ,
           but
           in
           this
           Man
           's
           New
           Sence
           ,
           which
           is
           both
           Improper
           and
           Figurative
           ,
           and
           never
           heard
           of
           before
           .
           But
           with
           a
           bold
           Front
           he
           says
           ,
           That
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           here
           spoken
           of
           is
           not
           otherwise
           Possible
           and
           Intelligible
           ,
           (
           which
           Two
           Words
           he
           is
           perpetually
           jumbling
           together
           ,
           as
           if
           there
           might
           not
           be
           many
           things
           Possible
           ,
           and
           yet
           by
           Humane
           Reason
           not
           Intelligible
           )
           .
           But
           I
           must
           here
           tell
           him
           (
           what
           I
           dare
           say
           he
           knew
           not
           before
           )
           viz.
           That
           it
           is
           one
           thing
           
             Positively
             to
             apprehend
             and
             know
             a
             Thing
             not
             to
             be
             Possible
          
           (
           which
           I
           defie
           him
           to
           prove
           this
           
             mutual
             Inexistence
          
           (
           even
           understood
           literally
           )
           not
           to
           be
           )
           ;
           and
           another
           Thing
           
             not
             to
             apprehend
             or
             Know
             ,
             How
             or
             by
             what
             way
             a
             Thing
             is
             Possible
             .
          
           And
           this
           latter
           I
           affirm
           ought
           never
           to
           supersede
           our
           Assent
           
           to
           any
           Thing
           ,
           if
           revealed
           to
           us
           ;
           nor
           to
           make
           us
           doubt
           of
           the
           Revelation
           ,
           nor
           are
           we
           at
           all
           concerned
           about
           any
           further
           Explication
           of
           the
           Thing
           so
           Revealed
           ,
           nor
           whether
           we
           ever
           know
           any
           more
           of
           it
           or
           no
           ;
           And
           this
           is
           my
           Opinion
           may
           serve
           an
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           -
           Man
           (
           which
           is
           but
           another
           word
           for
           a
           Theological
           Quack
           )
           a
           great
           deal
           of
           trouble
           .
           But
           so
           far
           is
           this
           Man's
           Mutual-Consciousness
           from
           being
           the
           only
           Thing
           that
           can
           render
           this
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           intelligible
           ,
           That
           unless
           a
           
             Mutual
             Inexistence
          
           be
           presupposed
           ,
           no
           such
           Thing
           as
           a
           Mutual-Consciousness
           can
           here
           take
           place
           ;
           since
           it
           is
           essentially
           founded
           in
           that
           .
           For
           surely
           Father
           and
           Son
           must
           exist
           mutually
           in
           one
           Another
           ,
           before
           they
           can
           know
           or
           be
           conscious
           to
           themselves
           that
           they
           do
           so
           .
           But
           this
           point
           of
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           has
           been
           so
           fully
           debated
           ,
           and
           so
           throughly
           cleared
           in
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           both
           in
           the
           seventh
           Chapter
           from
           page
           201
           ,
           to
           the
           207.
           inclusively
           ,
           and
           in
           the
           ninth
           Chapter
           from
           page
           295
           ,
           to
           301.
           that
           there
           needed
           not
           to
           have
           been
           so
           much
           as
           one
           word
           said
           of
           it
           here
           .
           But
           ,
           as
           I
           hinted
           before
           ,
           though
           this
           Writer
           be
           confuted
           never
           so
           often
           ,
           he
           takes
           no
           notice
           of
           it
           ;
           but
           still
           keeps
           on
           Writing
           ,
           and
           (
           for
           ought
           I
           see
           )
           will
           never
           hold
           his
           hand
           ,
           till
           the
           Bookseller
           holds
           his
           .
        
         
           In
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           he
           seems
           to
           fall
           a
           pitch
           Lower
           than
           usual
           ,
           and
           to
           be
           upon
           the
           complaining
           strain
           ,
           as
           that
           Men
           are
           spightful
           ,
           and
           will
           not
           treat
           Mr.
           Dean
           and
           his
           Absurdities
           ,
           according
           to
           their
           
             Dignity
             :
             nor
             allow
             him
             such
             fair
             Quarter
             as
             other
             Writers
          
           (
           he
           says
           )
           
             have
             met
             with
             in
             the
             same
             Cause
             .
          
           Adding
           withal
           ,
           
             That
             it
             is
             not
             to
             be
             expected
             ,
             that
             in
             a
             matter
             of
             so
             high
             in
             Nature
             ,
             we
             should
             have
             such
             a
             comprehension
             of
             it
             ,
             as
             to
             leave
             no
             difficulties
             unexplained
             .
          
           Which
           I
           confess
           would
           be
           
           a
           fair
           Allegation
           from
           another
           Man
           ;
           but
           not
           from
           him
           .
           For
           has
           he
           not
           declared
           ,
           
             That
             his
             Notion
             of
             a
             Trinity
             solves
             all
             doubts
             and
             difficulties
             about
             it
             ?
          
           See
           his
           
             Vindication
             ,
             p.
          
           66.
           l.
           2.
           and
           85.
           l.
           last
           ,
           and
           where
           
             all
             difficulties
             are
             solved
          
           ,
           can
           there
           remain
           any
           Vnexplained
           ?
           Now
           I
           ask
           this
           Man
           ,
           Are
           the
           words
           here
           quoted
           by
           me
           his
           ,
           or
           are
           they
           not
           ?
           If
           they
           are
           his
           ,
           then
           let
           all
           Mankind
           judge
           whether
           this
           Man
           has
           not
           
             eaten
             shame
             and
             drunk
             after
             it
          
           (
           as
           the
           word
           is
           )
           ;
           who
           can
           ,
           without
           the
           least
           sence
           of
           it
           ,
           so
           grosly
           contradict
           himself
           in
           the
           face
           of
           the
           World.
           But
           however
           let
           us
           hear
           what
           he
           says
           .
           And
           here
           we
           have
           him
           alledging
           the
           Fathers
           setting
           forth
           the
           
             Trinity
             by
             the
             Sun
             ,
             and
             its
             light
             and
             splendor
             ,
             by
             a
             Tree
             and
             it's
             Branches
             ,
             a
             Fountain
             and
             it's
             Streams
             ,
             or
             a
             Mathematical
             Cube
             :
          
           and
           then
           bringing
           up
           the
           Rear
           of
           all
           with
           these
           Questions
           .
           
             Are
             not
             these
             Accounts
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             much
             more
             chargeable
             with
             Tritheism
             ,
             or
             Sabellianism
             ,
             than
             the
             Account
             he
             gives
             of
             them
             by
             Three
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             ?
             For
             are
             not
             the
             Sun
             and
             its
             light
             and
             splendor
             ,
             as
             much
             Three
             ,
             but
             not
             so
             much
             one
             as
             Three
             Conscious
             Minds
             ?
             p.
          
           9.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           peremptorily
           ,
           That
           
             the
             Sun
             and
             its
             light
             and
             splendor
          
           (
           not
           being
           Three
           distinct
           Supposita
           )
           are
           much
           more
           one
           ,
           than
           Three
           
             distinct
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
          
           (
           which
           are
           Three
           Supposita
           )
           can
           possibly
           be
           ;
           and
           cannot
           be
           
             more
             Three
          
           ,
           than
           Three
           
             distinct
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
          
           necessarily
           and
           essentially
           are
           .
           But
           I
           would
           have
           the
           Reader
           here
           observe
           ,
           what
           a
           wretched
           Sophism
           he
           is
           now
           Trumping
           upon
           him
           ,
           by
           arguing
           
             ab
             Imparibus
             tanquam
             paribus
          
           .
           For
           is
           an
           Account
           of
           a
           Thing
           by
           way
           of
           Allusion
           ,
           and
           an
           Account
           analogous
           to
           a
           Definition
           ,
           all
           one
           ?
           Is
           a
           similitude
           or
           bare
           Resemblance
           of
           a
           Thing
           ,
           and
           a
           proper
           Representation
           or
           Description
           of
           the
           Nature
           
           of
           that
           Thing
           the
           same
           ?
           Is
           there
           not
           a
           wide
           difference
           between
           shewing
           what
           a
           Thing
           is
           like
           ,
           and
           what
           it
           really
           and
           properly
           is
           ?
           And
           to
           demonstrate
           that
           the
           Fathers
           applyed
           the
           fore-alleged
           Instances
           of
           Resemblance
           to
           the
           Trinity
           in
           a
           quite
           different
           way
           from
           what
           this
           Author
           here
           does
           ,
           when
           he
           represents
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           as
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ,
           can
           he
           shew
           us
           ,
           That
           the
           Fathers
           ever
           positively
           affirmed
           or
           predicated
           any
           of
           the
           said
           Resemblances
           used
           by
           them
           ,
           of
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           so
           ,
           as
           to
           say
           ,
           
             Father
             ,
             Son
          
           ,
           and
           
             Holy
             Ghost
             ,
             are
             Sun
             ,
             Light
             ,
             and
             Splendor
             ?
          
           But
           this
           Author
           Categorically
           affirms
           ,
           That
           
             Father
             ,
             Son
             and
             Holy
             Ghost
             ,
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
          
           ;
           and
           will
           he
           call
           this
           a
           bare
           Resemblance
           ,
           and
           no
           more
           ?
           Nay
           ;
           does
           he
           not
           give
           this
           as
           their
           
             True
             and
             proper
             Denomination
          
           ,
           joining
           them
           together
           and
           affirming
           one
           of
           the
           other
           by
           a
           strict
           ,
           and
           logical
           Predication
           ?
           and
           must
           this
           pass
           for
           a
           meer
           Resemblance
           too
           ?
           Wherefore
           I
           would
           have
           
             his
             Ignorance
          
           take
           notice
           for
           the
           future
           ,
           that
           an
           
             Allusion
             to
             a
             thing
          
           per
           modum
           similitudinis
           ,
           and
           a
           
             proper
             Account
          
           of
           it
           ,
           
             quoad
             rei
             veritatem
          
           ,
           and
           dogmatically
           representing
           
             the
             Nature
             of
             the
             said
             Thing
             ,
          
           do
           vastly
           differ
           ,
           and
           consequently
           ,
           That
           to
           argue
           from
           one
           to
           the
           other
           can
           be
           fit
           for
           none
           but
           him
           ,
           whose
           Known
           Talent
           it
           is
           only
           to
           shift
           and
           to
           shuffle
           ,
           and
           instead
           of
           answering
           his
           Adversary
           ,
           to
           put
           a
           Trick
           upon
           his
           Reader
           .
        
         
           But
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           That
           he
           is
           now
           
             for
             discoursing
             something
             in
             general
             concerning
             a
             Trinity
             in
             Vnity
             ,
             and
             concerning
             the
             words
             whereby
             to
             express
             it
             .
          
           And
           here
           ,
           as
           a
           foretast
           of
           the
           rest
           ,
           it
           is
           something
           pleasant
           to
           see
           how
           he
           expresses
           himself
           page
           10.
           lines
           17
           ,
           18.
           
           Where
           ,
           having
           said
           ,
           that
           a
           
             Trinity
             in
             Vnity
             is
             such
             a
             Distinction
             
             and
             such
             an
             Vnion
          
           (
           and
           why
           not
           Unity
           ?
           )
           
             as
             is
             peculiar
             to
             the
             Godhead
             .
          
           He
           adds
           ,
           
             That
             there
             are
             some
             faint
             Resemblances
             of
             it
             in
             Nature
             ,
             yet
             Nature
             has
             nothing
             like
             it
             .
          
           Now
           I
           would
           have
           this
           Acute
           Author
           tell
           me
           ,
           How
           there
           can
           be
           Resemblances
           without
           Likeness
           ,
           or
           Likeness
           without
           Resemblance
           ?
           For
           I
           never
           knew
           Two
           Things
           resemble
           one
           Another
           ,
           but
           they
           were
           like
           one
           Another
           too
           :
           Resemblance
           being
           nothing
           else
           but
           the
           Agreement
           of
           Two
           or
           more
           Things
           in
           any
           one
           Qualification
           :
           and
           it
           is
           that
           Agreement
           which
           renders
           and
           denominates
           them
           properly
           like
           .
           But
           if
           this
           Man
           means
           by
           Likeness
           an
           entire
           Universal
           Agreement
           in
           all
           Respects
           ,
           I
           must
           take
           the
           boldness
           to
           tell
           him
           that
           he
           speaks
           Nonsence
           .
           Forasmuch
           as
           to
           be
           properly
           like
           a
           Thing
           ,
           and
           to
           be
           an
           Absolute
           Exact
           Copy
           of
           a
           Thing
           ,
           wholly
           differ
           :
           there
           being
           a
           Rule
           in
           Logick
           ,
           (
           which
           I
           can
           assure
           him
           is
           as
           little
           a
           Friend
           to
           him
           ,
           as
           he
           can
           be
           to
           that
           )
           That
           
             Omne
             simile
             est
             dissimile
          
           ;
           that
           is
           ,
           That
           
             all
             Likeness
          
           ,
           in
           the
           very
           Essence
           of
           it
           ,
           imports
           a
           Disagreement
           ,
           in
           some
           Respects
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           it
           denotes
           an
           Agreement
           in
           others
           .
           After
           which
           horrible
           Thick-piece
           of
           Nonsence
           it
           might
           justly
           be
           expected
           ,
           that
           I
           should
           sprinkle
           this
           Rude
           Author
           with
           some
           of
           those
           Rhetorical
           Flowers
           which
           he
           had
           so
           liberally
           bestowed
           upon
           the
           Animadverter
           ;
           such
           as
           
             Ingenious
             Blunderer
             ,
             and
             one
             without
             Sence
             or
             Reason
             ,
          
           &c.
           but
           I
           shall
           only
           admire
           him
           under
           the
           Character
           which
           he
           has
           so
           modestly
           assumed
           to
           himself
           ,
           pag.
           43.
           of
           being
           (
           forsooth
           )
           an
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           -
           Man
           ;
           since
           if
           ever
           he
           could
           pretend
           to
           that
           Title
           ,
           it
           must
           be
           here
           :
           for
           surely
           
             to
             find
             out
             a
             Resemblance
             where
             there
             is
             no
             Likeness
          
           must
           be
           an
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           worthy
           of
           the
           greatest
           and
           most
           celebrated
           Invention
           .
           Otherwise
           to
           give
           it
           its
           
           due
           Character
           ,
           it
           is
           a
           confounded
           ,
           shameless
           ,
           Nonsensical
           contradiction
           ,
           and
           it
           is
           hard
           to
           imagine
           what
           it
           is
           like
           ,
           unless
           it
           be
           this
           Author's
           Case
           of
           Non-resistance
           ,
           set
           off
           with
           Horse
           and
           Armes
           ,
           as
           a
           Comment
           upon
           the
           Text
           ,
           or
           a
           Gloss
           upon
           the
           Case
           .
        
         
           And
           now
           in
           accounting
           for
           the
           words
           by
           which
           the
           Trinity
           is
           expressed
           (
           according
           to
           his
           usual
           way
           of
           complementing
           the
           Fathers
           )
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           page
           12.
           line
           18
           ,
           19.
           
           
             That
             they
             in
             their
             disputes
             upon
             this
             subject
             wanted
             words
             adequately
             to
             express
             their
             sence
             .
          
           Which
           I
           for
           my
           part
           can
           see
           no
           Reason
           to
           grant
           him
           :
           for
           though
           their
           sence
           and
           conceptions
           fell
           exceedingly
           short
           of
           the
           sublimity
           of
           that
           subject
           (
           as
           when
           a
           finite
           Reason
           discourses
           of
           an
           
             Infinite
             Being
          
           ,
           it
           cannot
           but
           do
           )
           yet
           it
           is
           wholly
           
             gratìs
             dictum
          
           ,
           That
           the
           Fathers
           
             wanted
             words
          
           fully
           and
           adequately
           to
           express
           their
           
             own
             sence
             and
             conception
             of
             it
          
           ▪
           for
           surely
           ,
           so
           far
           as
           any
           one
           conceives
           of
           a
           Thing
           ,
           if
           he
           has
           a
           Command
           of
           the
           Language
           he
           makes
           use
           of
           (
           as
           the
           Fathers
           plentifully
           had
           )
           he
           may
           express
           himself
           proportionably
           to
           what
           he
           conceives
           .
        
         
           But
           not
           to
           insist
           any
           further
           upon
           this
           .
           We
           have
           our
           Author
           in
           the
           next
           place
           upon
           no
           small
           Tryal
           of
           his
           skill
           ,
           and
           that
           in
           such
           an
           Instance
           as
           (
           he
           well
           knows
           )
           will
           very
           nearly
           affect
           his
           whole
           Hypothesis
           .
           For
           finding
           the
           World
           not
           very
           ready
           to
           digest
           his
           Scandalous
           Notion
           of
           Three
           distinct
           Infinite
           Minds
           or
           Spirits
           ,
           he
           would
           fain
           slide
           it
           out
           of
           their
           sight
           by
           casting
           a
           mist
           before
           their
           Eyes
           ;
           and
           that
           is
           by
           offering
           to
           perswade
           the
           World
           ,
           That
           the
           word
           [
           Mind
           ]
           may
           be
           as
           well
           applyed
           to
           the
           Three
           in
           the
           Godhead
           as
           the
           word
           [
           Person
           ]
           .
           To
           which
           purpose
           he
           tells
           us
           page
           13
           line
           17.
           
           That
           the
           word
           [
           Person
           ]
           
             signifies
             not
             only
             
             distinct
          
           but
           also
           
             separate
             subsistence
          
           ,
           and
           was
           first
           used
           to
           signify
           separately
           subsisting
           Beings
           ,
           such
           as
           Men
           and
           Angels
           ,
           and
           from
           thence
           was
           
             applyed
             by
             Theological
             use
             to
             signify
             also
             Persons
             having
             only
             a
             distinct
             subsistence
             ,
             as
             these
             in
             the
             Blessed
             Trinity
             have
             no
             more
             .
          
           Thus
           says
           He.
           In
           Answer
           to
           which
           ,
           and
           in
           direct
           contradiction
           to
           what
           he
           has
           here
           affirmed
           ,
           I
           deny
           that
           the
           Term
           [
           Person
           ]
           does
           ,
           or
           ever
           did
           signify
           
             separate
             subsistence
          
           ,
           but
           only
           
             complete
             subsistence
          
           .
           For
           though
           in
           its
           original
           use
           it
           signified
           indeed
           separately
           subsisting
           Persons
           ,
           such
           as
           Men
           and
           Angels
           ;
           yet
           I
           deny
           that
           it
           signified
           them
           under
           the
           Particular
           Notion
           ,
           or
           formality
           of
           separate
           ,
           or
           properly
           denoted
           their
           separation
           ,
           but
           only
           their
           completeness
           .
           And
           this
           is
           undeniably
           proved
           from
           the
           Received
           Definition
           of
           a
           Person
           ,
           That
           it
           is
           an
           
             Intelligent
             Completely
             subsisting
             Nature
          
           ,
           or
           
             an
             Intelligent
             Nature
             with
             ,
             or
             under
             a
             complete
             subsistence
             .
          
           So
           that
           an
           
             Intelligent
             Nature
          
           is
           one
           part
           of
           the
           Definition
           ,
           and
           the
           
             complete
             subsistence
             of
             it
          
           the
           other
           ;
           which
           making
           up
           the
           whole
           of
           it
           ,
           it
           is
           manifest
           that
           it
           is
           Indifferent
           to
           signify
           all
           Intelligent
           Natures
           thus
           completely
           subsisting
           ,
           whether
           they
           be
           separate
           or
           only
           distinct
           ;
           and
           that
           without
           any
           regard
           either
           to
           their
           Separation
           or
           bare
           Distinction
           ;
           forasmuch
           as
           neither
           of
           these
           make
           any
           part
           of
           the
           Definition
           of
           a
           Person
           ,
           as
           has
           been
           shewn
           :
           And
           therefore
           though
           I
           grant
           that
           the
           word
           [
           Person
           ]
           was
           first
           applied
           to
           signifie
           separate
           Subsistences
           ,
           and
           afterwards
           used
           to
           signify
           the
           Subsistences
           of
           the
           Godhead
           which
           were
           only
           distinct
           but
           not
           separate
           ,
           yet
           I
           deny
           ,
           that
           it
           did
           this
           by
           a
           Translation
           of
           the
           word
           from
           one
           sence
           or
           signification
           to
           another
           ,
           but
           only
           by
           enlarging
           and
           
             extending
             the
             use
             of
             it
          
           (
           mark
           that
           )
           to
           more
           Things
           ,
           than
           it
           was
           
           actually
           applyed
           to
           at
           first
           ;
           yet
           still
           so
           ,
           that
           it
           was
           applyed
           with
           the
           same
           ▪
           Propriety
           to
           them
           all
           ,
           and
           without
           the
           least
           change
           of
           its
           original
           Signification
           .
           From
           all
           which
           I
           inferr
           ,
           That
           the
           word
           [
           Person
           ]
           is
           a
           common
           Term
           equally
           drawn
           off
           from
           ,
           and
           equally
           predicable
           of
           [
           Persons
           ]
           under
           both
           these
           ways
           of
           Subsistence
           ,
           viz.
           Separate
           and
           
             barely
             Distinct.
          
           
        
         
           But
           before
           I
           proceed
           further
           ,
           I
           shall
           from
           the
           foregoing
           Particulars
           remark
           these
           Two
           Things
           .
        
         
           First
           ,
           That
           this
           Author
           ,
           by
           asserting
           the
           word
           [
           Person
           ]
           to
           signifie
           originally
           ,
           not
           only
           distinct
           but
           (
           what
           is
           more
           )
           
             Separate
             Subsistence
          
           ,
           has
           given
           the
           Socinians
           that
           Advantage
           ,
           which
           the
           contrary
           Notion
           of
           it
           quite
           cuts
           them
           off
           from
           :
           For
           most
           of
           their
           Arguments
           against
           a
           
             Trinity
             of
             Persons
          
           in
           the
           Godhead
           are
           drawn
           from
           a
           Supposal
           ,
           That
           the
           very
           Notion
           of
           a
           Person
           imports
           and
           signifies
           
             a
             separately
             subsisting
             Being
          
           ;
           and
           if
           this
           Author
           asserts
           the
           same
           too
           ,
           he
           fairly
           plays
           so
           much
           of
           the
           Game
           into
           their
           hands
           ;
           and
           he
           must
           not
           think
           to
           resume
           it
           at
           his
           pleasure
           ,
           and
           to
           beat
           them
           off
           from
           the
           True
           and
           Proper
           Signification
           of
           the
           Term
           (
           as
           he
           makes
           it
           )
           without
           being
           told
           by
           them
           ,
           That
           it
           is
           wholly
           precarious
           for
           him
           so
           to
           do
           ,
           and
           a
           meer
           
             Petitio
             Principii
          
           .
        
         
           But
           ,
           Secondly
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           also
           ,
           (
           which
           yet
           can
           be
           no
           News
           to
           any
           one
           )
           that
           he
           does
           by
           the
           same
           very
           grosly
           contradict
           himself
           :
           For
           having
           in
           the
           13
           
             th
             .
             Page
          
           said
           ,
           that
           the
           Term
           [
           Person
           ]
           signifies
           not
           only
           a
           Distinct
           ,
           but
           
             something
             more
          
           ,
           viz.
           
             a
             separate
             Subsistence
          
           :
           afterwards
           in
           the
           15
           
             th
             Page
          
           ,
           He
           says
           ,
           That
           the
           Word
           [
           Person
           ]
           
             is
             properly
             enough
             applied
             to
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             :
             because
             all
             that
             is
             essential
             to
             the
             Notion
             of
             a
             Person
             belongs
             to
             each
             of
             them
             ,
             though
             they
             do
             not
             
             subsist
             sepa●ately
             :
          
           which
           is
           a
           manifest
           Contradiction
           to
           what
           he
           had
           said
           before
           in
           the
           13
           
             th
             Page
          
           .
           For
           if
           a
           Person
           signifies
           (
           as
           he
           there
           affirms
           )
           not
           only
           a
           Distinct
           ,
           but
           also
           a
           
             Separate
             Subsistence
          
           ;
           then
           how
           can
           the
           Word
           [
           Person
           ]
           be
           properly
           applied
           to
           these
           
             Three
             Subsistences
          
           ,
           which
           are
           Distinct
           but
           not
           Separate
           ?
           Or
           how
           can
           he
           truly
           affirm
           ,
           
             That
             all
             that
             is
             essential
             to
             the
             Notion
             of
             a
             Person
             ,
             belongs
             to
             each
             of
             them
             ,
          
           if
           a
           [
           Person
           ]
           signifies
           (
           as
           he
           said
           before
           )
           not
           only
           a
           Distinct
           ,
           but
           a
           
             Separate
             Subsistence
          
           )
           ?
           For
           whatsoever
           is
           included
           in
           the
           proper
           Signification
           of
           it
           ,
           must
           needs
           be
           essentially
           included
           in
           the
           Notion
           of
           it
           too
           .
           But
           let
           him
           go
           on
           :
           for
           while
           he
           is
           contradicting
           himself
           ,
           he
           
             is
             in
             his
             Element
          
           ;
           and
           it
           would
           be
           as
           unkind
           ,
           as
           difficult
           ,
           to
           offer
           to
           take
           him
           out
           of
           it
           .
        
         
           But
           he
           proceeds
           ;
           and
           with
           great
           confidence
           ,
           and
           without
           the
           least
           pretence
           of
           Proof
           ,
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             it
             has
             by
             Vse
             obtained
             ,
          
           That
           the
           Term
           [
           Persons
           ]
           signifies
           such
           as
           have
           a
           
             separate
             Subsistence
          
           ,
           and
           the
           Term
           [
           Subsistences
           ]
           such
           as
           have
           only
           a
           
             Distinct
             Subsistence
          
           ,
           as
           those
           of
           the
           Trinity
           have
           ,
           and
           no
           more
           .
        
         
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           positively
           ,
           That
           no
           such
           
             Distinguishing
             Vse
          
           has
           ever
           yet
           obtained
           ;
           but
           that
           the
           Use
           of
           Both
           Terms
           is
           ,
           and
           all
           along
           has
           been
           promiscuous
           ;
           the
           Persons
           of
           the
           Trinity
           having
           for
           these
           14
           or
           15
           Centuries
           at
           least
           ,
           been
           as
           often
           and
           commonly
           expressed
           by
           the
           Term
           [
           Persons
           ]
           as
           by
           the
           Term
           [
           Subsistences
           ]
           ,
           if
           not
           much
           oftner
           .
           And
           therefore
           this
           Difference
           of
           the
           Signification
           of
           these
           Terms
           is
           perfectly
           arbitrary
           ,
           and
           of
           this
           Man
           's
           own
           Invention
           ;
           as
           he
           who
           takes
           upon
           him
           to
           make
           Divinity
           may
           as
           well
           take
           upon
           him
           to
           make
           Distinctions
           too
           .
           And
           therefore
           whereas
           he
           would
           make
           
           the
           word
           [
           Person
           ]
           signifie
           one
           sort
           of
           Persons
           ,
           and
           the
           word
           [
           Subsistence
           ]
           signifie
           another
           sort
           ;
           I
           do
           again
           tell
           him
           here
           ,
           That
           [
           Person
           ]
           is
           a
           common
           word
           to
           both
           ,
           and
           in
           this
           Mystery
           differs
           no
           more
           from
           [
           Subsistence
           ]
           than
           Two
           synonymous
           Words
           differ
           from
           one
           Another
           :
           And
           I
           challenge
           him
           to
           produce
           out
           of
           the
           Writers
           of
           the
           Church
           any
           thing
           so
           much
           as
           tending
           to
           a
           Proof
           ,
           That
           it
           is
           otherwise
           .
        
         
           But
           he
           now
           comes
           (
           as
           he
           says
           )
           to
           apply
           this
           Discourse
           of
           his
           about
           Persons
           and
           Subsistences
           to
           his
           own
           Hypothesis
           about
           Minds
           or
           Spirits
           ;
           and
           that
           in
           these
           Words
           ;
           What
           I
           have
           said
           of
           the
           Word
           [
           Person
           ]
           is
           with
           equal
           Reason
           applicable
           to
           the
           Word
           [
           Mind
           ]
           .
           
             The
             Animadverter
          
           (
           he
           says
           )
           
             objects
             against
             the
             Dean
             ,
             That
             a
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
             is
             an
             Absolute
             Being
             ,
             Nature
             and
             Substance
             .
             And
             I
             grant
             it
             is
             so
             in
             the
             Common
             Vse
             of
             the
             Word
             ,
             as
             applied
             to
             Created
             Minds
             and
             Spirits
             ,
             but
             so
             is
             a
             Person
             also
             as
             much
             as
             Mind
             .
             p.
          
           16.
           l.
           10.
           
           But
           stay
           here
           ,
           good
           Sir
           ,
           stay
           a
           little
           .
           For
           this
           I
           utterly
           deny
           ,
           having
           before
           demonstratively
           shewn
           ,
           That
           though
           the
           word
           [
           Person
           ]
           in
           the
           Original
           Use
           of
           it
           .
           was
           actually
           applied
           to
           Beings
           of
           an
           Absolute
           and
           
             Separate
             Subsistence
          
           ,
           (
           such
           as
           Angels
           and
           Men
           )
           ,
           yet
           that
           even
           then
           they
           never
           signified
           them
           under
           the
           Proper
           Formality
           of
           Absolute
           and
           Separate
           ,
           but
           only
           of
           
             Complete
             Subsistences
          
           ;
           and
           by
           consequence
           equally
           agreed
           to
           all
           
             Complete
             Subsistences
          
           ,
           whether
           Separate
           and
           Absolute
           ,
           or
           only
           Distinct
           and
           Relative
           ,
           as
           the
           
             Divine
             Persons
          
           are
           ;
           so
           that
           here
           is
           not
           only
           the
           Vse
           of
           the
           word
           [
           Person
           ]
           ,
           but
           also
           the
           Definition
           of
           it
           ;
           making
           it
           equally
           applicable
           to
           both
           these
           sorts
           of
           Subsistence
           ,
           viz.
           Absolute
           and
           Relative
           .
           But
           ,
           on
           the
           other
           side
           ,
           I
           would
           fain
           know
           of
           this
           Author
           ,
           Whether
           
           the
           Definition
           of
           
             a
             Mind
          
           or
           Spirit
           ,
           can
           agree
           to
           any
           but
           to
           
             an
             Absolute
             Being
             ,
             Nature
          
           or
           Substance
           ?
           and
           if
           it
           can
           agree
           to
           none
           else
           ,
           how
           it
           can
           be
           applied
           to
           a
           Subsistence
           perfectly
           Relative
           ,
           (
           as
           all
           the
           
             Divine
             Subsistences
          
           are
           )
           so
           as
           in
           its
           Original
           and
           properest
           Signification
           to
           signifie
           that
           too
           ?
           which
           yet
           (
           as
           I
           have
           shewn
           )
           the
           Definition
           of
           a
           [
           Person
           ]
           properly
           does
           .
        
         
           Well
           ,
           but
           admitting
           (
           though
           not
           granting
           )
           that
           the
           Term
           [
           Mind
           or
           Spirit
           ]
           may
           be
           drawn
           off
           from
           its
           Proper
           and
           Received
           Signification
           and
           Definition
           ,
           so
           ,
           that
           
             Three
             Minds
          
           or
           Spirits
           may
           signifie
           
             Three
             Distinct
             Relative
             Subsistences
          
           of
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Infinite
           and
           
             Eternal
             Mind
          
           or
           Spirit
           included
           in
           All
           or
           Each
           of
           them
           :
           I
           say
           ,
           if
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Three
             Minds
          
           ]
           may
           be
           brought
           to
           this
           Signification
           ,
           it
           must
           have
           been
           by
           a
           long
           received
           Custome
           ,
           which
           this
           Man
           calls
           
             Theological
             Vse
          
           :
           And
           then
           I
           require
           this
           Author
           to
           shew
           us
           such
           a
           Theological
           Use
           of
           this
           word
           [
           Mind
           ]
           ;
           that
           is
           ,
           a
           Concurrence
           of
           all
           Divines
           for
           several
           Ages
           throughout
           the
           Catholick
           Church
           expressing
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Subsistences
          
           or
           Persons
           of
           the
           Godhead
           by
           
             Three
             Distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ▪
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           Three
           Relatives
           by
           Three
           Absolutes
           .
           The
           Term
           [
           Persons
           ]
           indeed
           has
           been
           applied
           to
           these
           
             Three
             Subsistences
          
           ;
           and
           that
           both
           from
           the
           Original
           Signification
           and
           Definition
           of
           the
           Word
           ,
           as
           also
           from
           the
           constant
           Use
           of
           it
           by
           the
           Church
           for
           many
           Centuries
           ;
           But
           the
           term
           [
           
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ]
           was
           never
           plurally
           applied
           to
           them
           upon
           either
           of
           these
           Accounts
           by
           any
           
             Orthodox
             Divine
          
           or
           Writer
           ;
           unless
           this
           Particular
           Author's
           making
           use
           of
           it
           in
           his
           
             pretended
             Vindication
          
           of
           the
           Doctrine
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           &c.
           can
           be
           called
           the
           
             Theological
             Vse
             of
             the
             
             Word
             :
          
           for
           I
           suppose
           ,
           That
           neither
           are
           all
           Divines
           included
           in
           him
           ,
           nor
           is
           he
           to
           be
           thought
           equivalent
           to
           them
           all
           ,
           whatsoever
           he
           may
           think
           himself
           .
           Nevertheless
           for
           his
           own
           and
           the
           Worlds
           satisfaction
           ,
           I
           shall
           shew
           him
           
             what
             Theological
             use
          
           of
           the
           word
           [
           
             Three
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
          
           ]
           instead
           of
           [
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           ]
           I
           meet
           with
           .
           And
           first
           of
           all
           Theodoret
           in
           his
           first
           Book
           
             Haereticarum
             fabularum
          
           ,
           and
           the
           18
           Chapter
           tells
           us
           of
           a
           certain
           Sect
           called
           the
           Peratae
           ,
           who
           held
           in
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           :
           So
           that
           here
           is
           one
           
             Theological
             use
          
           of
           the
           word
           [
           Minds
           or
           Spirits
           ]
           thus
           applyed
           ,
           for
           him
           .
           And
           
             Valentinus
             Gentilis
          
           held
           in
           the
           Godhead
           
             Three
             Eternal
             Spirits
             or
             Minds
          
           ;
           of
           which
           one
           was
           called
           by
           him
           the
           Essentiator
           ,
           and
           the
           other
           Two
           the
           Essentiati
           .
           (
           In
           which
           I
           cannot
           see
           what
           he
           differs
           from
           this
           Author
           .
           )
           So
           that
           here
           is
           another
           
             Theological
             Vse
          
           of
           this
           word
           for
           him
           .
           And
           thirdly
           his
           Friend
           
             Stephanus
             Curcellaeus
          
           ,
           in
           his
           Treatise
           
             de
             Trinitate
          
           ,
           frequently
           calls
           the
           Divine
           Person
           
             Tres
             aeternos
             Spiritus
          
           ,
           asserting
           a
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           between
           them
           (
           which
           this
           Author
           also
           would
           fain
           be
           at
           )
           and
           denying
           a
           Numerical
           .
           So
           that
           here
           is
           a
           
             Third
             Theological
             use
          
           of
           the
           same
           word
           to
           comfort
           and
           encourage
           him
           .
           And
           I
           wish
           him
           all
           the
           Credit
           and
           Satisfaction
           that
           such
           Theological
           Company
           can
           give
           him
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           ,
           whereas
           he
           tells
           the
           World
           in
           the
           close
           of
           this
           Paragraph
           ,
           
             That
             when
             the
             Dean
          
           (
           as
           he
           calls
           him
           )
           
             speaks
             of
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             which
             are
             essentially
             and
             inseparably
             one
             ,
             he
             could
          
           [
           mean
           ]
           
             nothing
             more
          
           (
           where
           he
           gives
           us
           meaning
           against
           words
           again
           )
           
             than
             Three
             distinct
             Intelligent
             but
             not
             separate
             Subsistences
             ,
             p.
          
           16.
           l.
           20.
           
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           in
           answer
           to
           This
           ,
           That
           if
           he
           here
           speaks
           of
           
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
          
           as
           Essentially
           one
           by
           one
           and
           the
           same
           
             Numerical
             Essence
          
           
           (
           which
           is
           the
           only
           
             Essential
             Vnity
          
           here
           spoken
           of
           with
           reference
           to
           the
           Trinity
           )
           it
           is
           an
           intolerable
           contradiction
           :
           Forasmuch
           as
           each
           Mind
           or
           Spirit
           being
           one
           ,
           by
           a
           particular
           Essence
           of
           it's
           own
           constituting
           it
           such
           a
           Particular
           Mind
           or
           
             Spirit
             ,
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
          
           can
           never
           be
           essentially
           one
           ,
           by
           one
           
             Numerical
             Essence
          
           belonging
           to
           them
           all
           ;
           which
           yet
           the
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           in
           the
           
             Blessed
             Trinity
          
           are
           and
           must
           be
           .
           And
           whereas
           he
           says
           ,
           
             That
             by
             Three
             Minds
             he
             means
             Three
             Intelligent
             Subsistences
             .
          
           I
           ask
           him
           whether
           these
           
             Three
             Subsistences
          
           are
           Relative
           or
           Absolute
           .
           If
           he
           says
           Relative
           ,
           I
           do
           here
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           then
           they
           are
           not
           
             Three
             Minds
          
           (
           a
           Mind
           being
           defined
           
             An
             Intelligent
             Immaterial
             Substance
          
           ;
           )
           which
           imports
           nothing
           Relative
           in
           it
           at
           all
           .
           But
           if
           he
           says
           ,
           that
           these
           Subsistences
           are
           Absolute
           ,
           I
           then
           affirm
           ,
           That
           they
           are
           not
           the
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           in
           the
           Trinity
           ;
           which
           ,
           as
           such
           ,
           both
           are
           and
           of
           Necessity
           must
           be
           Relative
           .
           So
           that
           it
           is
           evident
           ,
           that
           this
           Man
           knows
           not
           which
           way
           to
           turn
           himself
           ,
           nor
           how
           to
           speak
           of
           the
           subject
           he
           is
           treating
           of
           ,
           with
           any
           consistency
           with
           common
           sence
           .
           And
           this
           makes
           his
           Boldness
           the
           more
           unpardonable
           in
           saying
           ,
           
             That
             he
             needs
             ask
             no
             other
             Pardon
             for
             affirming
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             to
             be
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
             but
             for
             the
             use
             of
             a
             word
             which
             the
             Schools
             had
             not
             Consecrated
             ,
             p.
          
           16.
           l.
           24.
           
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           ,
           since
           he
           here
           charges
           the
           non-using
           of
           it
           only
           upon
           the
           Schools
           ,
           I
           challenge
           him
           to
           shew
           me
           any
           other
           Writers
           of
           the
           Church
           ,
           accounted
           Orthodox
           ,
           who
           have
           made
           use
           of
           it
           ;
           or
           affirmed
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           to
           be
           
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
          
           .
           Let
           him
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           assign
           them
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           .
           And
           if
           he
           cannot
           ,
           the
           using
           of
           the
           word
           thus
           applyed
           ,
           must
           even
           by
           his
           own
           Confession
           ,
           p.
           9.
           l.
           3.
           
             be
             an
             unusual
          
           
           way
           of
           speaking
           at
           least
           ;
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           a
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ;
           and
           if
           it
           were
           no
           more
           than
           so
           ,
           let
           him
           shew
           ●ow
           he
           is
           able
           to
           justifie
           the
           Use
           of
           that
           ,
           
           which
           a
           General
           Council
           had
           denounced
           an
           Anathema
           to
           the
           Users
           of
           ,
           in
           these
           high
           Points
           about
           the
           Trinity
           and
           Incarnation
           .
           But
           this
           is
           not
           all
           ,
           for
           I
           come
           upon
           him
           yet
           further
           ,
           and
           demand
           of
           him
           ,
           how
           he
           will
           answer
           to
           the
           Church
           ,
           not
           only
           his
           presuming
           to
           introduce
           such
           a
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           in
           treating
           of
           this
           high
           Mystery
           ,
           and
           that
           in
           the
           Room
           of
           the
           anciently
           received
           Terms
           ;
           but
           his
           venturing
           to
           do
           this
           ,
           when
           he
           himself
           confesses
           and
           declares
           ,
           as
           he
           does
           in
           the
           2●
           
             th
             page
             .
             lin
          
           .
           13.
           
           
             That
             there
             could
             not
             have
             been
             more
             proper
             Terms
             used
             by
             the
             Church
             to
             express
             a
             Trinity
             in
             Vnity
             by
             ,
          
           than
           those
           Ancient
           ones
           made
           use
           of
           all
           along
           about
           it
           :
           viz.
           than
           
             Three
             Subsistences
             in
             one
             Individual
             Nature
             ,
             which
          
           (
           he
           says
           )
           
             differ
             nothing
             from
             each
             other
             but
             in
             their
             different
             manner
             of
             Subsistence
             .
          
           These
           are
           his
           Words
           .
           And
           when
           the
           Impartial
           Reader
           has
           perused
           them
           ,
           and
           compared
           them
           with
           what
           is
           cited
           out
           of
           his
           Vindication
           concerning
           this
           very
           Term
           [
           Subsistence
           and
           Subsistences
           ]
           amongst
           others
           set
           down
           in
           the
           
             second
             Chapter
          
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           and
           the
           63
           and
           64
           
             th
             pages
          
           :
           I
           suppose
           he
           will
           find
           it
           high
           time
           to
           bless
           himself
           .
           For
           I
           here
           challenge
           this
           shameless
           Man
           to
           reconcile
           ,
           or
           do
           any
           thing
           like
           reconciling
           ,
           
             what
             he
             says
             here
          
           ,
           to
           
             what
             he
             has
             said
             there
          
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           .
           And
           yet
           as
           great
           a
           Perversion
           ,
           as
           a
           word
           mis-applied
           and
           forced
           from
           its
           true
           Signification
           must
           inevitably
           cause
           in
           so
           nice
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           great
           ,
           a
           Point
           as
           this
           is
           ,
           it
           is
           not
           however
           barely
           this
           Author
           's
           not
           hereafter
           using
           this
           Term
           [
           
             Three
             Minds
          
           as
           equipollent
           to
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           ]
           that
           will
           justifie
           him
           ,
           if
           he
           still
           retains
           the
           Sence
           of
           it
           ;
           and
           therefore
           
           I
           must
           here
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           if
           he
           holds
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           to
           be
           
             Three
             Distinct
             Infinite
             Absolute
             Beings
             ,
             Three
             Distinct
             Infinite
             Spirits
             ,
             Three
             Distinct
             Infinite
             Substances
             ,
          
           (
           as
           Substance
           stands
           contradistinct
           to
           Subsistence
           )
           ;
           let
           him
           abandon
           and
           lay
           aside
           the
           Use
           of
           the
           word
           [
           Minds
           ]
           never
           so
           much
           ,
           he
           is
           yet
           a
           Tritheist
           ,
           and
           a
           Real
           Assertor
           of
           
             Three
             Gods.
          
           
        
         
           But
           after
           all
           ,
           the
           Judicious
           Reader
           may
           here
           observe
           ,
           what
           a
           pleasant
           Manager
           of
           Controversie
           this
           Man
           is
           .
           For
           he
           first
           asserted
           ,
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           to
           be
           
             Three
             Distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           or
           Spirits
           ,
           affirming
           withal
           ,
           in
           most
           impudent
           manner
           ,
           That
           to
           hold
           otherwise
           was
           Heresie
           and
           Nonsence
           ;
           see
           his
           
             Vindicat.
             p.
          
           66.
           lin
           .
           26.
           
           But
           when
           the
           World
           cried
           out
           of
           this
           scandalous
           Tritheism
           ,
           and
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           even
           in
           the
           Judgment
           of
           the
           
           Animadverter's
           spightfullest
           Enemies
           ,
           
           had
           throughly
           confuted
           it
           :
           and
           ,
           on
           the
           contrary
           ,
           maintained
           ,
           That
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           are
           
             Three
             Distinct
             Subsistences
          
           of
           one
           and
           the
           
             same
             Infinite
             Eternal
             Mind
          
           ,
           included
           in
           ,
           or
           belonging
           to
           all
           and
           each
           of
           them
           ;
           Why
           then
           ,
           this
           Man
           (
           according
           to
           his
           Excellent
           and
           Known
           Talent
           of
           
             Tacking
             about
          
           )
           fairly
           comes
           over
           to
           his
           Adversary
           so
           far
           as
           to
           proclaim
           shamelesly
           to
           the
           World
           ,
           That
           though
           he
           spoke
           indeed
           of
           [
           Minds
           ]
           ,
           yet
           he
           meant
           only
           [
           Subsistences
           ]
           ;
           whereas
           it
           is
           impossible
           that
           Minds
           should
           be
           Subsistences
           ,
           or
           
             Subsistences
             Minds
          
           .
           Such
           a
           Felicity
           is
           it
           for
           a
           Man
           ,
           whose
           [
           Word
           ]
           is
           so
           apt
           to
           throw
           him
           into
           a
           Plunge
           ,
           to
           have
           a
           trusty
           [
           Meaning
           ]
           still
           ready
           at
           hand
           ,
           to
           fetch
           him
           out
           again
           .
           But
           if
           this
           be
           to
           defend
           an
           Hypothesis
           ,
           then
           the
           way
           to
           carry
           a
           Cause
           is
           to
           give
           it
           up
           ,
           and
           the
           surest
           Conquest
           ,
           to
           quit
           the
           Field
           .
        
         
           In
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           he
           passes
           from
           the
           distinction
           of
           
           the
           
             Divine
             Persons
          
           to
           the
           Unity
           and
           Identity
           of
           their
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           .
           And
           here
           (
           according
           to
           his
           constant
           custom
           of
           charging
           the
           Fathers
           with
           some
           defect
           or
           other
           in
           expressing
           themselves
           )
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             they
             were
             at
             a
             greater
             loss
             for
             words
             to
             express
             this
             latter
             by
             ,
             than
             the
             former
             ,
          
           p.
           16.
           l.
           26.
           
           There
           being
           but
           one
           word
           to
           do
           it
           ,
           viz.
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           and
           this
           too
           of
           it self
           not
           sufficient
           .
           Concerning
           which
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           in
           the
           first
           Place
           ,
           That
           the
           Truth
           receives
           no
           prejudice
           at
           all
           from
           there
           being
           no
           other
           [
           
             one
             word
          
           ]
           to
           express
           this
           Unity
           or
           Identity
           of
           the
           Godhead
           in
           the
           
             Divine
             Persons
          
           by
           ;
           since
           (
           God
           be
           thanked
           )
           there
           are
           several
           very
           significant
           words
           and
           ways
           to
           explain
           this
           [
           
             one
             word
          
           ]
           by
           .
           But
           the
           main
           question
           is
           ,
           whether
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           be
           sufficient
           to
           express
           this
           or
           no
           ?
           And
           here
           I
           must
           tell
           this
           presuming
           Man
           who
           denies
           it
           to
           be
           so
           ,
           First
           ,
           That
           the
           
             Nicene
             Fathers
          
           and
           the
           
             Catholick
             Church
          
           with
           them
           then
           thought
           it
           so
           .
           And
           secondly
           ,
           That
           the
           Nature
           of
           the
           Thing
           necessarily
           proves
           it
           so
           .
           And
           in
           order
           to
           this
           I
           would
           have
           him
           take
           notice
           ,
           That
           the
           sence
           of
           the
           word
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           is
           to
           be
           measured
           by
           the
           proper
           condition
           of
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           which
           it
           relates
           to
           ,
           and
           therefore
           ,
           though
           the
           word
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           may
           in
           it self
           be
           indifferent
           to
           signify
           either
           a
           specifick
           or
           numerical
           Agreement
           in
           Nature
           ,
           (
           according
           as
           the
           Nature
           is
           to
           which
           it
           refers
           )
           yet
           when
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           is
           joined
           with
           an
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           importing
           such
           an
           Essential
           Unity
           in
           it
           as
           renders
           it
           uncapable
           of
           all
           multiplication
           ,
           (
           as
           an
           
             Eus
             summà
             perfectum
          
           ,
           or
           an
           
             Infinite
             Nature
          
           in
           the
           very
           notion
           of
           it
           must
           be
           )
           there
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           must
           of
           necessity
           signify
           an
           Agreement
           in
           a
           numerical
           Unity
           and
           Identity
           of
           Nature
           ,
           and
           no
           other
           :
           for
           still
           the
           condition
           of
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           is
           to
           measure
           the
           sence
           of
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           .
           And
           accordingly
           
           I
           do
           affirm
           against
           this
           Man
           ,
           That
           there
           is
           no
           such
           Thing
           as
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           or
           Identity
           ,
           or
           any
           Thing
           like
           it
           ,
           or
           Analogous
           to
           it
           belonging
           to
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ;
           but
           only
           a
           
             Numerical
             Vnity
          
           and
           no
           more
           .
           Which
           being
           the
           highest
           and
           perfectest
           sort
           of
           Vnity
           ,
           is
           above
           ,
           and
           instead
           of
           all
           other
           Unities
           whatsoever
           .
           And
           the
           reason
           of
           this
           is
           ,
           because
           all
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           of
           Nature
           is
           founded
           in
           the
           Imperfection
           and
           defect
           of
           the
           said
           Nature
           ,
           as
           rendring
           it
           capable
           of
           multiplication
           ;
           which
           is
           certainly
           a
           defect
           ;
           And
           let
           him
           take
           this
           Rule
           with
           him
           for
           once
           ,
           which
           I
           defy
           him
           to
           overthrow
           ,
           viz.
           That
           in
           
             Naturam
             non
             multiplicabilem
             non
             cadit
             Vnitas
             Specifica
             :
          
           for
           as
           much
           as
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           is
           but
           one
           common
           conception
           of
           the
           Mind
           gathered
           from
           the
           Agreement
           it
           finds
           in
           a
           Plurality
           of
           Particular
           Natures
           amongst
           themselves
           ;
           as
           every
           Created
           Individual
           has
           it's
           particular
           
             distinct
             Nature
          
           to
           it self
           ,
           and
           not
           a
           Part
           of
           a
           Common
           Nature
           shared
           amongst
           all
           the
           Individuals
           .
           But
           will
           this
           Man
           affirm
           ,
           that
           there
           are
           
             Three
             particular
             Divine
             Natures
          
           out
           of
           which
           the
           Mind
           may
           form
           such
           a
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           as
           we
           have
           been
           speaking
           of
           ?
           Let
           him
           therefore
           either
           renounce
           his
           very
           share
           in
           common
           sence
           and
           Reason
           ,
           or
           disclaim
           this
           abominable
           Absurdity
           of
           a
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           in
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           or
           of
           any
           Thing
           so
           much
           as
           like
           it
           ,
           or
           Analogous
           to
           it
           ,
           or
           (
           in
           his
           own
           words
           ,
           p.
           17.
           )
           that
           
             perfectly
             answers
             it
          
           .
           And
           whereas
           he
           alleges
           the
           Fathers
           explaining
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           by
           examples
           of
           a
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           in
           Created
           Beings
           ,
           I
           tell
           him
           that
           the
           Fathers
           used
           not
           these
           Examples
           as
           Instances
           for
           representation
           of
           the
           like
           Vnity
           amongst
           the
           
             Divine
             Persons
          
           ;
           but
           as
           a
           ground
           for
           arguing
           
             aà
             minore
             ad
             majus
          
           against
           the
           Arians
           ,
           who
           would
           not
           allow
           so
           much
           as
           
           a
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           of
           Nature
           between
           the
           Father
           and
           the
           Son
           :
           whereupon
           the
           Fathers
           thus
           argued
           against
           them
           ,
           If
           you
           will
           allow
           the
           Generation
           of
           a
           Son
           in
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           certainly
           it
           ought
           to
           be
           more
           perfect
           ,
           or
           at
           least
           as
           perfect
           as
           that
           which
           we
           observe
           in
           men
           :
           and
           since
           the
           perfection
           of
           Generation
           in
           them
           ,
           is
           for
           a
           Father
           to
           produce
           
             his
             like
          
           ,
           shall
           men
           generate
           others
           of
           the
           same
           nature
           with
           themselves
           ,
           and
           shall
           God
           generate
           one
           of
           quite
           another
           Nature
           from
           his
           own
           ,
           as
           a
           
             Finite
             Nature
          
           must
           necessarily
           be
           ?
           This
           was
           the
           force
           of
           their
           Argument
           ,
           and
           it
           was
           directed
           against
           the
           Arians
           ;
           but
           never
           were
           these
           Explications
           alledged
           as
           adequate
           Representations
           of
           the
           same
           Unity
           of
           Nature
           in
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           that
           was
           in
           Men.
           But
           (
           as
           it
           was
           intimated
           before
           in
           the
           Animadversions
           )
           no
           doubt
           this
           Author
           has
           been
           all
           along
           pursuing
           this
           Tritheistical
           Whimsey
           of
           a
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           ,
           only
           in
           order
           to
           the
           providing
           an
           Unity
           of
           Nature
           for
           his
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           or
           Spirits
           :
           which
           (
           by
           all
           the
           Wit
           of
           Men
           and
           Angels
           )
           can
           never
           be
           proved
           capable
           of
           any
           greater
           Vnity
           than
           Specifick
           .
           But
           this
           Point
           about
           a
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           of
           the
           Godhead
           has
           been
           so
           throughly
           debated
           ,
           and
           the
           Impossibility
           of
           it
           so
           clearly
           demonstrated
           by
           the
           
             Animadverter
             ,
             Chap.
          
           7.
           from
           the
           178
           to
           the
           188
           page
           ,
           That
           this
           Man
           should
           have
           done
           well
           to
           have
           answer'd
           what
           was
           to
           be
           found
           there
           before
           he
           troubled
           the
           Reader
           with
           the
           same
           old
           baffled
           story
           again
           .
           I
           conclude
           therefore
           against
           this
           Author
           ,
           that
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           applyed
           to
           the
           
             Divine
             Persons
          
           ,
           does
           fully
           and
           sufficiently
           express
           the
           
             Numerical
             Vnity
          
           and
           Identity
           of
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           belonging
           to
           them
           ,
           without
           importing
           any
           Thing
           of
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           in
           the
           same
           ,
           or
           any
           thing
           so
           much
           as
           Analogous
           to
           it
           .
        
         
         
           After
           he
           has
           done
           with
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           he
           excepts
           against
           the
           Terms
           [
           Single
           and
           Singular
           ]
           as
           applied
           to
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           :
           But
           he
           first
           draws
           them
           off
           from
           their
           proper
           and
           received
           Signification
           ,
           according
           to
           which
           all
           Divines
           ,
           whether
           Schoolmen
           or
           others
           ,
           have
           in
           treating
           of
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           generally
           used
           them
           ,
           expressing
           the
           said
           Nature
           by
           no
           word
           more
           commonly
           than
           by
           
             Singularis
             essentia
             ,
             &
             singularis
             Natura
             .
          
           And
           does
           this
           Man
           now
           think
           to
           take
           this
           word
           by
           a
           wrong
           ,
           
             exotick
             signification
          
           (
           of
           which
           more
           presently
           )
           and
           in
           the
           strength
           of
           that
           to
           run
           down
           and
           casheir
           the
           True
           and
           Genuine
           sence
           of
           it
           ?
           Which
           ,
           besides
           the
           confusion
           it
           must
           needs
           bring
           upon
           all
           Discourses
           about
           the
           Godhead
           ,
           and
           the
           
             Divine
             Persons
          
           ,
           will
           not
           fail
           also
           to
           give
           mighty
           scandal
           to
           all
           sober
           and
           learned
           Men
           ,
           both
           Papists
           and
           Protestants
           ,
           who
           are
           concerned
           to
           have
           these
           weighty
           Points
           ,
           not
           only
           truly
           stated
           ,
           but
           also
           warily
           treated
           of
           .
           For
           my
           own
           part
           I
           must
           declare
           ,
           That
           I
           never
           met
           with
           stranger
           and
           more
           untheological
           Assertions
           ,
           than
           what
           this
           Author
           has
           concerning
           the
           Application
           of
           the
           Terms
           [
           single
           and
           singular
           ]
           to
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ;
           and
           yet
           the
           true
           sence
           of
           them
           lies
           pain
           and
           obvious
           almost
           in
           all
           Scholastick
           Writers
           .
           So
           that
           whatsoever
           is
           signified
           by
           
             Hoc
             unum
             ,
             Individuum
          
           ,
           and
           
             numericè
             unum
          
           ,
           the
           same
           also
           is
           signified
           by
           singulare
           ;
           they
           being
           all
           but
           Synonymous
           words
           to
           express
           that
           greatest
           and
           perfectest
           Vnity
           which
           we
           call
           Numerical
           ;
           and
           it
           will
           be
           hard
           to
           assign
           where
           we
           may
           properly
           apply
           any
           one
           of
           them
           ,
           and
           not
           as
           properly
           apply
           the
           other
           .
           So
           that
           if
           this
           Author
           would
           but
           have
           understood
           these
           and
           the
           like
           Terms
           in
           the
           same
           sence
           in
           which
           both
           Philosophers
           and
           Divines
           use
           them
           ,
           he
           could
           never
           have
           
           abused
           the
           Subject
           he
           wrote
           upon
           ,
           nor
           exposed
           himself
           with
           such
           false
           and
           scandalous
           Assertions
           as
           these
           that
           follow
           .
        
         
           
             1.
             
             
               That
               the
               Vnity
               of
               Nature
               between
               the
               Eternal
               Father
               and
               Son
               is
               such
               an
               Vnity
               as
               is
               both
               Specifick
               and
               Numerical
               .
            
          
           
             2.
             
             
               That
               the
               Divine
               Nature
               is
               not
               a
               Single
               or
               Singular
               Nature
               ,
            
             p.
             18.
             lin
             .
             13.
             
          
           
             3.
             
             
               That
               upon
               supposal
               of
               the
               Singleness
               or
               Singularity
               of
               the
               Divine
               Nature
               ,
               the
               whole
               Divine
               Nature
               cannot
               be
               Incarnate
               in
               the
               Incarnation
               of
               the
               Son
               ,
               without
               the
               Incarnation
               of
               the
               whole
               Trinity
               thereby
               ,
            
             p.
             18.
             lin
             .
             18.
             
          
           
             4.
             
             
               That
               one
               Single
               Nature
               can
               subsist
               but
               once
               ,
               or
               have
               but
               one
               Subsistence
               ,
            
             p.
             19.
             lin
             .
             23.
             
          
        
         
           All
           which
           
             Four
             Propositions
          
           I
           find
           in
           the
           compass
           of
           less
           than
           three
           whole
           Pages
           ,
           viz.
           17
           ,
           18
           ,
           19.
           
           And
           they
           are
           of
           that
           vile
           Import
           ,
           that
           I
           defie
           either
           Arian
           or
           Socinian
           to
           speak
           more
           against
           the
           Vnity
           of
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           in
           one
           and
           the
           same
           
             Infinite
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           than
           this
           Man
           in
           some
           of
           the
           forementioned
           Propositions
           has
           done
           .
           But
           I
           shall
           consider
           them
           particularly
           ,
           though
           they
           are
           much
           fitter
           for
           the
           Publick
           Censure
           of
           the
           Church
           ,
           than
           for
           any
           Private
           Man's
           Confutation
           .
           And
           first
           for
           the
        
         
           1.
           
           First
           Proposition
           ,
           viz
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             between
             the
             Eternal
             Father
             and
             Son
             is
             such
             an
             Vnity
             as
             is
             both
             Specifical
             and
             Numerical
             .
          
        
         
           This
           is
           fully
           and
           plainly
           asserted
           by
           this
           Author
           ,
           (
           though
           not
           in
           these
           very
           Words
           )
           as
           the
           Reader
           will
           find
           in
           the
           17
           
             th
             page
          
           and
           19
           
             th
             line
          
           of
           this
           Defence
           .
           Where
           speaking
           of
           the
           
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             between
             the
             Eternal
             Father
             and
             Son
             ,
          
           he
           affirms
           ,
           
             That
             there
             must
             be
             that
             in
             it
             that
             perfectly
             answers
             that
             Specifick
             Sameness
             of
             
             Nature
             that
             is
             between
             Father
             and
             Son
             in
             Humane
             Persons
          
           ;
           of
           which
           ,
           but
           four
           or
           five
           Lines
           before
           ,
           he
           had
           given
           an
           Instance
           
             in
             Abraham
             and
             Isaac
          
           ;
           and
           withal
           ,
           that
           it
           must
           
             not
             only
             perfectly
             answer
             ,
             but
             much
             out
             do
             it
             too
             .
          
           But
           now
           ,
           on
           the
           one
           hand
           ,
           Nothing
           can
           
             perfectly
             answer
          
           one
           Instance
           of
           Specifick
           Unity
           or
           Sameness
           ,
           but
           another
           Instance
           of
           the
           same
           Kind
           ;
           forasmuch
           as
           Two
           Kinds
           or
           Sorts
           of
           Unity
           can
           never
           
             perfectly
             answer
          
           one
           another
           ;
           nor
           ,
           on
           the
           other
           hand
           ,
           can
           any
           Sort
           of
           Unity
           
             out
             do
             a
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           but
           a
           Numerical
           ;
           For
           no
           one
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           can
           do
           more
           towards
           the
           Uniting
           the
           Things
           it
           belongs
           to
           ,
           than
           another
           ;
           there
           being
           but
           one
           and
           the
           same
           formal
           Effect
           common
           to
           all
           
             Specifick
             Vnities
          
           ,
           which
           is
           to
           render
           and
           denominate
           their
           respective
           Subjects
           Specifically
           one
           and
           no
           more
           .
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           is
           all
           that
           a
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
          
           can
           do
           ,
           and
           if
           more
           be
           done
           ,
           it
           must
           be
           by
           a
           Numerical
           .
           But
           again
           ,
           in
           the
           27
           
             th
             Line
          
           of
           the
           same
           Page
           ,
           He
           tells
           us
           to
           the
           same
           purpose
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Vnity
             or
             Sameness
             of
             Nature
             between
             the
             Father
             ,
             Son
             and
             Holy
             Ghost
             ,
             is
             not
             a
             meer
             Specifick
             Sameness
          
           ;
           which
           Words
           must
           imply
           and
           inferr
           ,
           
             That
             it
             is
             a
             Specifick
             Sameness
             ,
          
           though
           he
           affirms
           it
           to
           be
           also
           something
           more
           .
           To
           which
           Passages
           we
           may
           add
           Two
           more
           altogether
           as
           full
           for
           this
           
             Complex
             Sort
             of
             Vnity
             ,
             viz.
          
           One
           in
           page
           114.
           line
           26.
           and
           the
           Other
           ,
           p.
           121.
           l.
           22.
           of
           his
           Vindication
           .
        
         
           From
           all
           which
           it
           is
           manifest
           ,
           That
           this
           Author
           holds
           
             such
             an
             Vnity
             or
             Sameness
             of
             Nature
             in
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             as
             is
             both
             Specifick
             and
             Numerical
          
           ;
           which
           I
           affirm
           to
           be
           as
           gross
           an
           Absurdity
           as
           the
           Reason
           of
           Man
           can
           well
           imagine
           .
           For
           a
           Specifick
           and
           a
           Numerical
           Unity
           are
           not
           Two
           degrees
           of
           one
           Kind
           ,
           but
           Two
           
           several
           Kinds
           of
           Unities
           .
           Two
           Unities
           differing
           
             toto
             genere
          
           ;
           and
           consequently
           such
           as
           cannot
           possibly
           coincide
           into
           any
           one
           Unity
           which
           shall
           comprehend
           and
           partake
           of
           both
           .
           For
           a
           
             Numerical
             Vnity
          
           is
           the
           Unity
           of
           
             One
             Individual
             Nature
          
           or
           Being
           and
           no
           more
           ,
           and
           a
           
             Specifical
             Vnity
          
           is
           the
           Unity
           of
           
             Several
             Particular
             Individual
             Natures
          
           or
           Beings
           :
           and
           therefore
           unless
           the
           same
           Thing
           can
           both
           be
           
             One
             Individual
             and
             no
             more
          
           ,
           and
           be
           
             Several
             Particular
             Individuals
          
           too
           ,
           for
           any
           one
           to
           assert
           the
           
             same
             Vnity
          
           to
           be
           both
           Specifical
           and
           Numerical
           ,
           (
           as
           this
           Author
           undeniably
           does
           )
           is
           a
           monstrous
           Contradiction
           .
           But
           this
           has
           been
           so
           fully
           laid
           open
           already
           (
           as
           to
           that
           part
           of
           it
           especially
           ,
           which
           concerns
           a
           Specifick
           Unity
           in
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           )
           ;
           that
           to
           say
           any
           more
           of
           it
           would
           be
           but
           a
           needless
           Repetition
           :
           And
           so
           I
           proceed
           to
           the
        
         
           2.
           
           Second
           Proposition
           ,
           viz.
           
             That
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             is
             not
             a
             single
             or
             singular
             Nature
             ,
          
           Def.
           p.
           18.
           l.
           13.
           which
           I
           ,
           on
           the
           contrary
           ,
           positively
           assert
           it
           to
           be
           ,
           upon
           these
           following
           Considerations
           .
        
         
           First
           ,
           That
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           is
           either
           a
           Singular
           ,
           or
           an
           
             Vniversal
             Nature
          
           ;
           but
           not
           an
           Vniversal
           ,
           and
           therefore
           a
           Singular
           .
           The
           Consequence
           is
           manifest
           ,
           because
           singular
           and
           universal
           adequately
           divide
           Being
           ;
           and
           therefore
           there
           can
           be
           nothing
           but
           what
           must
           fall
           under
           one
           of
           the
           Members
           of
           the
           Division
           :
           and
           then
           ,
           that
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           cannot
           be
           Vniversal
           ,
           is
           as
           evident
           ;
           because
           if
           so
           ,
           it
           must
           be
           drawn
           off
           from
           several
           particular
           Natures
           ;
           but
           there
           are
           not
           several
           particular
           Divine
           Natures
           for
           it
           to
           be
           abstracted
           or
           drawn
           off
           from
           .
           Add
           to
           this
           ,
           That
           the
           Denial
           of
           the
           Singularity
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           would
           overthrow
           its
           very
           Existence
           ,
           for
           nothing
           exists
           but
           Singulars
           .
        
         
         
           
             Secondly
             ,
             Individuality
          
           and
           Singularity
           of
           Nature
           are
           the
           same
           thing
           ,
           both
           of
           them
           importing
           the
           greatest
           and
           
             perfectest
             degree
          
           of
           Unity
           ,
           which
           is
           Numerical
           ;
           and
           consequently
           since
           this
           very
           Author
           affirms
           the
           Individuality
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           p.
           18.
           line
           12.
           the
           Singularity
           of
           it
           must
           be
           granted
           too
           .
        
         
           Thirdly
           ,
           This
           Man
           all
           along
           supposes
           Singleness
           or
           Singularity
           essentially
           to
           imply
           in
           it
           Subsistence
           ,
           but
           this
           is
           a
           gross
           Mistake
           ;
           for
           neither
           does
           it
           imply
           it
           in
           the
           Essential
           Notion
           ,
           nor
           yet
           in
           the
           Real
           Existence
           of
           the
           Thing
           .
           Not
           in
           the
           first
           ,
           For
           the
           Singularity
           of
           a
           Thing
           belongs
           to
           its
           Essence
           ,
           even
           as
           prescinding
           and
           abstracting
           from
           its
           Subsistence
           ,
           as
           something
           posterior
           to
           it
           ;
           and
           therefore
           it
           does
           not
           essentially
           imply
           it
           .
           And
           accordingly
           ,
           when
           we
           consider
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           abstracted
           from
           its
           respective
           Subsistences
           ,
           (
           which
           we
           may
           and
           often
           do
           )
           we
           still
           consider
           it
           as
           one
           
             Numerical
             Individual
             Substance
          
           ,
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           in
           its
           highest
           Unity
           and
           Singularity
           ;
           and
           therefore
           the
           Essential
           Notion
           of
           Singularity
           does
           not
           imply
           Subsistence
           in
           it
           .
           Nor
           ,
           in
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           does
           it
           necessarily
           imply
           the
           same
           ,
           as
           it
           actually
           exists
           :
           For
           the
           Second
           Person
           of
           the
           Trinity
           assumed
           the
           Humane
           Nature
           without
           its
           proper
           Subsistence
           ,
           but
           not
           without
           its
           proper
           Singularity
           .
           For
           it
           was
           one
           Numerical
           Individual
           Single
           Humane
           Nature
           which
           he
           took
           upon
           him
           ;
           so
           that
           upon
           this
           Account
           also
           Singularity
           does
           not
           necessarily
           inferr
           Subsistence
           .
        
         
           But
           here
           I
           think
           fit
           to
           observe
           ,
           that
           the
           word
           single
           or
           singular
           (
           which
           are
           here
           the
           same
           ;
           there
           being
           but
           one
           Latine
           word
           singulare
           for
           both
           )
           may
           be
           taken
           in
           Two
           very
           different
           Sences
           .
           First
           ,
           In
           its
           strict
           and
           most
           proper
           Sence
           ;
           for
           Numerical
           or
           
             Individual
             Unity
          
           
           of
           Nature
           .
           Or
           ,
           Secondly
           ,
           in
           a
           larger
           and
           less
           proper
           Sence
           ,
           for
           that
           which
           has
           but
           one
           Subsistence
           only
           ;
           and
           this
           is
           not
           so
           properly
           called
           single
           ,
           as
           solitary
           ,
           and
           by
           no
           means
           applicable
           to
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           which
           has
           not
           only
           One
           ,
           but
           
             Three
             Subsistences
          
           belonging
           to
           it
           .
           This
           was
           the
           Sence
           in
           which
           the
           Sabellians
           used
           the
           word
           ,
           or
           rather
           which
           they
           put
           upon
           it
           ,
           contending
           for
           ,
           and
           allowing
           only
           a
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           such
           a
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           as
           was
           capable
           but
           of
           
             One
             Subsistence
          
           and
           no
           more
           .
           But
           such
           a
           Singleness
           in
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           the
           
             Catholick
             Church
          
           neither
           knew
           nor
           owned
           ,
           and
           yet
           still
           maintained
           the
           Individuality
           and
           
             Numerical
             Vnity
          
           ,
           and
           consequently
           the
           true
           and
           proper
           Singularity
           of
           the
           same
           .
           And
           will
           this
           Man
           now
           ,
           from
           the
           Improper
           Signification
           of
           the
           word
           [
           Single
           or
           Singular
           ]
           ,
           as
           applied
           by
           the
           Sabellians
           to
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           deny
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           to
           be
           a
           Single
           or
           
             Singular
             Nature
          
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           true
           ,
           proper
           and
           generally
           received
           Sence
           of
           Singularity
           ,
           which
           ,
           both
           with
           Logicians
           and
           Philosophers
           ,
           is
           so
           perfectly
           the
           same
           with
           
             Numerical
             Unity
          
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           impossible
           for
           any
           thing
           to
           be
           Numerically
           One
           and
           not
           Singular
           too
           ?
           But
           how
           positively
           soever
           he
           denies
           the
           Singleness
           or
           Singularity
           of
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           here
           ,
           he
           asserts
           it
           as
           positively
           (
           and
           that
           as
           the
           Universal
           Concurring
           Sence
           of
           all
           the
           Fathers
           )
           in
           his
           
             Vindication
             ,
             p.
          
           121.
           line
           18.
           where
           he
           roundly
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             all
             the
             Fathers
             assert
             the
          
           Singularity
           
             of
             the
             Godhead
             ,
             or
             Numerical
             Unity
             of
             the
             Divine
             Essence
             ,
             and
             that
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             united
             in
             this
             One
             Numerical
             Essence
             ,
          
           which
           (
           according
           to
           the
           Fathers
           )
           he
           calls
           the
           Singularity
           
             of
             the
             Godhead
          
           .
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           he
           expresly
           says
           in
           the
           place
           alledged
           ;
           and
           I
           desire
           him
           to
           reconcile
           it
           to
           what
           he
           says
           every
           
           whit
           as
           expresly
           ,
           in
           page
           18.
           line
           12.
           of
           this
           Defence
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             is
             One
             Individual
             Nature
             ,
             but
             not
             one
          
           single
           or
           singular
           Nature
           :
           And
           again
           ,
           
             that
             one
          
           single
           
             Nature
             can
             be
             but
             One
             Person
             ,
             whether
             in
             God
             ,
             or
             Man
          
           ;
           and
           yet
           further
           ,
           p.
           19.
           line
           23.
           
           
             That
             it
             is
             demonstrable
             that
             one
          
           single
           
             Nature
             can
             have
             but
             one
             Subsistence
             .
          
           So
           that
           if
           he
           will
           abide
           by
           what
           he
           says
           in
           this
           Defence
           ,
           he
           absolutely
           casheirs
           whatsoever
           he
           himself
           had
           elsewhere
           owned
           to
           be
           the
           sence
           and
           language
           of
           all
           the
           Fathers
           ;
           and
           (
           he
           might
           have
           added
           )
           of
           the
           Schoolmen
           ,
           and
           all
           other
           Divines
           besides
           ;
           nor
           is
           this
           all
           ,
           but
           he
           utterly
           overthrows
           also
           a
           Trinity
           of
           Persons
           by
           averring
           it
           demonstrable
           ,
           that
           there
           can
           be
           no
           plurality
           of
           Subsistences
           in
           one
           single
           or
           singular
           Nature
           ;
           and
           if
           no
           plurality
           of
           Subsistences
           ,
           then
           I
           am
           sure
           no
           plurality
           of
           Persons
           neither
           .
           But
           (
           thanks
           be
           to
           God
           )
           though
           he
           uses
           this
           Big
           word
           Demonstrable
           ,
           yet
           what
           he
           calls
           Demonstration
           ,
           others
           account
           not
           so
           much
           as
           a
           probable
           Proof
           ,
           where
           he
           is
           the
           Demonstrator
           :
           And
           let
           none
           wonder
           that
           he
           can
           so
           scandalously
           contradict
           himself
           in
           Two
           Books
           ,
           who
           so
           often
           does
           it
           in
           the
           space
           of
           Two
           lines
           .
        
         
           But
           ,
           methinks
           ,
           what
           he
           alleges
           out
           of
           
             Victorinus
             Afer
          
           ,
           for
           disproving
           the
           singularity
           of
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           in
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           ,
           comes
           something
           with
           the
           latest
           ,
           viz.
           those
           Notable
           Words
           of
           his
           ,
           
             Non
             oportet
             ,
             nec
             fas
             est
             dicere
             ,
             Vnam
             esse
             substantiam
             ,
             Tres
             esse
             Personas
             ,
          
           p.
           19.
           l.
           2.
           
           In
           opposition
           to
           which
           one
           forlorn
           Testimony
           it
           were
           easy
           to
           allege
           forty
           Fathers
           at
           least
           constantly
           expressing
           the
           Trinity
           by
           
             Vna
             substantia
          
           ,
           and
           
             Tres
             Personae
          
           ;
           but
           that
           I
           think
           it
           very
           needless
           to
           assign
           who
           does
           so
           ,
           when
           it
           is
           hard
           to
           assign
           who
           does
           not
           .
           And
           therefore
           as
           for
           his
           thus
           recurring
           to
           
             Victorinus
             
             Afer
          
           ;
           I
           must
           take
           the
           Boldness
           to
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           this
           is
           not
           so
           much
           a
           Quoting
           as
           a
           Weeding
           of
           Antiquity
           ;
           since
           surely
           a
           more
           Incompetent
           Authority
           in
           the
           present
           subject
           could
           not
           well
           be
           found
           ;
           as
           the
           Circumstances
           of
           the
           Man
           might
           easily
           evince
           .
           For
           this
           Victorinus
           was
           old
           before
           he
           became
           a
           Christian
           ;
           and
           when
           ,
           upon
           his
           becoming
           so
           ,
           he
           betook
           himself
           to
           write
           upon
           some
           Articles
           of
           the
           Christian
           Faith
           ,
           he
           did
           it
           so
           perplexedly
           and
           obscurely
           ,
           and
           very
           often
           so
           dangerously
           and
           unjustifiably
           ,
           as
           to
           his
           way
           of
           expressing
           himself
           ,
           that
           the
           Learned
           Dr.
           Cave
           (
           but
           with
           a
           modesty
           equal
           to
           his
           Learning
           )
           gives
           this
           Character
           of
           him
           in
           his
           
             Historia
             Literar
          
           .
           p.
           181.
           
           
             Non
             videtur
             ubique
             Fidei
             Dogmata
             satìs
             accuratè
             percepisse
             ,
             saltem
             non
             satìs
             feliciter
             expressisse
             .
          
           So
           that
           for
           ought
           I
           see
           ,
           this
           Defender
           might
           as
           well
           have
           quoted
           the
           
             Epistolae
             obscurorum
             virorum
          
           ,
           or
           even
           himself
           for
           the
           Elegancies
           of
           the
           Latine
           Tongue
           ,
           as
           
             Victorinus
             Afer
          
           for
           an
           Authentick
           Director
           ,
           how
           we
           ought
           to
           conceive
           ,
           or
           to
           express
           our selves
           about
           the
           Article
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ;
           But
           to
           conclude
           this
           head
           ;
           what
           design
           this
           Man
           could
           have
           in
           thus
           stripping
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           of
           it's
           singularity
           by
           making
           a
           difference
           between
           this
           ,
           and
           
             it's
             Individuality
          
           (
           unless
           he
           thinks
           hereby
           the
           better
           to
           introduce
           his
           Tritheism
           ,
           and
           ,
           in
           time
           ,
           to
           give
           another
           sence
           even
           of
           Individuality
           too
           )
           I
           cannot
           imagine
           .
           But
           I
           doubt
           not
           but
           his
           not
           duly
           stateing
           &
           distinguishing
           the
           Terms
           used
           in
           disputation
           ,
           will
           quickly
           drive
           him
           headlong
           into
           the
           grossest
           Heresies
           .
           And
           so
           I
           pass
           to
        
         
           3.
           
           His
           
             Third
             Proposition
          
           ,
           which
           runs
           thus
           ,
           
             That
             upon
             supposal
             of
             the
             singleness
             or
             singularity
             of
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             ,
             the
             whole
             Divine
             Nature
             cannot
             be
             incarnate
             in
             the
             Incarnation
             of
             the
             Son
             ,
             but
             the
             whole
             Trinity
             must
             thereby
             be
             incarnate
             too
             .
          
        
         
         
           Now
           this
           blessed
           Proposition
           is
           borrowed
           from
           the
           Socinians
           also
           ;
           and
           is
           as
           arrant
           Socinianism
           as
           any
           part
           of
           that
           whole
           Heresy
           .
           But
           the
           Answer
           to
           it
           is
           this
           ,
           That
           in
           the
           Incarnation
           of
           the
           second
           Person
           ,
           the
           whole
           Divine
           Nature
           is
           incarnate
           ,
           but
           not
           wholly
           ;
           That
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           
             non-quoad
             omnem
             suum
             subsistendi
             modum
          
           ,
           not
           in
           respect
           of
           all
           its
           Modes
           or
           ways
           of
           subsisting
           ,
           but
           only
           of
           one
           Alone
           ,
           viz.
           that
           founded
           in
           Filiation
           ,
           and
           proper
           only
           to
           the
           second
           Person
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ;
           And
           therefore
           since
           the
           Godhead
           is
           not
           incarnate
           under
           that
           
             proper
             mode
             of
             subsisting
          
           ,
           which
           it
           has
           in
           the
           Father
           ,
           nor
           under
           that
           other
           which
           it
           has
           in
           the
           Holy
           Ghost
           ;
           the
           Incarnation
           of
           the
           whole
           Divine
           Nature
           in
           the
           Son
           does
           not
           infer
           the
           Incarnation
           of
           the
           whole
           Trinity
           ,
           since
           the
           said
           Nature
           is
           not
           hereby
           Incarnate
           as
           to
           those
           
             other
             Two
             modes
             of
             Subsistence
          
           ,
           which
           it
           has
           respectively
           in
           those
           other
           Two
           Persons
           .
           And
           this
           passage
           I
           recommend
           to
           the
           Reader
           's
           Observation
           ,
           as
           one
           Notable
           Instance
           of
           those
           Intolerable
           Heterodoxies
           which
           this
           Man
           's
           denying
           all
           Modes
           in
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           will
           and
           must
           inevitably
           plunge
           him
           into
           .
        
         
           4.
           
           As
           for
           his
           Fourth
           and
           last
           Proposition
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             one
             single
             Nature
             can
             subsist
             but
             once
             ,
             or
             have
             but
             one
             Subsistence
             .
          
        
         
           This
           is
           so
           beyond
           all
           bounds
           of
           shame
           ,
           Scandalous
           and
           Heretical
           ,
           and
           so
           absolutely
           destroys
           Three
           Personal
           Subsistences
           in
           one
           single
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           That
           I
           shall
           say
           nothing
           in
           Answer
           to
           it
           (
           having
           sufficiently
           overthrown
           it
           by
           what
           was
           said
           before
           )
           but
           only
           set
           down
           the
           Doctrine
           held
           by
           all
           Catholick
           Divines
           ,
           and
           Writers
           in
           direct
           opposition
           to
           it
           .
        
         
           Viz.
           That
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Numerical
           ,
           Individual
           ,
           
           single
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           has
           
             Three
             distinct
             Persons
          
           ,
           or
           Subsistences
           so
           belonging
           to
           it
           ,
           that
           it
           exists
           in
           Common
           in
           them
           all
           ,
           and
           severally
           in
           each
           of
           them
           .
        
         
           This
           I
           affirm
           to
           be
           the
           
             Catholick
             Doctrine
          
           ,
           and
           shall
           say
           no
           more
           to
           the
           fore-recited
           shameful
           Proposition
           ,
           but
           leave
           both
           it
           and
           it's
           Author
           to
           be
           argued
           down
           by
           that
           Authority
           which
           is
           much
           abler
           and
           fitter
           to
           deal
           with
           such
           Persons
           and
           Doctrines
           ,
           than
           any
           Disputant
           can
           be
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           ,
           if
           these
           Villanous
           Heterodoxies
           should
           (
           as
           was
           hinted
           before
           in
           the
           
             Animadversions
             ,
             Chap.
          
           12.
           )
           chance
           to
           cross
           the
           Water
           ,
           with
           what
           Tragical
           out
           cryes
           and
           clamorous
           reflexions
           upon
           our
           Church
           would
           both
           Papists
           and
           Protestants
           from
           all
           Parts
           Eccho
           them
           back
           to
           us
           again
           ?
           Only
           our
           poor
           Church
           has
           this
           one
           small
           happiness
           amongst
           her
           many
           unhappinesses
           at
           present
           ,
           that
           many
           of
           those
           who
           receive
           her
           Revenues
           ,
           and
           wear
           her
           Honors
           ,
           and
           (
           in
           requital
           of
           Both
           ,
           invade
           her
           Doctrines
           )
           yet
           (
           thanks
           be
           to
           God
           )
           neither
           do
           nor
           can
           carry
           her
           disgrace
           further
           than
           the
           Reach
           of
           their
           Native
           Tongue
           .
        
         
           But
           our
           Innovator
           rests
           not
           in
           his
           former
           Explications
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           but
           offers
           us
           another
           and
           a
           plainer
           ,
           and
           that
           is
           by
           
             a
             Man
             and
             his
             living
             Image
             ,
          
           (
           if
           any
           one
           could
           tell
           where
           to
           find
           it
           )
           .
           However
           the
           Notion
           of
           it
           is
           ,
           as
           the
           rest
           were
           ▪
           perfectly
           his
           own
           ;
           and
           (
           if
           possible
           )
           extreamly
           more
           Absurd
           .
           And
           to
           lay
           it
           before
           the
           Reader
           it
           is
           thus
           :
           He
           considers
           a
           Man
           seeing
           himself
           represented
           by
           Reflexion
           from
           a
           Glass
           ,
           or
           some
           such
           Body
           ,
           (
           for
           it
           is
           an
           Image
           by
           Reflexion
           only
           which
           he
           here
           professes
           to
           speak
           of
           )
           .
           Now
           ,
           says
           he
           ,
           
             let
             us
             suppose
             this
             to
             be
             a
             living
             Image
             ,
             and
             that
             such
             an
             one
             as
             should
             exactly
             answer
             it's
             Prototype
             ,
             not
             only
             in
             its
             external
             Features
             ,
             
             Colours
             ,
             and
             Postures
             ,
             but
             also
             in
             the
             internal
             Acts
             of
             the
             Soul
             ;
             such
             as
             Knowledge
             ,
             Volition
             ,
             Ioy
             ,
             Grief
             ,
          
           &c.
           
           
             So
             that
             as
             the
             Man
             himself
             Knew
             ,
             or
             Willed
             any
             Thing
             ,
             the
             Image
             likewise
             should
             exactly
             Know
             and
             Will
             the
             same
             .
          
           This
           supposed
           ,
           He
           tells
           us
           further
           ,
           
             That
             this
             Image
             would
             be
             another
             Person
             from
             the
             Prototype
             ,
             but
             not
             another
             Man
          
           ;
           forasmuch
           as
           he
           supposes
           the
           Prototype
           and
           the
           Image
           to
           have
           the
           same
           
             Numerical
             Humane
             Nature
          
           in
           them
           both
           ,
           and
           that
           so
           ,
           as
           to
           perform
           all
           the
           Acts
           of
           a
           Man
           both
           in
           the
           One
           ,
           and
           in
           the
           Other
           .
           This
           is
           the
           Account
           he
           gives
           us
           of
           this
           
             living
             Image
          
           ,
           in
           order
           to
           his
           Explication
           of
           the
           Trinity
           by
           it
           .
           And
           I
           shall
           bring
           it
           under
           a
           particular
           Examination
           .
           But
           before
           I
           do
           so
           ,
           I
           require
           this
           Author
           to
           tell
           me
           ,
           Whether
           ,
           in
           pag.
           6.
           of
           this
           Defence
           ,
           he
           does
           not
           profess
           to
           lay
           the
           Foundation
           of
           his
           New
           Hypothesis
           in
           giving
           an
           Account
           of
           the
           
             Mysterious
             Vnion
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             by
             the
             Unity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             ?
          
           And
           whether
           he
           does
           not
           withal
           declare
           
             himself
             certainly
             in
             the
             Right
          
           ,
           in
           pitching
           upon
           that
           as
           the
           best
           way
           of
           explaining
           the
           said
           Union
           ;
           and
           not
           the
           best
           only
           ,
           but
           indeed
           the
           only
           fit
           and
           proper
           way
           of
           doing
           it
           ?
           forasmuch
           as
           in
           the
           strength
           of
           it
           he
           does
           with
           great
           Contempt
           reject
           all
           the
           
             Material
             ,
             sensible
          
           Representations
           which
           the
           Fathers
           were
           wont
           to
           set
           forth
           this
           Mystery
           by
           ;
           making
           it
           his
           Business
           to
           substitute
           his
           own
           Account
           of
           this
           Mysterious
           Union
           of
           the
           Persons
           
             from
             the
             Unity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             ,
          
           as
           the
           only
           thing
           that
           could
           make
           it
           Intelligible
           :
           This
           is
           certainly
           so
           ,
           as
           appears
           from
           the
           fore-cited
           place
           ;
           and
           since
           it
           cannot
           be
           denied
           ,
           I
           desire
           this
           Author
           ,
           in
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           to
           inform
           me
           how
           the
           Explication
           of
           this
           Mysterious
           Union
           by
           a
           
             Man
             and
             his
             living
             Image
          
           ,
           is
           
             explaining
             it
             by
             the
             Unity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             :
          
           
           and
           whether
           the
           Man
           ,
           or
           his
           Image
           ,
           or
           both
           ,
           be
           Spirits
           ,
           and
           the
           Resemblance
           between
           them
           be
           this
           
             Unity
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           ,
           which
           he
           spoke
           of
           in
           the
           place
           alleaged
           ?
           And
           if
           they
           are
           not
           ,
           I
           demand
           with
           what
           face
           he
           can
           reiect
           the
           Material
           Representations
           made
           by
           the
           Fathers
           of
           this
           Mysterious
           Union
           ,
           and
           give
           the
           World
           another
           of
           his
           own
           from
           an
           Instance
           altogether
           as
           gross
           and
           Material
           ,
           but
           withal
           Impossible
           and
           Unintelligible
           ;
           as
           shall
           appear
           in
           the
           process
           of
           what
           we
           have
           to
           say
           upon
           it
           ?
           But
           all
           this
           Author's
           Writings
           are
           such
           perfect
           Antipodes
           to
           themselves
           ,
           that
           no
           Man
           who
           knows
           him
           ,
           will
           expect
           to
           find
           him
           consistent
           with
           himself
           in
           any
           thing
           .
           But
           to
           proceed
           ,
           I
           come
           now
           to
           examine
           ,
           whether
           this
           Notion
           of
           a
           Man
           and
           his
           
             living
             Image
          
           has
           in
           it
           such
           a
           peculiar
           fitness
           (
           as
           this
           Author
           pretends
           )
           to
           represent
           and
           explain
           to
           us
           the
           Mystery
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ;
           and
           in
           order
           to
           it
           I
           shall
           lay
           down
           this
           Assertion
           ,
           viz.
           
        
         
           That
           a
           Notion
           supposing
           a
           Thing
           Impossible
           ,
           and
           implying
           in
           it
           a
           Contradiction
           to
           ,
           and
           Inconsistency
           with
           it self
           ,
           can
           never
           explain
           any
           ,
           and
           much
           less
           the
           highest
           Mystery
           of
           our
           Religion
           .
        
         
           In
           order
           to
           the
           proving
           of
           which
           I
           shall
           consider
           Three
           Things
           .
        
         
           
             1.
             
             What
             an
             Image
             in
             the
             proper
             Signification
             of
             the
             Word
             is
             .
          
           
             2.
             
             What
             an
             Image
             by
             Reflexion
             is
             .
          
           
             3.
             
             What
             is
             to
             be
             understood
             by
             an
             
               Impossible
               Supposition
            
             .
          
        
         
           1.
           
           As
           to
           the
           first
           of
           which
           ;
           An
           Image
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           general
           Nature
           of
           it
           ,
           is
           such
           a
           Likeness
           of
           a
           Thing
           as
           both
           represents
           it
           ,
           and
           
             proceeds
             from
          
           it
           ;
           and
           that
           ,
           either
           as
           from
           a
           
             Principal
             Efficient
          
           producing
           it
           ,
           
           or
           as
           from
           a
           
             Causa
             exempla●is
          
           ,
           at
           least
           ,
           according
           to
           which
           it
           is
           produced
           .
           Which
           I
           add
           because
           of
           
             Artificial
             Images
          
           ,
           formed
           according
           to
           ,
           and
           so
           proceeding
           from
           that
           Idea
           or
           Pattern
           in
           the
           Mind
           of
           the
           Artificer
           ,
           drawn
           from
           the
           Thing
           ,
           which
           the
           Image
           designed
           by
           him
           is
           to
           represent
           .
           So
           that
           an
           Image
           ,
           whether
           Natural
           or
           Artificial
           ,
           essentially
           implies
           these
           Two
           Things
           as
           the
           General
           Conditions
           of
           it
           ,
           viz.
           A
           
             Representation
             of
          
           ,
           and
           a
           Production
           either
           by
           ,
           or
           from
           the
           Thing
           represented
           by
           it
           .
        
         
           2.
           
           Secondly
           ,
           An
           Image
           by
           Reflexion
           is
           ,
           when
           the
           
             visible
             Species
          
           flowing
           from
           any
           Thing
           ,
           and
           striking
           upon
           some
           such
           Body
           as
           
             Glass
             ,
             Water
          
           ,
           or
           
             polish'd
             Metal
          
           ,
           are
           return'd
           back
           from
           thence
           ,
           and
           thereby
           represent
           the
           Body
           which
           they
           originally
           flow'd
           from
           .
           And
           such
           an
           Image
           this
           Author
           here
           speaks
           of
           ;
           for
           he
           says
           ,
           
             It
             is
             a
             Man's
             Image
             by
             Reflexion
             .
          
        
         
           3.
           
           In
           the
           third
           place
           ,
           An
           
             Impossible
             Supposition
          
           may
           be
           said
           to
           be
           so
           in
           a
           double
           respect
           .
           First
           ,
           In
           respect
           of
           all
           Natural
           ,
           Second
           Causes
           ,
           as
           exceeding
           all
           the
           Force
           and
           Vertue
           of
           such
           Causes
           ,
           to
           effect
           the
           Thing
           so
           supposed
           .
           And
           I
           deny
           not
           ,
           but
           that
           the
           Supposition
           of
           a
           Thing
           Impossible
           in
           this
           sense
           ,
           may
           have
           its
           Use
           sometimes
           to
           give
           us
           some
           Light
           into
           ,
           and
           Explication
           of
           other
           Things
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           A
           thing
           may
           be
           said
           to
           be
           impossible
           in
           respect
           of
           a
           Contradiction
           involved
           in
           it
           ;
           so
           that
           no
           Power
           whatsoever
           can
           effect
           it
           .
           And
           the
           Supposition
           of
           such
           Impossibles
           I
           affirm
           to
           be
           of
           no
           Use
           for
           the
           Explication
           of
           any
           Thing
           whatsoever
           .
           Forasmuch
           as
           the
           Mind
           of
           Man
           can
           have
           no
           formed
           Conception
           of
           them
           ;
           and
           yet
           ,
           whatsoever
           helps
           it
           to
           the
           Knowledge
           of
           another
           Thing
           ,
           must
           do
           it
           by
           being
           first
           known
           it self
           .
        
         
         
           Which
           things
           premised
           ,
           Let
           us
           now
           see
           what
           this
           Author
           holds
           and
           asserts
           concerning
           this
           
             living
             Image
          
           set
           up
           by
           him
           ,
           that
           we
           may
           hereby
           find
           whether
           it
           involves
           in
           it
           any
           Contradiction
           or
           no
           ;
           and
           it
           will
           appear
           ,
           that
           he
           asserts
           these
           Three
           Things
           concerning
           it
           .
        
         
           
             1.
             
             
               That
               this
               living
               Image
               by
               Reflexion
               has
               its
               whole
               and
               sole
               dependence
               upon
               the
               Prototype
               .
            
          
           
             2.
             
             
               That
               there
               is
               one
               and
               the
               same
               Numerical
               Humane
               Nature
               ,
               both
               in
               the
               Prototype
               and
               the
               Image
               .
            
          
           
             3.
             
             
               That
               the
               Prototype
               and
               the
               Image
               are
               Two
               distinct
               Persons
               .
            
          
        
         
           These
           Things
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           he
           asserts
           of
           his
           
             living
             Image
          
           ;
           concerning
           which
           I
           remark
           as
           follows
           .
        
         
           
             1.
             
             That
             to
             assert
             an
             Image
             by
             Reflexion
             to
             have
             
               its
               sole
               and
               total
               dependence
               upon
               the
               Prototype
               ,
            
             (
             as
             this
             Author
             says
             it
             has
             )
             while
             it
             has
             an
             equally
             necessary
             and
             essential
             Dependence
             upon
             the
             Body
             ,
             which
             it
             is
             reflected
             from
             ,
             is
             a
             Contradiction
             .
          
           
             2.
             
             To
             assert
             ,
             That
             
               One
               and
               the
               same
            
             Particular
             
               Humane
               Nature
            
             subsists
             in
             Two
             Particular
             Persons
             locally
             distant
             from
             one
             another
             ,
             (
             as
             the
             Prototype
             and
             the
             Image
             are
             )
             is
             a
             Contradiction
             .
          
           
             3.
             
             To
             assert
             ,
             That
             an
             Image
             by
             Reflexion
             (
             which
             is
             a
             Being
             uncapable
             of
             subsisting
             by
             it self
             )
             is
             a
             completely
             subsisting
             Person
             ,
             endued
             with
             an
             
               Humane
               Nature
            
             ,
             and
             consequently
             consisting
             of
             an
             
               Humane
               Soul
            
             and
             Body
             ,
             is
             a
             Contradiction
             :
             and
             again
             ,
             For
             It
             to
             be
             an
             
               Humane
               Person
            
             ,
             endued
             with
             an
             
               Humane
               Nature
            
             ,
             (
             as
             this
             Author
             asserts
             it
             is
             )
             and
             yet
             not
             to
             consist
             of
             such
             a
             Soul
             and
             Body
             ,
             is
             another
             Contradiction
             .
          
        
         
           These
           Absurdities
           ,
           and
           innumerable
           more
           derivable
           from
           them
           ,
           are
           all
           involved
           in
           this
           Author's
           Notion
           
           of
           a
           
             Living
             Image
             by
             Reflexion
          
           ,
           having
           the
           same
           
             Numerical
             Humane
             Nature
          
           with
           the
           Man
           himself
           ,
           and
           having
           
             its
             sole
             Dependence
          
           upon
           him
           ,
           and
           yet
           being
           a
           
             separate
             Person
          
           from
           him
           .
        
         
           But
           not
           to
           insist
           upon
           these
           Absurdities
           at
           present
           ,
           (
           which
           common
           sence
           and
           Reason
           must
           needs
           abhor
           ,
           and
           fly
           from
           )
           yet
           since
           this
           Notion
           is
           designed
           to
           explain
           and
           represent
           to
           us
           the
           Vnion
           (
           or
           rather
           Unity
           )
           of
           the
           Father
           and
           the
           Son
           in
           one
           and
           
             the
             same
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           surely
           there
           ought
           at
           least
           to
           be
           no
           gross
           disparity
           between
           this
           
             living
             Image
          
           and
           the
           Thing
           intended
           to
           be
           explained
           by
           it
           ,
           especially
           as
           to
           those
           particulars
           wherein
           the
           Resemblance
           must
           and
           ought
           to
           consist
           .
           But
           whether
           this
           be
           so
           or
           no
           ,
           will
           appear
           from
           the
           following
           comparison
           .
           As
           
             
               First
               ,
               There
               is
               a
               mutually
               necessary
               Existence
               ,
               both
               of
               the
               Father
               and
               the
               Son
               ,
               so
               that
               the
               Father
               can
               be
               no
               more
               without
               the
               Son
               ,
               than
               the
               Son
               without
               the
               Father
               ;
               the
               Relation
               being
               Inseparable
               .
               But
               it
               is
               not
               so
               in
               the
               Man
               and
               his
               Image
               ;
               for
               the
               Man
               may
               cease
               to
               be
               a
               Prototype
               ,
               and
               subsist
               without
               the
               Image
               ,
               though
               the
               Image
               cannot
               subsist
               without
               the
               Man.
               
            
             
               Secondly
               ,
               The
               Son
               has
               an
               entire
               Total
               dependance
               upon
               the
               Father
               .
               But
               so
               has
               not
               the
               Image
               upon
               the
               Prototype
               ,
               as
               depending
               as
               much
               on
               the
               Body
               from
               which
               it
               is
               reflected
               ,
               as
               it
               does
               or
               can
               upon
               the
               Man
               whom
               it
               represents
               ,
               and
               perhaps
               more
               .
            
             
               Thirdly
               ,
               The
               Father
               and
               the
               Son
               are
               mutually
               in
               one
               another
               ,
               and
               that
               by
               an
               Intimate
               Inexistence
               ,
               as
               the
               words
               of
               our
               Saviour
               expresly
               prove
               ,
               Iohn
               14.11
               .
               But
               the
               Prototype
               ,
               and
               the
               Image
               cannot
               be
               in
               one
               Another
               ,
               as
               being
               locally
               distant
               from
               each
               other
               .
            
             
               Fourthly
               ,
               The
               Person
               of
               the
               Father
               ,
               and
               of
               the
               Son
               
               are
               only
               distinct
               ,
               but
               otherwise
               inseparably
               United
               ;
               But
               the
               Prototype
               and
               the
               Image
               are
               so
               Divided
               ,
               as
               to
               subsist
               in
               an
               Actual
               Separation
               from
               one
               Another
               ;
               The
               Place
               and
               Vbi
               of
               the
               one
               ,
               (
               as
               we
               observed
               )
               being
               not
               the
               Place
               or
               Vbi
               of
               the
               other
               .
            
          
        
         
           And
           now
           ,
           to
           sum
           up
           and
           draw
           the
           foregoing
           Particulars
           together
           .
           Let
           us
           on
           the
           one
           side
           suppose
           
             Two
             Persons
             ,
             viz.
          
           The
           
             Eternal
             Father
          
           and
           Son
           ;
           and
           these
           first
           ,
           
             by
             a
             mutual
             Necessity
             Coexisting
          
           ;
           and
           then
           
             one
             of
             them
             ,
             viz.
          
           The
           Son
           ,
           
             having
             his
             sole
             and
             total
             dependance
             upon
             the
             other
          
           ;
           and
           thirdly
           ,
           
             Both
             of
             them
             mutually
             inexisting
             in
             one
             Another
          
           ;
           and
           lastly
           ,
           Only
           
             distinct
             in
             their
             Subsistence
             ,
             but
             by
             no
             means
             Separate
             or
             Divided
             .
          
           Let
           all
           this
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           be
           supposed
           on
           the
           Part
           of
           the
           
             Eternal
             Father
          
           and
           Son
           ;
           And
           on
           the
           other
           side
           ,
           let
           us
           suppose
           Two
           other
           
             Persons
             ,
             viz.
          
           The
           Prototype
           and
           his
           
             Living
             Image
          
           ,
           and
           these
           ,
           
             without
             any
             Necessary
             Coexistence
             with
             one
             Another
             ;
             and
             the
             latter
             not
             having
             it
             's
             sole
             dependance
             upon
             the
             former
             ,
             and
             both
             of
             them
             such
             as
             cannot
             mutually
             exist
             in
             one
             Another
             ,
             and
             withal
             are
             not
             only
             distinct
             in
             their
             respective
             Subsistences
             ,
             but
             also
             actually
             separate
             and
             locally
             divided
             from
             each
             other
             .
          
           Now
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           when
           we
           have
           collated
           all
           these
           Disparities
           together
           ,
           must
           not
           that
           Comparison
           (
           think
           we
           )
           give
           us
           a
           blessed
           edifying
           ,
           Representation
           of
           the
           Unity
           of
           the
           
             Eternal
             Father
          
           ,
           and
           Son
           in
           the
           same
           
             Numerical
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           when
           one
           side
           of
           the
           Comparison
           is
           so
           far
           from
           being
           an
           Explication
           of
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           a
           direct
           ,
           Irreconcileable
           contradiction
           to
           ,
           the
           other
           ?
        
         
           But
           as
           we
           first
           waved
           the
           consideration
           of
           those
           monstrous
           Absurdities
           that
           were
           involved
           in
           this
           notion
           of
           a
           Man
           and
           his
           
             living
             Image
          
           ,
           with
           reference
           to
           the
           
             Eternal
             Father
          
           and
           Son
           ;
           so
           let
           us
           at
           present
           wave
           
           the
           forementioned
           gross
           disparities
           between
           them
           also
           ,
           yet
           still
           this
           Notion
           is
           utterly
           unfit
           to
           give
           us
           any
           Explication
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           as
           being
           every
           whit
           as
           Difficult
           ,
           if
           not
           more
           Difficult
           for
           the
           Mind
           of
           Man
           to
           conceive
           ,
           than
           the
           Trinity
           it self
           .
           For
           the
           grand
           Difficulty
           here
           ,
           is
           to
           conceive
           how
           one
           and
           the
           same
           
             Infinite
             Nature
          
           can
           be
           in
           several
           distinct
           ,
           though
           intimately
           
             Vnited
             Persons
          
           ;
           And
           the
           Thing
           ,
           which
           this
           Author
           would
           explain
           this
           by
           ,
           is
           a
           Man
           and
           his
           Image
           ,
           where
           he
           supposes
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Numerically
           subsisting
           
             human
             Nature
          
           to
           be
           in
           Two
           locally
           distinct
           ,
           and
           separately
           subsisting
           Persons
           .
           But
           now
           in
           this
           Case
           ,
           is
           it
           not
           much
           more
           conceivable
           ,
           that
           an
           
             Infinite
             Nature
          
           (
           whose
           boundless
           perfection
           reaches
           to
           more
           ways
           of
           subsisting
           than
           one
           )
           should
           subsist
           in
           several
           persons
           ,
           and
           those
           only
           distinct
           ;
           than
           that
           a
           Particular
           
             finite
             Nature
          
           (
           which
           can
           have
           but
           one
           Subsistence
           )
           should
           subsist
           in
           
             Two
             Persons
          
           ,
           and
           those
           also
           locally
           distant
           ,
           and
           separate
           from
           one
           Another
           ?
           I
           appeal
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           to
           any
           Man
           of
           Judgment
           alive
           ,
           whether
           this
           be
           not
           the
           greater
           and
           more
           inexplicable
           Difficulty
           of
           the
           Two
           ?
           For
           the
           mind
           of
           Man
           finds
           an
           utter
           Contradiction
           in
           making
           a
           
             Finite
             Being
          
           exist
           at
           on●e
           in
           Two
           distant
           Places
           or
           Vbi's
           ;
           but
           in
           the
           former
           ,
           though
           it
           finds
           an
           insuperable
           Difficulty
           ,
           yet
           it
           can
           allege
           no
           Contradiction
           .
           And
           therefore
           I
           say
           again
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           in
           the
           highest
           degree
           senceless
           and
           irrational
           to
           assign
           that
           as
           an
           Explication
           of
           a
           Thing
           ,
           which
           is
           more
           difficult
           ,
           perplexed
           and
           Inconceivable
           ,
           than
           the
           Thing
           it self
           which
           it
           pretends
           to
           explain
           .
           Which
           yet
           is
           the
           case
           here
           of
           a
           Man
           and
           his
           
             living
             Image
          
           ,
           as
           the
           Notion
           of
           it
           has
           been
           stated
           and
           applied
           to
           the
           present
           subject
           .
        
         
           So
           that
           this
           wonderful
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           of
           a
           clearer
           Idea
           of
           
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           than
           ever
           the
           World
           had
           before
           ,
           has
           these
           Three
           Excellent
           Qualifications
           to
           recommend
           it
           .
        
         
           1.
           
           That
           it
           supposes
           and
           builds
           upon
           several
           Things
           utterly
           contradictious
           and
           impossible
           .
        
         
           2.
           
           That
           it
           makes
           one
           Thing
           the
           Representation
           of
           another
           ,
           between
           which
           yet
           (
           as
           to
           the
           very
           particulars
           wherein
           the
           Resemblance
           should
           be
           )
           there
           is
           the
           highest
           and
           utmost
           Disparity
           .
           And
        
         
           Thirdly
           and
           lastly
           ,
           That
           it
           offers
           to
           explain
           a
           Thing
           Difficult
           ,
           obscure
           ,
           and
           by
           human
           Reason
           not
           Comprehensible
           ,
           by
           another
           Thing
           which
           is
           ten
           times
           more
           so
           .
        
         
           So
           that
           if
           this
           must
           be
           the
           Lot
           of
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           to
           sit
           down
           ,
           and
           see
           her
           most
           
             Holy
             Religion
          
           practised
           upon
           by
           such
           wretched
           Innovations
           ,
           as
           can
           tend
           only
           to
           ridicule
           and
           expose
           the
           chief
           Articles
           of
           it
           to
           the
           Scorn
           of
           Arians
           ,
           and
           Socinians
           ,
           and
           all
           this
           ,
           under
           pretence
           of
           
             explaining
             them
          
           ;
           I
           can
           but
           say
           ,
           God
           deliver
           our
           poor
           Church
           from
           such
           Explainers
           ,
           and
           our
           Creed
           from
           such
           Explications
           .
           And
           ,
           as
           I
           heartily
           commiserate
           the
           
             Vnhappy
             State
          
           of
           that
           ,
           so
           I
           really
           pity
           this
           
             Bold
             Man
          
           himself
           ,
           that
           he
           should
           be
           thus
           suffered
           to
           go
           on
           venting
           his
           
             Scandalous
             Heterodoxies
          
           ,
           without
           finding
           either
           Friends
           to
           Counsel
           ,
           or
           Superiors
           to
           Controll
           him
           .
        
         
           Nevertheless
           should
           we
           ,
           with
           a
           
             non
             obstante
          
           to
           what
           has
           been
           said
           ,
           comply
           with
           this
           Man
           's
           absurd
           Notion
           so
           far
           ,
           as
           to
           allow
           his
           Prototype
           and
           his
           
             living
             Image
          
           to
           bear
           such
           a
           peculiar
           Resemblance
           to
           the
           
             Eternal
             Father
          
           and
           Son
           ,
           (
           as
           he
           pretends
           ,
           but
           can
           never
           prove
           them
           to
           do
           )
           yet
           how
           does
           this
           any
           way
           explain
           ,
           or
           give
           us
           (
           as
           he
           calls
           it
           )
           any
           Idea
           of
           the
           
           Trinity
           ?
           For
           are
           the
           Father
           and
           the
           Son
           the
           Trinity
           without
           the
           
             Holy
             Ghost
          
           ?
           And
           how
           does
           this
           Prototype
           and
           
             living
             Image
          
           set
           forth
           to
           us
           the
           Procession
           of
           the
           
             Holy
             Ghost
          
           from
           both
           of
           them
           ,
           when
           it
           makes
           no
           mention
           of
           any
           
             Third
             Person
          
           at
           all
           ?
           The
           Son
           indeed
           issues
           from
           the
           Father
           in
           the
           way
           of
           Knowledge
           ,
           by
           a
           Reflex
           Act
           thereof
           ,
           expressing
           his
           
             Infinite
             Nature
          
           and
           Perfections
           ;
           whereupon
           ,
           as
           it
           is
           the
           Property
           both
           of
           Knowledge
           ,
           and
           of
           an
           Image
           to
           represent
           some
           thing
           ,
           so
           if
           this
           Prototype
           and
           
             living
             Image
          
           can
           be
           of
           any
           Use
           ,
           to
           help
           our
           Notions
           of
           the
           
             Eternal
             Generation
          
           ,
           it
           must
           be
           by
           its
           
             Representing
             Quality
          
           .
           But
           now
           the
           
             Holy
             Ghost
          
           issues
           from
           the
           Father
           and
           
             Son
             ,
             per
             modum
             voluntatis
          
           ,
           by
           an
           Eternal
           Incomprehensible
           Act
           of
           Love
           streaming
           from
           them
           both
           ;
           and
           the
           Property
           of
           Love
           ,
           we
           know
           ,
           is
           not
           to
           represent
           (
           as
           Knowledge
           does
           )
           but
           to
           unite
           to
           the
           Object
           Known
           .
           And
           here
           ,
           I
           pray
           ,
           what
           does
           the
           
             living
             Image
          
           do
           towards
           the
           setting
           forth
           of
           this
           ?
           Why
           our
           Author
           indeed
           makes
           the
           Prototype
           
             One
             Person
          
           ,
           and
           his
           living
           Image
           Another
           ;
           but
           do
           these
           Two
           by
           an
           Act
           of
           Love
           ,
           or
           any
           other
           Act
           proceeding
           jointly
           from
           both
           ,
           produce
           
             a
             Third
             Person
          
           ?
           If
           not
           ,
           what
           Idea
           of
           a
           Trinity
           can
           be
           drawn
           from
           these
           Two
           ?
           But
           if
           this
           Author
           will
           say
           ,
           (
           as
           he
           says
           things
           no
           less
           Absurd
           )
           That
           the
           Prototype
           and
           his
           
             living
             Image
          
           do
           produce
           some
           certain
           
             Third
             Person
          
           distinct
           from
           Both
           of
           them
           ,
           and
           so
           answering
           to
           the
           
             Holy
             Ghost
          
           in
           the
           Trinity
           ;
           I
           desire
           him
           to
           tell
           the
           World
           ,
           what
           kind
           of
           Thing
           this
           
             Third
             Person
          
           is
           ,
           and
           by
           what
           Name
           it
           is
           to
           be
           called
           ,
           and
           expressed
           ;
           for
           I
           never
           yet
           heard
           or
           read
           of
           any
           such
           ,
           nor
           am
           I
           so
           much
           an
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           -
           Man
           ,
           as
           to
           fetch
           it
           from
           my
           own
           Invention
           .
        
         
         
           But
           ,
           besides
           all
           the
           foregoing
           Absurdities
           ,
           It
           is
           worth
           observing
           ,
           what
           a
           notable
           cast
           of
           his
           Ignorance
           he
           gives
           us
           about
           Emanation
           ,
           Def.
           p.
           28.
           l.
           10.
           
           And
           ,
           in
           order
           to
           it
           ,
           I
           think
           fit
           to
           shew
           ,
           What
           an
           Emanation
           and
           a
           
             Cause
             by
             Emanation
          
           is
           .
           Now
           a
           Cause
           or
           Principle
           
             by
             〈◊〉
             Emanation
          
           is
           that
           which
           produces
           its
           Effect
           or
           Term
           ,
           without
           any
           intervening
           Action
           really
           distinct
           from
           either
           the
           Agent
           or
           Effect
           .
           And
           accordingly
           ,
           That
           is
           properly
           called
           an
           Emanation
           ,
           or
           an
           Effect
           by
           Emanation
           ,
           (
           for
           the
           word
           here
           signifies
           passively
           )
           which
           issues
           immediately
           ,
           naturally
           and
           necessarily
           (
           unless
           hinder'd
           by
           a
           supernatural
           power
           )
           from
           the
           Substance
           of
           its
           
             productive
             Principle
          
           :
           Concerning
           which
           ,
           we
           are
           to
           observe
           also
           ,
           That
           though
           a
           Cause
           or
           Principle
           
             by
             Emanation
          
           ,
           in
           a
           large
           sence
           ,
           is
           reckoned
           an
           
             Efficient
             Cause
          
           ,
           and
           reduced
           to
           it
           ,
           yet
           in
           the
           strictest
           and
           properest
           sense
           of
           an
           Efficient
           Cause
           ,
           it
           is
           not
           so
           ;
           as
           not
           producing
           its
           Effect
           by
           an
           Action
           or
           Efficiency
           properly
           so
           called
           ,
           but
           only
           by
           Resultance
           or
           Efflux
           ,
           (
           which
           are
           the
           best
           words
           which
           Philosophers
           have
           to
           express
           the
           
             peculiar
             Causality
          
           of
           it
           by
           )
           .
           And
           now
           to
           explain
           what
           I
           have
           said
           ,
           by
           Instances
           .
           All
           Properties
           are
           said
           to
           be
           Emanations
           or
           Effects
           resulting
           from
           their
           Forms
           .
           And
           all
           Accidents
           immediately
           affecting
           and
           issuing
           from
           their
           Subjects
           are
           Emanations
           .
           And
           all
           sensible
           and
           intelligible
           Species
           ,
           flowing
           from
           the
           Things
           which
           they
           represent
           ,
           are
           Emanations
           .
           And
           the
           Light
           issuing
           from
           the
           Sun
           is
           an
           Emanation
           .
           To
           all
           which
           we
           may
           add
           ,
           the
           Substantial
           derivative
           Modes
           belonging
           to
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           .
           Which
           being
           premised
           ,
           let
           us
           see
           what
           Propositions
           this
           Man
           advances
           upon
           this
           Subject
           .
           As
           First
           ,
           That
           an
           Image
           is
           not
           an
           Emanation
           but
           a
           Reflexion
           :
           which
           is
           manifestly
           Oppositum
           in
           Apposito
           .
           For
           an
           Image
           
           by
           Reflexion
           in
           Things
           Material
           is
           Both
           ;
           viz.
           an
           Emanation
           from
           the
           Prototype
           or
           Exemplar
           ,
           from
           which
           the
           
             Species
             Sensibiles
          
           issue
           or
           proceed
           ;
           and
           a
           Reflexion
           from
           that
           (
           whether
           Medium
           or
           Object
           )
           upon
           which
           they
           terminate
           ,
           and
           from
           which
           ,
           by
           Repercussion
           ,
           they
           are
           return'd
           back
           again
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           He
           tells
           us
           ,
           That
           the
           Son
           and
           the
           
             Holy
             Ghost
          
           are
           not
           Emanations
           from
           the
           Father
           .
           But
           on
           the
           contrary
           ,
           I
           affirm
           ,
           That
           the
           Son
           is
           an
           Emanation
           from
           the
           Father
           ,
           and
           the
           
             Holy
             Ghost
          
           from
           Both.
           For
           though
           Generation
           expresses
           the
           particular
           way
           of
           the
           
           Son
           's
           issuing
           from
           the
           Father
           ,
           and
           Procession
           the
           particular
           way
           of
           the
           Holy
           Ghost's
           issuing
           both
           from
           Father
           and
           Son
           ,
           yet
           Emanation
           is
           here
           a
           general
           word
           properly
           applicable
           to
           ,
           and
           expressive
           of
           both
           of
           them
           .
           And
           accordingly
           Aquinas
           affirms
           ,
           
           That
           the
           
             Son
             proceeds
             from
             the
             Father
             ,
             not
             as
             an
             Effect
             from
             a
             Cause
             .
          
           (
           viz.
           
             an
             Efficient
             Cause
             properly
             so
             called
             )
             but
             by
             way
             of
             Intellectual
             Emanation
             :
          
           Affirming
           withal
           ,
           
             That
             this
             is
             the
             Catholick
             Faith.
          
           And
           one
           of
           higher
           Note
           in
           the
           Church
           than
           Aquinas
           ,
           even
           the
           Great
           Athanasius
           himself
           owns
           and
           commends
           the
           Doctrine
           of
           Dionysius
           ,
           concerning
           the
           
             Eternal
             Generation
          
           of
           the
           Son
           ;
           for
           that
           ,
           in
           his
           explaining
           of
           it
           ,
           and
           speaking
           of
           the
           Father
           as
           a
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           or
           Mind
           ,
           and
           of
           the
           Son
           as
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           or
           Word
           of
           that
           Mind
           ,
           he
           expresly
           calls
           the
           latter
           an
           Emanation
           from
           the
           former
           ,
           in
           those
           words
           ,
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           where
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           signifies
           properly
           
             Emanatio
             ,
             aut
             Effluviam
          
           ,
           which
           all
           know
           are
           Terms
           Synonymous
           ,
           
             Athanas.
             Tom.
          
           1.
           p.
           565.
           
           
             Edit
             .
             Colon.
          
           It
           is
           true
           indeed
           ,
           That
           in
           the
           
           Son
           's
           issuing
           from
           the
           Father
           ,
           and
           the
           Holy
           Ghost's
           issuing
           
           from
           Both
           ,
           there
           is
           ,
           besides
           the
           
             Terminus
             producens
          
           ,
           and
           the
           
             Terminus
             productus
          
           ,
           assigned
           also
           an
           Act
           or
           Action
           ,
           
             viz.
             Generation
          
           with
           reference
           to
           the
           Son
           ,
           and
           Spiration
           to
           the
           
             Holy
             Ghost
          
           ;
           yet
           because
           these
           are
           not
           Actions
           or
           Efficiencies
           properly
           so
           called
           ,
           viz.
           distinct
           Entities
           from
           the
           
             Terminus
             producens
          
           ,
           and
           productus
           ,
           but
           really
           identified
           with
           both
           ,
           therefore
           the
           Production
           both
           of
           Son
           and
           
             Holy
             Ghost
          
           are
           truly
           and
           properly
           to
           be
           reckoned
           
             Emanations
             .
             Thirdly
          
           ,
           The
           Defender
           affirms
           ,
           Than
           an
           Emanation
           is
           of
           the
           same
           Substance
           ,
           
             viz.
             specifically
             the
             same
          
           with
           that
           from
           which
           it
           proceeds
           ;
           of
           which
           I
           desire
           him
           to
           shew
           me
           so
           much
           as
           one
           Instance
           in
           the
           whole
           World
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           .
           Fourthly
           ,
           That
           an
           Emanation
           multiplies
           Natures
           and
           Substances
           ,
           as
           being
           individually
           distinct
           from
           that
           ,
           from
           which
           it
           issues
           ;
           which
           yet
           in
           the
           Son
           's
           issuing
           from
           the
           Father
           ,
           and
           the
           Holy
           Ghost's
           issuing
           from
           both
           ,
           is
           certainly
           false
           ;
           for
           though
           these
           Emanations
           multiply
           Persons
           ▪
           yet
           they
           do
           not
           multiply
           Substances
           .
           Nor
           are
           these
           two
           Propositions
           ,
           viz.
           the
           Third
           and
           Fourth
           ,
           less
           false
           with
           reference
           to
           those
           other
           forementioned
           Emanations
           or
           
             Emanative
             Effects
          
           ,
           set
           down
           by
           us
           :
           for
           ,
           since
           none
           of
           them
           all
           are
           Substances
           ,
           they
           can
           neither
           be
           said
           to
           be
           
             Substances
             specifically
             the
             same
             with
          
           ,
           nor
           
             Substances
             individually
             distinct
             from
          
           those
           several
           Substances
           from
           which
           they
           flow
           .
           Fifthly
           ,
           and
           lastly
           ,
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           That
           when
           the
           Fathers
           call
           the
           Holy
           Spirit
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           it
           is
           not
           in
           
             the
             Sence
             of
             Emanation
          
           ,
           but
           of
           
             Mysterious
             Procession
          
           .
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           as
           before
           ,
           That
           he
           here
           opposes
           Things
           fairly
           
             subordinate
             ;
             viz.
          
           a
           General
           Term
           to
           a
           Particular
           .
           For
           Procession
           is
           really
           and
           truly
           an
           Emanation
           ;
           though
           every
           Emanation
           (
           it
           being
           a
           more
           general
           
           word
           )
           is
           not
           a
           Procession
           :
           and
           therefore
           ,
           for
           this
           Man
           to
           say
           ,
           (
           as
           he
           here
           does
           )
           That
           the
           Holy
           Ghost
           is
           called
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           not
           by
           Emanation
           but
           by
           Procession
           ;
           is
           just
           as
           if
           one
           should
           say
           of
           Peter
           ,
           That
           he
           is
           not
           a
           
             living
             Creature
          
           ,
           but
           a
           Man.
           From
           all
           which
           it
           follows
           ,
           That
           this
           Author
           is
           grosly
           ignorant
           of
           the
           True
           Philosophical
           Sence
           of
           the
           Term
           Emanation
           ;
           sometimes
           applying
           it
           to
           one
           Thing
           ,
           and
           sometimes
           denying
           it
           of
           another
           ;
           but
           Both
           at
           a
           venture
           ,
           and
           just
           as
           People
           use
           to
           play
           at
           
             Blind-Man's
             Buff.
          
           
        
         
           In
           fine
           ,
           I
           conclude
           from
           what
           has
           been
           discoursed
           upon
           this
           whole
           Matter
           ,
           That
           this
           Autor's
           Fiction
           of
           a
           Man
           and
           his
           
             living
             Image
          
           ought
           not
           to
           be
           admitted
           or
           endured
           ,
           as
           at
           all
           Explicatory
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           but
           to
           be
           rejected
           as
           a
           most
           
             senseless
             ,
             self-repugnant
             ,
             absurd
             Notion
             ,
          
           as
           he
           has
           started
           it
           ,
           and
           fit
           only
           to
           abuse
           the
           Minds
           of
           Men
           with
           wrong
           and
           perverse
           Apprehensions
           of
           this
           
             great
             Mystery
          
           .
           The
           Scriptures
           indeed
           call
           the
           Eternal
           Son
           
             the
             Image
             of
             the
             Father
             ,
             Coloss.
          
           1.15
           .
           and
           speak
           also
           of
           
           Adam's
           begetting
           a
           
             Son
             after
             his
             own
             Likeness
             ,
             Genes
             .
          
           5.3
           .
           But
           both
           these
           places
           import
           a
           quite
           different
           sort
           of
           Image
           from
           the
           
             living
             Image
          
           insisted
           upon
           by
           this
           Author
           .
           For
           the
           
             Ratio
             Imaginis
          
           in
           both
           these
           consist
           not
           barely
           in
           Representation
           and
           Production
           ,
           but
           in
           such
           a
           peculiar
           sort
           of
           Production
           ,
           as
           is
           by
           Generation
           :
           For
           the
           Holy
           Spirit
           has
           all
           the
           Natural
           E●●ential
           Perfections
           of
           the
           Father
           and
           the
           Son
           ,
           and
           consequently
           a
           substantial
           Likeness
           to
           both
           ;
           and
           is
           withal
           produced
           by
           them
           ,
           and
           proceeds
           from
           them
           :
           But
           because
           this
           is
           not
           by
           a
           
             Generative
             Production
          
           ,
           (
           which
           is
           the
           Proper
           ,
           Natural
           way
           of
           conveying
           Substantial
           Likeness
           )
           therefore
           the
           Latine
           Fathers
           never
           give
           the
           
           Title
           of
           Image
           to
           the
           Holy
           Ghost
           ;
           though
           some
           of
           the
           Greek
           Fathers
           indeed
           upon
           the
           forementioned
           Account
           ,
           sometimes
           in
           a
           less
           proper
           and
           strict
           sence
           ,
           do
           )
           .
           From
           which
           it
           follows
           ,
           That
           since
           the
           Son
           's
           being
           the
           
             Image
             of
             the
             Father
          
           ,
           consist
           not
           barely
           in
           his
           Representing
           him
           ,
           or
           being
           produced
           by
           him
           ,
           but
           in
           his
           being
           produced
           by
           way
           of
           Generation
           ,
           nothing
           can
           truly
           and
           strictly
           represent
           How
           he
           is
           the
           Image
           of
           his
           Father
           ,
           but
           a
           
             begotten
             Image
          
           ,
           an
           Image
           
             intellectually
             begotten
          
           ;
           and
           begotten
           not
           only
           in
           the
           Likeness
           of
           a
           
             Specifick
             Nature
          
           ▪
           but
           of
           the
           same
           
             Numerical
             Nature
          
           with
           him
           ,
           who
           begot
           it
           .
           And
           since
           none
           of
           all
           these
           Conditions
           do
           or
           can
           possibly
           agree
           to
           this
           Author
           's
           
             living
             Image
             with
             reference
             to
             its
             Prototype
             ,
          
           it
           follows
           ,
           That
           it
           can
           never
           be
           a
           True
           and
           Proper
           Representation
           of
           the
           Eternal
           
             Image
             of
             the
             Father
          
           ;
           as
           being
           upon
           all
           Accounts
           wholly
           of
           another
           Kind
           ,
           and
           therefore
           unspeakably
           dishonourable
           in
           its
           Application
           to
           the
           Son
           of
           God.
           
        
         
           The
           Fathers
           indeed
           sometimes
           set
           forth
           the
           substantial
           likeness
           between
           the
           
             Eternal
             Father
          
           and
           
             the
             Son
          
           ,
           by
           a
           Man's
           seeing
           himself
           in
           a
           Glass
           ▪
           But
           never
           did
           they
           intend
           this
           for
           a
           true
           and
           proper
           Representation
           of
           ,
           but
           only
           for
           a
           Popular
           Allusion
           to
           the
           Mystery
           they
           were
           treating
           of
           ▪
           nor
           ,
           as
           sufficient
           to
           afford
           Arguments
           to
           prove
           any
           Thing
           strictly
           and
           logically
           conce●ning
           it
           ,
           (
           whereas
           this
           Author
           frequently
           argues
           ,
           and
           that
           in
           the
           strictest
           way
           he
           can
           ,
           from
           this
           Case
           of
           
             a
             Man
          
           and
           
             his
             living
             Image
          
           )
           but
           only
           as
           Instances
           fit
           enough
           to
           found
           Similitudes
           ,
           Resemblances
           ,
           and
           Illustrations
           upon
           ;
           further
           than
           which
           ,
           they
           would
           never
           go
           .
           And
           this
           I
           think
           most
           worthy
           of
           our
           Particular
           Observation
           concerning
           those
           great
           Men
           ,
           as
           to
           
           the
           Case
           before
           us
           ,
           viz.
           That
           in
           all
           their
           Attempts
           to
           give
           the
           World
           some
           small
           ,
           dim
           Resemblance
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           they
           still
           drew
           their
           Allusions
           from
           Things
           that
           had
           a
           real
           Existence
           in
           Nature
           ,
           and
           were
           obvious
           to
           sence
           ,
           (
           as
           unequal
           as
           they
           well
           knew
           them
           to
           the
           great
           subject
           they
           applied
           them
           to
           .
           )
           But
           never
           did
           they
           venture
           to
           express
           or
           describe
           it
           by
           impossible
           Suppositions
           ,
           and
           Schemes
           of
           Things
           that
           never
           were
           nor
           could
           be
           ,
           nor
           by
           bold
           Fictions
           and
           
           Chimera's
           formed
           wholly
           in
           their
           own
           Brain
           :
           No
           ,
           this
           Province
           was
           wholly
           reserved
           for
           this
           Author
           ,
           the
           great
           Corrector
           and
           Chastiser
           of
           all
           that
           ever
           wrote
           before
           him
           :
           and
           especially
           (
           
             as
             in
             Duty
             bound
          
           )
           of
           the
           Fathers
           .
           For
           as
           to
           his
           Notion
           of
           a
           Man
           and
           
             his
             living
             Image
          
           ,
           it
           is
           manifest
           ,
           that
           he
           does
           not
           offer
           it
           as
           a
           bare
           Resemblance
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           and
           no
           more
           ,
           but
           rather
           as
           a
           
             Parallel
             Instance
          
           ,
           or
           ,
           at
           least
           ,
           very
           near
           one
           ,
           and
           such
           as
           gives
           us
           a
           
             True
             and
             Proper
             Representation
          
           of
           this
           Mystery
           ;
           which
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           is
           much
           more
           than
           a
           
             faint
             Resemblance
          
           of
           it
           ,
           or
           a
           meer
           Allusion
           to
           it
           .
           For
           in
           several
           places
           of
           this
           Book
           of
           his
           ,
           he
           cites
           it
           and
           refers
           to
           it
           ,
           as
           a
           Rule
           whereby
           to
           speak
           and
           conceive
           rightly
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ;
           and
           not
           only
           so
           ,
           but
           also
           as
           a
           medium
           whereby
           to
           argue
           concerning
           it
           ;
           particularly
           p.
           63.
           l.
           20.
           p.
           70.
           l.
           4.
           p.
           87.
           l.
           16
           ,
           &
           25.
           
           And
           to
           shew
           us
           yet
           further
           ,
           of
           what
           use
           and
           vertue
           this
           extraordinary
           Notion
           is
           ,
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             this
             gives
             us
             ●n
             Account
             also
             of
             the
          
           modi
           subsistendi
           ,
           viz.
           
             of
             the
             Real
             Subsistence
             of
             the
             same
             Individual
             Nature
             in
             Three
             ,
             after
             a
             different
             manner
             ,
          
           Def.
           p.
           35.
           l.
           15.
           
           And
           a
           more
           useful
           piece
           of
           Instruction
           for
           our
           better
           understanding
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           no
           doubt
           ,
           there
           cannot
           be
           .
           But
           then
           are
           not
           these
           
             modi
             subsistenti
             ,
             Modes
          
           ?
           and
           has
           not
           this
           
           Man
           several
           times
           ,
           both
           in
           his
           Vindication
           and
           in
           this
           his
           Defence
           ,
           utterly
           denied
           
             all
             modes
             in
             God
          
           ,
           putting
           them
           in
           the
           same
           Rank
           with
           Accidents
           ,
           and
           equally
           exploding
           both
           ,
           with
           Reference
           to
           the
           Deity
           ?
           Let
           him
           deny
           this
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           ;
           and
           if
           he
           cannot
           ,
           let
           the
           Reader
           take
           notice
           what
           a
           kind
           of
           Disputant
           this
           is
           ,
           who
           having
           first
           denied
           ,
           
             That
             there
             are
             any
             Modes
             in
             God
             ,
          
           is
           now
           for
           offering
           us
           an
           Account
           or
           
             Explication
             what
             these
             Modes
             are
          
           .
           But
           this
           being
           only
           an
           Absurdity
           and
           a
           Contradiction
           ,
           is
           in
           this
           Author
           not
           much
           to
           be
           regarded
           .
           But
           that
           which
           is
           infinitely
           more
           unjustifiable
           ,
           is
           his
           audacious
           obstruding
           the
           same
           Romance
           of
           
             a
             Man
          
           and
           his
           
             living
             Image
          
           ,
           as
           the
           best
           Key
           for
           the
           Interpretation
           of
           Scripture
           ,
           and
           that
           in
           the
           most
           important
           points
           of
           Religion
           ,
           with
           great
           Prophaneness
           calling
           this
           figment
           of
           his
           own
           making
           .
           
             The
             plain
             Account
             of
             the
             Essential
             Vnity
             between
             God
             the
             Father
             ,
             and
             God
             the
             Son
             ,
             p.
          
           21.
           l.
           10.
           
           Which
           words
           are
           so
           derogatory
           to
           the
           Sacred
           and
           Mysterious
           Vnity
           here
           spoken
           of
           ,
           that
           ,
           I
           dar●
           say
           ,
           no
           Church
           in
           Christendom
           would
           have
           endured
           them
           but
           this
           .
           For
           they
           manifestly
           contain
           in
           them
           these
           Two
           Scandalous
           Propositions
           .
        
         
           First
           ,
           That
           a
           
             Plain
             Account
             may
             be
             given
          
           by
           us
           of
           the
           most
           Mysterious
           ,
           Incomprehensible
           ,
           and
           Unaccountable
           Thing
           ,
           that
           God
           ever
           proposed
           to
           the
           Belief
           of
           Men
           ;
           as
           the
           
             Numerical
             Essential
             Vnity
          
           (
           which
           is
           the
           Unity
           here
           spoken
           of
           )
           between
           the
           
             Eternal
             Father
          
           and
           the
           Son
           confessedly
           is
           .
        
         
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           a
           meer
           Figment
           ,
           a
           Romance
           ,
           and
           an
           impossible
           supossition
           of
           what
           never
           was
           ,
           nor
           is
           ,
           not
           can
           be
           ,
           viz.
           A
           
             Man
             and
             his
             living
             Image
          
           ,
           is
           a
           most
           proper
           (
           if
           not
           absolutely
           the
           best
           )
           way
           ,
           to
           give
           this
           
             plain
             Account
          
           of
           the
           said
           Vnity
           by
           .
        
         
         
           These
           Propositions
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           (
           which
           are
           evidently
           contained
           in
           his
           forecited
           Assertion
           )
           are
           Intolerable
           .
           And
           I
           do
           here
           aver
           ,
           that
           they
           are
           these
           daring
           offers
           to
           give
           the
           World
           
             Plain
             Accounts
             ,
             clear
             Ideas
             ,
             new
             Representations
             ,
             and
             further
             Explications
             of
             the
             Trinity
             ,
          
           (
           unknown
           to
           the
           Church
           heretofore
           )
           which
           have
           not
           only
           driven
           this
           unhappy
           Man
           upon
           an
           Hypothesis
           ,
           which
           is
           downright
           Tritheism
           ,
           but
           have
           also
           terribly
           shaken
           the
           whole
           Belief
           of
           this
           Article
           in
           some
           Mens
           Minds
           ,
           and
           quite
           extinguish'd
           ,
           and
           cast
           it
           out
           of
           others
           .
           But
           such
           effects
           must
           be
           expected
           from
           Heresy
           ,
           when
           it
           can
           walk
           about
           and
           face
           the
           World
           with
           a
           Licence
           in
           the
           Front
           of
           it
           .
        
         
           But
           after
           all
           these
           high
           pretences
           ;
           does
           any
           one
           by
           this
           new
           piece
           of
           Imagery
           ,
           and
           this
           Man's
           Discourse
           upon
           it
           ,
           find
           the
           Trinity
           more
           explained
           to
           him
           than
           before
           ?
           or
           rather
           does
           not
           the
           whole
           Discourse
           seem
           wrote
           in
           the
           S●raphick
           way
           and
           style
           of
           
             Iacob
             Behmen
          
           or
           
             George
             Fox
          
           ?
           it
           being
           nothing
           from
           first
           to
           last
           but
           a
           meer
           Iargon
           of
           Unaccountable
           ,
           Incoherent
           ,
           Obscure
           ,
           dark
           stuff
           ,
           and
           nothing
           so
           fit
           as
           a
           
             Dark
             Room
          
           to
           speak
           it
           in
           .
           How
           it
           may
           pass
           the
           World
           ,
           I
           know
           not
           ,
           but
           ,
           I
           fancy
           ,
           not
           so
           currently
           as
           some
           imagined
           :
           And
           therefore
           if
           I
           might
           advise
           the
           profound
           Author
           of
           it
           (
           since
           he
           has
           the
           Gazette
           so
           much
           at
           his
           service
           )
           he
           should
           ,
           upon
           Publication
           of
           the
           next
           Auction
           for
           Pictures
           ,
           take
           care
           to
           get
           his
           
             Living
             Image
          
           into
           the
           Collection
           .
        
         
           And
           now
           ,
           in
           his
           Conclusion
           of
           the
           Account
           given
           by
           him
           of
           his
           Hypothesis
           ,
           he
           endeavours
           to
           remove
           a
           great
           Objection
           against
           it
           :
           For
           both
           the
           Antapologist
           and
           the
           Animadverter
           had
           charged
           him
           for
           stating
           the
           Notion
           of
           a
           Trinity
           in
           Unity
           so
           ,
           as
           utterly
           
             to
             take
             away
             
             the
             Mysteriousness
             of
             it
          
           ;
           which
           Charge
           he
           would
           here
           ward
           off
           ;
           and
           he
           attempts
           to
           do
           it
           ,
           by
           taking
           shelter
           in
           the
           Ambiguity
           of
           the
           Term
           Intelligible
           ;
           which
           may
           be
           either
           taken
           at
           large
           for
           that
           which
           may
           in
           any
           degree
           be
           understood
           ;
           And
           so
           ,
           none
           doubts
           ,
           but
           God
           or
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           may
           be
           in
           some
           Respects
           Intelligible
           ;
           and
           yet
           ,
           for
           all
           that
           ,
           remain
           upon
           many
           other
           Accounts
           Vnconceivable
           .
           Or
           ,
           
             Secondly
             ,
             Intelligible
          
           may
           be
           taken
           for
           that
           which
           may
           be
           fully
           and
           perfectly
           understood
           ;
           and
           whatsoever
           is
           so
           ,
           I
           am
           sure
           ,
           can
           have
           nothing
           Vnconceivable
           in
           it
           ,
           unless
           conceiving
           be
           one
           thing
           ,
           and
           understanding
           another
           .
           Now
           I
           affirm
           ,
           that
           where
           we
           may
           form
           a
           Notion
           of
           a
           Thing
           not
           only
           True
           ,
           but
           also
           Plain
           and
           Easy
           ,
           and
           withal
           ,
           such
           as
           
             solves
             all
             doubts
             and
             difficulties
             about
             it
             ,
          
           and
           
             clears
             off
             all
             seeming
             Contradictions
             to
             it
             ,
          
           that
           Thing
           is
           fully
           and
           perfectly
           Intelligible
           ,
           and
           consequently
           can
           upon
           no
           Account
           be
           reckon'd
           Vnconceivable
           .
           And
           such
           a
           Notion
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           has
           this
           Author
           in
           his
           
             Vindication
             ,
             &c.
          
           forty
           times
           told
           us
           ,
           that
           his
           Hypothesis
           affords
           ,
           and
           therefore
           according
           to
           the
           said
           Hypothesis
           ,
           a
           Trinity
           in
           Vnity
           can
           have
           nothing
           Mysterious
           or
           
             Vnconceivable
             in
             it
          
           .
           As
           for
           the
           Instance
           he
           brings
           of
           
             God's
             Eternity
          
           ;
           which
           (
           as
           he
           says
           )
           must
           be
           
             owned
             to
             have
             a
             great
             deal
             in
             it
             Vnconceivable
             by
             our
             Reason
             ,
             and
             yet
             to
             be
             Intelligible
             enough
             so
             far
             as
             that
             Notion
             of
             it
             reaches
             ,
          
           viz.
           
             That
             it
             is
             a
             duration
             without
             Beginning
             or
             End
             ,
             p.
          
           36.
           l.
           15.
           
           I
           say
           this
           comes
           not
           up
           to
           his
           Case
           .
           Since
           he
           neither
           does
           nor
           can
           pretend
           ,
           That
           this
           Account
           or
           Description
           of
           Eternity
           makes
           the
           Notion
           
             of
             it
             so
             plain
             and
             easy
             as
             to
             solve
             all
             doubts
             and
             difficulties
             about
             it
             ,
             and
             clear
             off
             all
             seeming
             contradictions
             to
             it
          
           (
           which
           yet
           he
           affirms
           that
           his
           Notion
           of
           a
           Trinity
           does
           )
           .
           For
           if
           there
           
           could
           be
           such
           a
           Notion
           of
           Eternity
           as
           should
           do
           all
           this
           ,
           I
           affirm
           ,
           that
           even
           that
           high
           Attribute
           of
           God
           could
           have
           nothing
           Vnconceivable
           remaining
           in
           it
           .
           Let
           him
           therefore
           leave
           off
           such
           
             Sophistical
             Trifling
          
           with
           his
           Reader
           ;
           since
           ,
           for
           an
           Object
           to
           be
           in
           some
           Degree
           Intelligible
           ,
           is
           one
           Thing
           ,
           and
           to
           be
           so
           intelligible
           as
           to
           
             be
             plain
             and
             easy
             with
             all
             doubts
             and
             difficulties
             about
             it
             solved
             ,
             and
             all
             seeming
             contradictions
             cleared
             off
             ,
          
           is
           quite
           Another
           .
           The
           former
           indeed
           may
           consist
           with
           the
           Mysteriousness
           of
           the
           said
           object
           upon
           several
           other
           Accounts
           ,
           but
           this
           latter
           neither
           does
           nor
           can
           upon
           any
           Account
           whatsoever
           .
           So
           that
           if
           this
           Man
           would
           but
           keep
           to
           the
           Question
           ,
           and
           abide
           by
           his
           own
           positive
           repeated
           Assertions
           (
           which
           he
           is
           perpetually
           shifting
           and
           flying
           from
           )
           the
           Charge
           of
           his
           
             making
             the
             Trinity
             no
             mystery
             at
             all
             ,
          
           stands
           as
           full
           and
           clear
           against
           him
           ,
           as
           that
           two
           Contradictory
           Propositions
           can
           never
           in
           their
           full
           Latitude
           be
           verified
           of
           one
           and
           the
           same
           subject
           .
        
         
           But
           since
           a
           
             Plain
             and
             easy
             Notion
             of
             a
             Trinity
             in
             Vnity
             ,
             and
             such
             as
             solves
             all
             doubts
             and
             difficulties
             about
             it
             ,
          
           must
           needs
           found
           very
           oddly
           in
           the
           Ears
           of
           all
           sober
           Christians
           ,
           who
           have
           hitherto
           accounted
           it
           Incomprehensible
           in
           the
           very
           Notion
           of
           it
           ,
           I
           cannot
           see
           how
           this
           Author
           will
           relieve
           himself
           ,
           but
           by
           finding
           some
           
             Theological
             Vse
             of
             the
             word
          
           Mystery
           ,
           that
           may
           over-rule
           the
           common
           and
           received
           sence
           of
           it
           .
           And
           here
           to
           help
           him
           in
           such
           a
           strait
           for
           once
           ,
           I
           will
           refer
           him
           to
           a
           Choice
           Author
           called
           
             Liberius
             de
             Sancto
             Amore
          
           (
           but
           his
           true
           name
           is
           
             Le
             Clerk
          
           )
           who
           in
           his
           first
           Theological
           Epistle
           Entituled
           
             de
             Vnione
             Hypostaticâ
             duarum
             Christi
             Naturarum
             ,
          
           affirms
           ,
           That
           a
           Mystery
           ,
           and
           particularly
           that
           of
           the
           Union
           of
           Two
           Natures
           in
           the
           Person
           of
           
           Christ
           (
           as
           it
           has
           been
           all
           along
           accounted
           )
           has
           nothing
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           (
           i.e.
           )
           Incomprehensible
           in
           it
           .
           
             Mysterium
             magnum
             est
             ,
             non
             quòd
             sit
             in
             se
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             ,
             sed
             quia
             de
             eo
             sinè
             Revelatione
             Novi
             Testamenti
             nunquam
             homines
             cogitâssent
             ,
          
           p.
           10.
           
           Again
           in
           this
           third
           Epistle
           bearing
           this
           Title
           ,
           
             In
             quâ
             S.
             Trinitatis
             Mysterium
             explicatur
             ,
          
           after
           he
           had
           congratulated
           the
           present
           Age
           ,
           that
           amongst
           the
           many
           Advantages
           accrewing
           to
           it
           from
           the
           Cartesian
           Philosophers
           ,
           they
           had
           made
           those
           Things
           plain
           ,
           easy
           and
           obvious
           to
           the
           World
           ,
           which
           our
           Ancestors
           had
           represented
           as
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           (
           i.e.
           )
           unsearchable
           and
           unintelligible
           :
           He
           proceeds
           to
           these
           Passages
           with
           reference
           to
           the
           
             Trinity
             ,
             Mysterium
             illu●
             quod
             hactenus
             Theologis
             omnibus
             crucem
             fixit
             ,
             facile
             explicatu
             esse
             ,
             modò
             recta
             ineatur
             via
             ,
             contendimus
             ,
             p.
          
           96.
           and
           that
           he
           himself
           took
           this
           right
           way
           of
           explaining
           it
           ,
           he
           all
           along
           supposes
           .
           And
           again
           ,
           p.
           99.
           
           
             Horum
             alterutrum
             fuisse
             oportet
             ,
             vel
             S.
             Trinitatis
          
           Mysterium
           facile
           tum
           conceptu
           fuisse
           
             (
             scil
             .
             Temporibus
             Apostolorum
             )
             vel
             nullum
             tale
             Mysterium
             ,
             quale
             hodie
             creditur
             ,
             ab
             Apostolis
             fuisse
             praedicatum
             .
          
           Again
           ,
           p.
           100.
           
           He
           tells
           his
           Friend
           (
           and
           that
           with
           Equal
           Impudence
           and
           Falshood
           )
           that
           upon
           the
           Principles
           of
           the
           Reformed
           Churches
           ,
           
             Necesse
             est
             fatearis
             ,
             nihil
             esse
             in
             hoc
             negotio
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             ,
             idque
             clarâ
             ,
             nisi
             fallor
             ,
             explicatione
             verum
             esse
             non
             frustra
             Tibi
             ostendemus
             .
          
           And
           again
           ,
           p.
           102.
           
           
             Incomprehensibilis
             non
             aliâ
             de
             causa
             habita
             est
             S.
             Trinitas
             ,
             quàm
             quia
             hactenus
             Theologorum
             omnium
             scopulus
             fuit
             ,
             non
             quòd
             in
             se
             capi
             non
             possit
             ,
          
           &c.
           
           So
           that
           we
           have
           here
           furnished
           our
           Author
           with
           some
           
             Theological
             Vse
          
           of
           that
           Expression
           (
           thanks
           to
           
             Le
             Clerk
          
           for
           it
           )
           
             That
             the
             Notion
             of
             a
             Trinity
             is
             a
             plain
             and
             easy
             Notion
             ,
             and
             contians
             a
             full
             solutionn
             of
             all
             doubts
             and
             difficulties
             belonging
             to
             it
             .
          
           But
           then
           we
           are
           
           to
           take
           notice
           withal
           ,
           that
           we
           must
           not
           think
           to
           attain
           to
           such
           a
           Notion
           of
           it
           but
           conditionally
           ,
           viz.
           by
           following
           the
           Explications
           he
           gives
           us
           in
           his
           forementioned
           Epistle
           ,
           
             De
             Vnione
             Hypostaticâ
          
           ,
           &c.
           nor
           can
           we
           (
           as
           he
           tells
           us
           )
           make
           use
           of
           the
           Notions
           there
           laid
           down
           by
           him
           ,
           to
           any
           purpose
           ,
           without
           a
           previous
           and
           thorough
           knowledge
           of
           the
           Cartesian
           Method
           .
           p.
           7.
           (
           as
           indeed
           nothing
           can
           be
           so
           kindly
           as
           a
           
             New
             Philosophy
          
           to
           graft
           a
           
             New
             Divinity
          
           upon
           )
           .
           Well
           then
           ,
           in
           this
           his
           first
           Epistle
           he
           asserts
           (
           as
           he
           does
           likewise
           in
           the
           Two
           next
           ,
           )
           That
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           are
           
             Tres
             distinctae
             Cogitationes
          
           ,
           or
           
             distincti
             modi
             cogitandi
          
           ,
           or
           
             Distinctae
             Series
             Cogitationum
          
           ,
           in
           one
           and
           the
           same
           
             Divine
             Essence
          
           or
           Nature
           ,
           sustaining
           the
           said
           three
           Cogitations
           or
           Modes
           ,
           or
           Series
           of
           Cogitation
           .
           He
           defines
           also
           Cogitation
           to
           be
           
             quicquid
             in
             mente
             nostrâ
             fit
             cujus
             conscii
             sumus
             ,
             p.
          
           5.
           which
           manifestly
           implies
           and
           amounts
           to
           Self-Consciousness
           .
           From
           which
           particulars
           so
           prepared
           ,
           it
           is
           not
           unlikely
           but
           that
           our
           Author
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           old
           Rule
           of
           
             Inventis
             addendi
          
           ,
           might
           carry
           the
           Notion
           something
           further
           ,
           and
           improve
           the
           Three
           Cogitationes
           into
           Three
           
             Spiritus
             aut
             mentes
             Cogitantes
          
           (
           
             Substantia
             Cogitans
          
           being
           the
           Definition
           which
           
             Le
             Clerk
          
           gives
           of
           a
           
             Spirit
             ,
             p.
          
           6.
           )
           So
           that
           as
           
             Le
             Clerk
          
           had
           provided
           three
           
             distinct
             Cogitations
          
           or
           Self-Consciousnesses
           ,
           our
           Author
           might
           very
           easily
           find
           out
           
             three
             distinct
             Minds
          
           or
           Spirits
           for
           them
           to
           belong
           to
           :
           especially
           since
           
             Le
             Clerk
          
           had
           also
           marked
           him
           out
           a
           way
           to
           Vnite
           those
           
             Three
             Spirits
          
           again
           in
           that
           Proposition
           laid
           down
           by
           him
           ,
           p.
           7.
           
           
             Spiritus
             per
             solam
             Cogitationem
             Vniri
             possunt
             ,
          
           which
           might
           naturally
           enough
           lead
           our
           Author
           to
           some
           Acquaintance
           with
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
          
           too
           .
           And
           then
           for
           
             three
             Distinct
             Infinite
             
             Spirits
          
           ,
           which
           make
           the
           third
           part
           of
           his
           Hypothesis
           ,
           though
           
             Le
             Clerk
          
           (
           as
           we
           have
           observed
           )
           says
           nothing
           of
           them
           here
           ,
           yet
           in
           his
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           or
           Metaphysicks
           ,
           he
           speaks
           of
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           ,
           as
           of
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           United
           .
           Which
           Opinion
           (
           he
           says
           )
           is
           Platonick
           and
           Intelligible
           ;
           and
           prefers
           it
           before
           that
           of
           
             One
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           extended
           to
           
             Three
             distinct
             Cogitations
          
           ,
           or
           distinguished
           by
           
             Three
             Self-Consciousnesses
          
           .
           Which
           he
           says
           (
           as
           this
           Author
           says
           also
           )
           was
           taught
           by
           the
           Fathers
           ,
           though
           they
           knew
           not
           how
           to
           express
           .
           it
           Intelligibly
           :
           and
           indeed
           is
           the
           same
           which
           he
           himself
           pretends
           to
           hold
           in
           these
           
             Theological
             Epistles
          
           .
           So
           that
           ,
           although
           ,
           I
           readily
           own
           the
           Difference
           of
           these
           Two
           Men's
           Hypotheses
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           different
           molds
           they
           have
           cast
           them
           into
           ,
           yet
           since
           
             Le
             Clerk
          
           has
           furnished
           out
           
             Three
             Self-Consciousnesses
          
           ,
           and
           found
           out
           a
           way
           of
           
             Vniting
             Spirits
             by
             Mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           and
           lastly
           preferred
           the
           Platonick
           Opinion
           
             of
             Three
             Infinite
             Vnited
             Spirits
             or
             Minds
             ,
          
           I
           cannot
           for
           my
           life
           perswade
           my self
           ,
           but
           that
           this
           Author
           took
           his
           Hints
           and
           Rise
           from
           
             Le
             Clerk
          
           ,
           and
           by
           a
           very
           little
           adding
           and
           changing
           made
           a
           shift
           to
           patch
           up
           an
           Hypothesis
           of
           his
           own
           ,
           out
           of
           Le
           Clerk's
           Materials
           ;
           no
           other
           objection
           appearing
           to
           me
           against
           it
           but
           that
           Le
           Clerk's
           Book
           was
           wrote
           in
           Latine
           .
           But
           I
           leave
           it
           to
           the
           Learned
           and
           impartial
           Reader
           to
           judge
           of
           this
           .
           As
           for
           the
           Book
           here
           spoken
           of
           ,
           it
           is
           a
           small
           Octavo
           Printed
           at
           Saumur
           in
           France
           (
           though
           expressed
           in
           the
           Title
           Page
           by
           Irenopolis
           )
           .
           
             Anno
             Domini
          
           1679.
           
           And
           very
           narrowly
           escaped
           being
           burnt
           there
           also
           for
           the
           Heresy
           contained
           in
           it
           ;
           some
           good
           Friends
           of
           his
           (
           it
           seems
           )
           then
           in
           power
           ,
           stopping
           the
           Sentence
           ,
           and
           so
           preventing
           the
           Disgrace
           .
           As
           no
           doubt
           this
           Author
           
           also
           has
           found
           several
           good
           Friends
           of
           the
           same
           sort
           ,
           who
           have
           stepped
           in
           between
           his
           writings
           and
           the
           catching
           Element
           :
           though
           many
           Worthy
           and
           wise
           Men
           are
           still
           of
           Opinion
           ,
           that
           the
           flame
           which
           these
           wretched
           Papers
           have
           already
           kindled
           in
           our
           Poor
           Church
           ,
           will
           hardly
           go
           out
           ,
           till
           the
           Church
           has
           paid
           its
           debt
           by
           kindling
           another
           upon
           Them.
           
        
         
           And
           thus
           I
           have
           examined
           and
           gone
           over
           the
           first
           general
           part
           of
           his
           Book
           ,
           giving
           us
           the
           same
           account
           again
           (
           which
           his
           Vindication
           had
           given
           us
           before
           )
           of
           his
           dull
           ,
           heavy
           Hypothesis
           .
           Heavy
           indeed
           in
           it self
           ,
           but
           made
           ten
           times
           more
           so
           by
           the
           Repetition
           .
           And
           so
           I
           pass
           to
           the
           other
           general
           part
           of
           his
           work
           containing
           his
           pretended
           Answers
           to
           the
           
           Animadverter's
           Arguments
           .
           But
           before
           I
           enter
           upon
           this
           ,
           I
           have
           something
           to
           account
           with
           him
        
         
           First
           ,
           Concerning
           the
           Use
           of
           the
           School-Terms
           in
           general
           ;
           and
           Secondly
           concerning
           one
           more
           particularly
           used
           in
           the
           Animadversions
           .
        
         
           1.
           
           As
           to
           the
           first
           of
           these
           ,
           which
           this
           Author
           with
           so
           much
           Insolence
           and
           Ignorance
           ,
           professedly
           explodes
           ,
           it
           is
           known
           ,
           that
           they
           have
           been
           ,
           and
           are
           universally
           received
           ,
           owned
           ,
           and
           made
           use
           of
           in
           all
           matters
           of
           Scholastick
           Debate
           ,
           and
           Argumentation
           by
           Men
           of
           Learning
           all
           the
           World
           over
           .
           For
           besides
           ,
           that
           there
           is
           no
           Art
           ,
           Science
           or
           Profession
           whatsoever
           ,
           but
           what
           has
           its
           peculiar
           Words
           and
           Terms
           appropriate
           to
           it
           ,
           whereby
           the
           skilful
           in
           the
           said
           Art
           express
           their
           Notions
           ,
           and
           Conceptions
           of
           the
           Things
           belonging
           to
           it
           ,
           I
           would
           fain
           have
           this
           Opiniator
           tell
           me
           ,
           whether
           the
           Community
           of
           the
           World
           ,
           and
           Philosophers
           consider
           the
           ●am●
           Things
           after
           the
           same
           manner
           ?
           and
           if
           they
           do
           〈◊〉
           whether
           they
           can
           or
           ought
           to
           speak
           of
           them
           
           in
           the
           same
           manner
           or
           no
           ?
           Men
           in
           common
           converse
           apprehend
           things
           only
           in
           their
           gross
           bulk
           ,
           as
           they
           incur
           into
           their
           Senses
           ;
           but
           as
           long
           a
           Reason
           and
           the
           Mind
           of
           Man
           refines
           upon
           the
           reports
           as
           Sence
           (
           which
           is
           the
           proper
           business
           of
           Philosophy
           )
           it
           will
           form
           to
           it self
           several
           distinct
           Conceptions
           of
           the
           same
           Things
           ,
           which
           the
           generality
           of
           Men
           take
           no
           notice
           of
           ;
           and
           accordingly
           it
           must
           either
           find
           ,
           or
           make
           different
           Terms
           ,
           or
           words
           to
           express
           these
           different
           Conceptions
           by
           :
           And
           this
           ,
           Great
           Sir
           ,
           by
           your
           leave
           ,
           gave
           Rise
           to
           
             Philosophical
             Terms
          
           ,
           which
           so
           much
           offend
           you
           .
           And
           moreover
           ,
           as
           long
           as
           there
           is
           Ambiguity
           in
           words
           founded
           upon
           one
           and
           the
           same
           word
           's
           signifying
           several
           Things
           ,
           it
           will
           be
           impossible
           to
           discourse
           exactly
           and
           scientifically
           of
           the
           Nature
           of
           Things
           ,
           without
           distinguishing
           and
           sorting
           out
           these
           Significations
           :
           And
           this
           was
           the
           occasion
           and
           ground
           of
           
             Philosophical
             Distinctions
          
           .
           And
           ,
           now
           let
           this
           Man
           (
           to
           make
           his
           Ignorance
           of
           these
           Terms
           and
           distinctions
           seem
           the
           result
           of
           his
           Judgment
           and
           his
           Choice
           )
           laugh
           at
           all
           this
           if
           he
           pleases
           ,
           (
           for
           
             Ridet
             saepe
             ,
             qui
             ridendus
             est
          
           )
           but
           ,
           for
           all
           that
           ,
           the
           sober
           and
           learned
           part
           of
           the
           World
           will
           not
           be
           put
           off
           so
           .
           There
           is
           an
           admirable
           Discourse
           in
           the
           Ninth
           Book
           of
           
           Politian's
           Epistles
           ,
           wrote
           by
           
             Picus
             Mirandula
          
           ,
           in
           defence
           of
           the
           Schoolmen
           ,
           and
           their
           Terms
           ,
           to
           his
           Friend
           
             Hermolaus
             Barbarus
          
           ;
           who
           being
           Ignorant
           of
           them
           (
           as
           this
           Man
           and
           his
           Followers
           are
           )
           very
           ridiculously
           despised
           and
           scoffed
           at
           them
           ,
           as
           they
           likewise
           do
           .
           And
           the
           whole
           Epistle
           is
           wrote
           with
           so
           much
           strength
           of
           Reason
           ,
           such
           a
           felicity
           ,
           and
           true
           stroke
           of
           Wit
           ,
           joined
           with
           an
           equal
           Elegancy
           of
           style
           ,
           that
           (
           were
           it
           not
           wrote
           in
           Latine
           )
           I
           would
           desire
           this
           despiser
           of
           the
           Schools
           
           to
           try
           his
           skill
           in
           answering
           it
           .
           Matters
           therefore
           standing
           thus
           ,
           all
           the
           Question
           now
           will
           be
           ,
           whether
           such
           as
           
             Albertus
             Magnus
             ,
             Thomas
             Aquinas
             ,
             Scotus
             ,
          
           and
           Durandus
           amongst
           the
           Ancienter
           ,
           and
           
             Suarez
             ,
             Estius
          
           ,
           and
           Valentia
           amongst
           the
           later
           Schoolmen
           ,
           or
           such
           Punyes
           as
           this
           Author
           (
           of
           whose
           learned
           accomplishments
           we
           have
           so
           fair
           a
           Specimen
           in
           the
           ninth
           and
           tenth
           Chapters
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           )
           be
           the
           fitter
           Persons
           to
           prescribe
           proper
           Terms
           ,
           Rules
           ,
           and
           ways
           of
           Expression
           to
           treat
           of
           Philosophical
           and
           Theological
           matters
           by
           ?
           And
           more
           particularly
           ,
           whether
           
             Essence
             ,
             Substance
             ,
             Modes
             of
             Being
             ,
             Person
             ,
             Subsistence
             ,
             Relation
          
           and
           the
           like
           ;
           Or
           
             Spiritual
             Sensation
          
           (
           which
           is
           a
           Contradiction
           in
           the
           Terms
           )
           or
           
             Conscious
             Sensation
          
           (
           which
           is
           as
           much
           as
           
             knowing
             Knowledge
          
           )
           or
           
             Self-Conscious
             Sensation
          
           ,
           and
           
             mutual
             Conscious
             Sensation
          
           ,
           and
           
             natural
             Self-Conscious
             Sensation
          
           ,
           and
           
             Natural
             Mutual
             Conscious
             Sensation
          
           ,
           together
           with
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           and
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           and
           
             continuity
             of
             Sensation
          
           .
           I
           say
           ,
           whether
           these
           latter
           (
           which
           are
           the
           arrantest
           
             Cant
             ,
             Gibberish
          
           ,
           and
           
             Behmenistical
             Nonsence
          
           that
           ever
           the
           Christian
           Church
           and
           Religion
           were
           abused
           with
           )
           or
           the
           former
           Terms
           used
           by
           the
           School-men
           ,
           and
           all
           other
           Divines
           for
           several
           Ages
           ,
           be
           the
           fitter
           and
           more
           significant
           to
           treat
           of
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           and
           Persons
           by
           .
           I
           say
           again
           ,
           let
           Christendom
           and
           the
           whole
           World
           (
           except
           a
           few
           Novellists
           )
           be
           Judges
           of
           this
           .
           I
           do
           not
           deny
           ,
           nor
           does
           any
           one
           else
           that
           I
           know
           ,
           but
           that
           there
           is
           some
           Refuse
           in
           this
           sort
           of
           Writers
           :
           And
           that
           was
           all
           that
           the
           R.
           R.
           Antapologist
           reflected
           upon
           in
           his
           Answer
           to
           this
           Author
           's
           Illiterate
           Apology
           .
           So
           that
           he
           need
           not
           ,
           poor
           Man
           ,
           be
           so
           much
           at
           a
           loss
           to
           guess
           how
           this
           matter
           about
           
           the
           Schoolmen
           
             will
             be
             accorded
          
           (
           as
           he
           says
           )
           between
           the
           Antapologist
           ,
           
           and
           the
           Animadverter
           .
           For
           both
           of
           them
           profess
           themselves
           much
           more
           at
           a
           loss
           how
           to
           reconcile
           this
           Man
           to
           himself
           ;
           and
           withal
           know
           very
           well
           how
           to
           distinguish
           between
           what
           is
           useful
           and
           valuable
           in
           the
           Writings
           of
           the
           Schoolmen
           ,
           and
           what
           is
           useless
           and
           superfluous
           :
           but
           own
           themselves
           utterly
           unable
           ,
           in
           the
           Writings
           of
           this
           Author
           ,
           to
           find
           or
           make
           any
           such
           distinction
           .
           Now
           after
           this
           account
           of
           the
           School-Terms
           in
           general
           ,
           I
           come
           in
           the
        
         
           Second
           place
           to
           give
           some
           account
           also
           of
           that
           particular
           Term
           [
           
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             a
             Thing
          
           ]
           frequently
           made
           use
           of
           in
           the
           Animadversions
           ;
           which
           ,
           though
           sufficiently
           explained
           in
           the
           second
           Chapter
           of
           them
           ,
           I
           shall
           however
           take
           into
           some
           further
           consideration
           ;
           since
           this
           Author
           would
           fain
           avoid
           any
           Argument
           couched
           under
           it
           ,
           by
           pleading
           that
           the
           Term
           it self
           is
           none
           of
           his
           .
           Which
           indeed
           is
           readily
           granted
           him
           ;
           but
           yet
           ,
           if
           he
           asserts
           
             the
             Thing
          
           ,
           (
           as
           he
           often
           does
           )
           and
           the
           Animadverter
           puts
           it
           for
           him
           into
           a
           proper
           Scholastical
           Term
           ,
           and
           so
           fits
           it
           the
           better
           for
           Argumentation
           ,
           the
           Term
           ,
           I
           assure
           him
           ,
           will
           affect
           him
           ,
           and
           his
           Arguments
           ,
           whether
           he
           will
           admit
           and
           make
           use
           of
           it
           or
           no
           :
           for
           the
           Animadverter
           will
           be
           judged
           by
           his
           Reader
           who
           understands
           Him
           ,
           and
           not
           by
           his
           Adversary
           who
           does
           not
           .
           Well
           then
           ;
           by
           [
           
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             a
             Thing
          
           ]
           the
           Animadverter
           understands
           that
           
             Internal
             Principle
             which
             makes
             a
             Thing
             to
             be
             what
             it
             is
             .
          
           And
           as
           Vnity
           inseparably
           attends
           Being
           ,
           and
           distinction
           accompanies
           Vnity
           ,
           the
           same
           is
           the
           Principle
           of
           all
           these
           ;
           since
           that
           ,
           which
           internally
           makes
           a
           Thing
           such
           or
           such
           a
           Being
           ,
           thereby
           also
           makes
           it
           one
           in
           it self
           ,
           and
           distinguishes
           it
           from
           all
           other
           Things
           besides
           .
           For
           still
           ,
           
           according
           to
           all
           Philosophy
           ,
           
             Idem
             est
             Principium
             Constitutivum
             &
             Distinctivum
          
           ;
           So
           that
           as
           every
           Thing
           is
           constituted
           in
           such
           an
           order
           of
           Being
           by
           
             what
             it
             is
          
           ,
           so
           it
           is
           distinguished
           also
           by
           
             what
             it
             is
          
           from
           every
           Thing
           
             which
             it
             is
             not
          
           .
           And
           for
           this
           Cause
           the
           Principle
           here
           spoken
           of
           is
           called
           [
           Formal
           ]
           because
           it
           is
           the
           Form
           (
           taking
           the
           word
           in
           its
           larger
           sence
           as
           it
           comprehends
           also
           Essence
           )
           which
           makes
           a
           Thing
           to
           be
           of
           such
           a
           Nature
           ,
           and
           withal
           gives
           it
           
             Vnity
             ,
             Distinction
          
           ,
           and
           Denomination
           .
           And
           upon
           the
           same
           Account
           also
           ,
           the
           Term
           [
           Reason
           ]
           is
           added
           to
           the
           Term
           [
           Formal
           ]
           to
           shew
           ▪
           That
           this
           gives
           the
           Natural
           and
           Proper
           Answer
           to
           the
           Question
           ,
           
             why
             a
             Thing
             is
             such
             or
             such
             ,
             thus
             or
             thus
             ?
          
           As
           if
           ,
           for
           Instance
           ,
           it
           should
           be
           asked
           ,
           why
           or
           for
           what
           Reason
           a
           Beast
           is
           said
           to
           be
           a
           sensible
           Creature
           ?
           the
           Answer
           is
           ,
           because
           it
           has
           an
           Internal
           Principle
           of
           sence
           which
           renders
           it
           so
           ;
           so
           that
           this
           Principle
           of
           sence
           is
           the
           
             Formal
             Reason
          
           ,
           whereby
           it
           is
           both
           constituted
           and
           denominated
           sensible
           .
           And
           the
           like
           is
           to
           be
           said
           of
           other
           .
           Things
           in
           the
           like
           Case
           .
           This
           is
           the
           Account
           ,
           which
           I
           give
           of
           the
           meaning
           of
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Formal
             Reason
          
           ,
           ]
           as
           it
           occurs
           in
           the
           
             Animadversions
             ,
             viz.
             That
             it
             is
             that
             Internal
             Principle
             ,
             which
             makes
             a
             Thing
             to
             be
             what
             it
             is
             ,
          
           to
           be
           one
           in
           it self
           ,
           and
           distinct
           from
           all
           other
           Things
           ,
           which
           it
           is
           not
           ;
           and
           lastly
           ,
           is
           the
           Natural
           and
           Proper
           .
           Answer
           to
           all
           Enquiries
           
             à
             Priore
             ,
             why
          
           or
           how
           a
           Thing
           comes
           to
           be
           essentially
           such
           or
           such
           ,
           according
           to
           its
           respective
           Denomination
           ?
           Of
           all
           which
           this
           Author
           being
           wholly
           ignorant
           ,
           he
           thinks
           he
           has
           so
           entirely
           cleared
           himself
           of
           
             this
             Term
          
           ,
           and
           whatsoever
           has
           been
           argued
           against
           him
           ,
           under
           it
           ,
           That
           he
           declares
           with
           Triumph
           ,
           p.
           78.
           l.
           10.
           
           
             That
             if
             the
          
           Animadverter
           
             thinks
             fit
             to
             try
             his
             skill
             
             again
             upon
             this
             Argumen●
             ,
             he
             believes
             he
             shall
             hear
             no
             more
             of
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Pe●sonality
             and
             Vnion
          
           ]
           nor
           of
           other
           such
           like
           Term●
           .
           But
           this
           poor
           Man
           should
           remember
           how
           unhappy
           he
           has
           been
           in
           his
           Prophecies
           .
           For
           so
           he
           had
           said
           before
           both
           of
           the
           Socinians
           ,
           and
           of
           the
           most
           learned
           Answerer
           of
           the
           Vindication
           of
           his
           Case
           ,
           &c.
           viz.
           
             That
             he
             belie●ed
             that
             he
             should
             hear
             from
             them
             no
             more
          
           ;
           when
           yet
           he
           has
           heard
           from
           them
           Both
           ;
           and
           that
           in
           a
           strain
           so
           much
           above
           his
           low
           Talent
           ,
           that
           few
           believe
           ,
           that
           either
           of
           them
           will
           ever
           hear
           more
           from
           him
           :
           and
           if
           ●s
           (
           they
           say
           )
           
             s●●ing
             is
             believing
          
           ,
           so
           f●●ling
           be
           bel●●ving
           too
           ,
           I
           doubt
           not
           but
           by
           this
           time
           he
           Himself
           also
           is
           o●
           the
           same
           Opinion
           .
           And
           accordingly
           ,
           I
           do
           here
           assure
           this
           Man
           of
           Presumption
           ,
           that
           I
           shall
           produce
           this
           and
           the
           like
           Terms
           in
           all
           Disputes
           with
           him
           again
           and
           again
           (
           having
           herein
           the
           Company
           of
           all
           the
           
             Eminent
             Scholastick
             Writers
          
           ,
           both
           in
           Philosophy
           and
           Divinity
           ,
           constantly
           using
           and
           avowing
           the
           use
           of
           them
           :
           )
           and
           I
           doubt
           not
           but
           in
           the
           strength
           of
           them
           to
           break
           through
           all
           the
           
             Co●●●b
             Argumentations
          
           of
           this
           his
           Sophistical
           and
           slight
           Discourse
           .
        
         
           And
           so
           I
           go
           on
           ▪
           But
           before
           I
           come
           particularly
           to
           examine
           his
           shifting
           Answers
           to
           the
           
           Animadverter's
           Arguments
           ,
           I
           think
           fit
           to
           lay
           before
           the
           Reader
           the
           plain
           and
           true
           state
           of
           the
           Point
           between
           this
           Author
           and
           him
           ;
           as
           the
           most
           unexceptionable
           Rule
           ,
           whereby
           the
           Reader
           is
           desired
           to
           judge
           between
           them
           both
           .
        
         
           Now
           the
           Chief
           Heads
           of
           dispute
           between
           them
           are
           these
           Three
           .
        
         
           First
           ,
           Concerning
           Self-Consciousness
           :
           and
           what
           dependance
           the
           Personality
           and
           
             Personal
             Vnity
          
           of
           Persons
           ,
           both
           Create
           and
           Uncreate
           has
           upon
           it
           .
        
         
         
           Secondly
           ,
           Touching
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ;
           and
           how
           far
           the
           
             Essential
             Vnity
          
           of
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           in
           one
           and
           the
           same
           
             Numerical
             Divine
             Nature
          
           depends
           upon
           it
           .
           And
        
         
           Thirdly
           ,
           Whether
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           are
           
             Three
             Distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ,
           or
           Spirits
           ,
           or
           no.
           
        
         
           Concerning
           all
           which
           severally
           the
           Reader
           is
           in
           the
           first
           place
           to
           observe
           ,
           That
           this
           Author
           makes
           Self-Consciousness
           both
           in
           Beings
           Create
           and
           Uncreate
           ,
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           Personality
           ,
           and
           
             Personal
             Vnity
             ,
             viz.
             That
             ,
             which
          
           [
           makes
           ]
           
             a
             Person
             to
             be
             formally
             a
             Person
             ,
          
           and
           
             formally
             one
             in
             himself
          
           ;
           or
           (
           in
           other
           words
           )
           that
           ,
           wherein
           his
           Personal
           Being
           ,
           Unity
           ,
           and
           Original
           Distinction
           from
           other
           things
           
             does
             consist
          
           .
           And
           so
           in
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           for
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           he
           makes
           the
           Essential
           Unity
           of
           Nature
           ,
           or
           Essence
           belonging
           to
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           to
           consist
           formally
           in
           their
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           .
           So
           that
           it
           is
           this
           which
           renders
           them
           formally
           
             one
             in
             Nature
             or
             Essence
          
           .
           And
           lastly
           ,
           He
           positively
           affirms
           ,
           that
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             in
             the
             Godhead
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             ,
          
           and
           
             that
             it
             is
             Heresy
             and
             Non-sence
             to
             affirm
             otherwise
             .
          
           Vind.
           p.
           66.
           l.
           25.
           
        
         
           Thus
           he
           holds
           ,
           and
           asserts
           concerning
           these
           Three
           disputed
           Points
           ,
           as
           will
           appear
           from
           the
           following
           Passages
           in
           his
           Books
           ,
           concerning
           each
           of
           them
           .
           And
        
         
           1.
           
           For
           
             Self-Consciousness
             .
             The
             Self-Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             ,
          
           says
           he
           (
           universally
           by
           the
           way
           reckoning
           
             a
             Spirit
             a
             Person
          
           )
           
             can
             be
             nothing
             else
             but
             Self-Consciousness
             ,
          
           viz.
           
             That
             it
             is
             Conscious
             to
             its
             own
             Thoughts
             ,
             Reasonings
             ,
             Passions
             ,
          
           which
           
             no
             other
             Spirit
             is
             conscious
             to
             but
             it self
             ,
          
           Vind.
           p.
           48.
           l.
           32.
           
           
             This
             makes
             a
             Spirit
             numerically
             one
             .
          
           
           Vind.
           p.
           49.
           l.
           2.
           
           The
           
             Self-Consciousness
             of
             every
             Person
             to
             it self
          
           (
           viz.
           
             of
             the
             Father
             ,
             Son
             ,
             and
             Holy
             Ghost
          
           )
           [
           makes
           ]
           
             them
             Three
             Distinct
             Persons
          
           ,
           Vind.
           p.
           68.
           l.
           5.
           
           And
           ,
           
             we
             know
             no
             other
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
             but
             Consciousness
             ,
          
           Ibid.
           
             The
             Essential
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           consists
           
             in
             Self-Consciousness
             ,
             and
             it
             is
             nothing
             else
             ,
             which
             makes
             a
             Spirit
             one
             and
             distinguishes
             it
             from
             all
             other
             Spirits
             ,
          
           Vind.
           p.
           47.
           l.
           15.
           
           
             The
             very
             Nature
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           consists
           
             in
             Internal
             ,
             vital
             Sensation
          
           ,
           Defence
           p.
           7.
           l.
           11.
           
           
             The
             Vnity
             of
             a
             single
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
          
           consists
           
             in
             a
             Natural
             Self-Conscious
             Sensation
          
           (
           Internal
           Sensation
           and
           Self-Sensation
           being
           still
           with
           this
           Author
           the
           same
           with
           Self-Consciousness
           )
           Defence
           p.
           7.
           l.
           29.
           
           
             A
             Natural
             Self-Consciousness
          
           makes
           
             one
             Natural
             Person
          
           ,
           Defence
           p.
           8.
           l.
           7.
           
           
             And
             Self-Consciousness
          
           makes
           
             a
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
             one
             with
             it self
             ,
             and
             distinguishes
             or
             separates
             it
             from
             all
             other
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             ,
          
           Defence
           p.
           43.
           l.
           1
           ,
           2
           ,
           3.
           
           And
           last
           of
           all
           ,
           more
           plainly
           .
           
             If
             this
             be
             what
             he
          
           (
           the
           Animadverter
           )
           
             means
             by
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             ,
          
           viz.
           
             That
             which
          
           makes
           
             a
             Mind
             ,
             Spirit
             ,
             or
             Person
             one
             ,
             and
             either
             distinguishes
             or
             separates
             it
             from
             all
             other
             Minds
             ,
             Spirits
             or
             Persons
             ,
          
           I
           do
           affirm
           ,
           that
           Self-Consciousness
           is
           [
           
             this
             formal
             Reason
          
           .
           ]
           Defence
           p.
           38.
           l.
           7
           ,
           8
           ,
           9
           ,
           &c.
           
           I
           think
           it
           extremely
           needless
           to
           cite
           any
           more
           passages
           upon
           this
           head
           ;
           these
           being
           super-abundantly
           sufficient
           to
           prove
           ,
           That
           all
           that
           is
           contained
           in
           ,
           and
           signified
           by
           [
           
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             a
             Thing
          
           ]
           is
           by
           this
           Author
           here
           ascribed
           to
           and
           affirmed
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           with
           reference
           to
           
             Personality
             ,
             Personal
             Vnity
          
           and
           Distinction
           :
           and
           that
           therefore
           his
           Rejection
           of
           the
           Term
           ,
           while
           he
           so
           amply
           asserts
           the
           Thing
           ,
           is
           groundless
           ,
           and
           indeed
           Senceless
           and
           Ridiculous
           .
           But
        
         
         
           Secondly
           ,
           As
           touching
           the
           next
           head
           in
           dispute
           which
           is
           Mutual-Consciousness
           ,
           he
           has
           these
           following
           Assertions
           ,
           
             Father
             ,
             Son
             and
             Holy
             Ghost
             ,
             a●●
             one
             by
             an
             Internal
             Consciousness
             ,
             as
             every
             Man
             is
             one
             with
             himself
             ,
             that
             is
             ,
             they
             feel
             each
             other
             in
             themselves
             ,
             and
             they
             are
             as
             essentially
             one
             by
             a
             mutual
             Consciousness
             as
             every
             Man
             is
             one
             with
             himself
             ,
          
           Vind.
           p.
           56.
           l.
           6.
           
           
             As
             the
             Self-Consciousness
             of
             every
             Person
             to
             it self
          
           (
           viz.
           of
           every
           Person
           in
           the
           Godhead
           )
           makes
           
             the
             Three
             Distinct
             Persons
             ,
             so
             the
             mutual
             Consciousness
             of
             all
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           makes
           
             them
             all
             but
             one
             Infinite
             God
             ,
          
           Vind.
           p.
           68.
           l.
           5.
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           makes
           
             all
             Three
             Persons
             numerically
             one
             Divine
             Essence
             ,
             or
             one
             God
             ,
          
           Vind.
           p.
           84.
           l.
           29.
           
           
             The
             Three
             P●rsons
             are
             essentially
             one
             God
          
           by
           
             a
             mutual
             Self-Consciousness
          
           ,
           Vind.
           p.
           88.
           l.
           32
           ,
           33.
           
           
             The
             Three
             Minds
          
           (
           viz.
           The
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           )
           
             are
             all
             mutually
             conscious
             to
             each
             other
             ▪
             and
          
           therefore
           
             as
             essentially
             one
             ,
             as
             the
             same
             Mind
             is
             one
             with
             it self
             by
             a
             Self-Consciousness
             ,
          
           Vin.
           p.
           91.
           l.
           8.
           
           From
           all
           which
           it
           follows
           ,
           That
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           is
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           the
           
             Essential
             Vnity
          
           of
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           in
           one
           and
           the
           same
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           or
           (
           in
           other
           words
           ,
           )
           
             That
             which
          
           properly
           makes
           
             them
             one
             in
             Nature
          
           ,
           on
           lastly
           ,
           That
           wherein
           
             the
             Vnity
             and
             Identity
             of
             their
             Nature
             does
             formally
             and
             properly
          
           consist
           .
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           undeniably
           follows
           from
           the
           forementioned
           Passages
           cited
           out
           of
           this
           Author
           .
           And
           so
           I
           pass
           to
           the
        
         
           Third
           and
           last
           head
           in
           dispute
           ,
           viz.
           Whether
           
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             be
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             ?
          
           Which
           this
           Author
           positively
           affirms
           ;
           as
           appears
           from
           the
           following
           Passages
           .
           
             The
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             Father
             ,
             Son
             and
             Holy
             Ghost
             ,
             are
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             really
             distinct
             from
             each
             other
             ,
          
           
           Vind.
           p.
           50.
           line
           at
           the
           end
           .
           And
           they
           
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ,
           p.
           51.
           l.
           5.
           
           Again
           ,
           
             The
             Persons
             are
             Perfectly
             Distinct
             ,
             for
             they
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
             and
             therefore
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Persons
             ,
          
           and
           to
           say
           ,
           
             They
             are
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             and
             not
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             ,
             is
             both
             Heresy
             and
             Non-sence
             ,
          
           Vind.
           p.
           66.
           l.
           26.
           
           
             The
             Three
             Persons
             are
             Three
             Minds
             ,
             and
             therefore
             as
             distinct
             as
             Three
             Minds
             ,
          
           Vind.
           p.
           91.
           l.
           5.
           
           And
           again
           speaking
           of
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             I
             grant
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           that
           
             They
             are
             Three
             Holy
             Spirits
          
           ,
           Vind.
           p.
           258.
           l.
           28.
           
           And
           to
           add
           the
           Crowning
           and
           confirming
           Passage
           of
           all
           .
           If
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             every
             Person
             in
             the
             Trinity
             considered
             as
             a
             Distinct
             Person
             be
             not
             a
          
           Distinct
           Infinite
           
             and
             Eternal
             Mind
             ,
             there
             is
             ,
             I
             confess
             ,
             an
             end
             of
             the
             Dean's
             Notion
             ,
             but
             then
             ,
             I
             doubt
             ,
             there
             will
             be
             an
             end
             of
             a
             Trinity
             of
             Persons
             also
             ,
          
           &c.
           
           Defence
           p.
           8.
           l.
           24.
           25
           ,
           &c.
           
        
         
           All
           which
           are
           the
           Positive
           assertions
           of
           this
           Author
           ,
           and
           in
           all
           of
           them
           the
           Things
           asserted
           by
           him
           are
           as
           positively
           denied
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           .
           And
           I
           thought
           it
           highly
           necessary
           thus
           to
           draw
           them
           all
           together
           ,
           and
           lay
           them
           before
           the
           Reader
           ,
           that
           so
           he
           may
           with
           one
           easy
           turn
           of
           his
           Eye
           ,
           be
           able
           at
           any
           time
           to
           have
           a
           full
           view
           of
           this
           Author
           's
           whole
           Hypothesis
           ;
           and
           thereby
           to
           track
           him
           in
           all
           his
           Sophistical
           windings
           and
           shiftings
           ,
           in
           which
           he
           shall
           find
           him
           sometimes
           denying
           ,
           what
           he
           had
           before
           expresly
           affirmed
           ,
           and
           sometimes
           quite
           changing
           the
           state
           of
           the
           whole
           matter
           ;
           which
           ,
           I
           assure
           him
           ,
           is
           the
           whole
           design
           and
           artifice
           (
           such
           as
           it
           is
           )
           of
           this
           Book
           .
        
         
           And
           accordingly
           ,
           that
           I
           may
           from
           the
           Premises
           give
           a
           brief
           state
           of
           the
           Three
           forementioned
           heads
           The
           dispute
           here
           in
           the
           first
           place
           between
           this
           Author
           
           and
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           is
           not
           
             whether
             Self-Consciousness
             proves
             ,
             infers
          
           ,
           or
           
             declares
             Personality
             ,
             and
             Personal
             Vnity
             ,
             as
             a
             Sign
             or
             Effect
             of
             it
             ,
             or
             a
             Consequent
             from
             it
             ?
          
           For
           this
           is
           not
           the
           Question
           .
           But
           
             whether
             it
             be
          
           the
           
             Formal
             Reason
          
           of
           it
           ,
           or
           (
           in
           other
           words
           )
           
             that
             wherein
             the
             said
             Personality
             and
             Personal
             Vnity
             properly
             does
             consist
          
           ?
           which
           this
           Author
           has
           (
           and
           that
           in
           Terms
           signifying
           only
           
             à
             Priore
          
           )
           over
           and
           over
           affirmed
           ,
           and
           the
           Animadverter
           as
           positively
           denied
           and
           disproved
           .
           And
           therefore
           ,
           if
           this
           Author
           shall
           at
           any
           time
           take
           up
           with
           the
           former
           ,
           and
           say
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           all
           
             one
             to
             him
             ,
             if
             we
             allow
             Self-Consciousness
             to
          
           infer
           and
           prove
           
             Personality
             and
             Personal
             Vnity
             as
             the
             Sign
             ,
             Effect
             or
             Consequent
             thereof
             ,
             or
             affirm
             it
             ,
             in
             a
          
           Causal
           Sence
           ,
           
             to
             be
          
           the
           Reason
           
             of
             the
             same
          
           .
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           is
           manifestly
           t●
           change
           the
           Question
           ,
           and
           to
           give
           up
           the
           Thing
           in
           Controversie
           between
           him
           and
           his
           Adversary
           .
        
         
           In
           like
           manner
           ,
           for
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ;
           since
           it
           is
           allowed
           on
           both
           sides
           ,
           That
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           are
           one
           in
           Nature
           and
           Essence
           ,
           The
           Question
           is
           ,
           
             Whether
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             be
             that
          
           wherein
           
             this
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             or
             Essence
             does
          
           consist
           ,
           So
           that
           by
           Reason
           hereof
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           are
           formally
           One
           in
           Nature
           or
           Essence
           ?
           and
           not
           
             Whether
             this
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             proves
             ,
             infers
             ,
             or
             declares
             them
             to
             be
             thus
             One
             ?
          
           For
           this
           comes
           not
           up
           to
           the
           Point
           .
           And
           consequently
           if
           this
           Author
           says
           ,
           
             That
             he
             looks
             no
             further
             ,
             and
             means
             no
             more
             than
             this
             ,
          
           (
           as
           his
           Meaning
           is
           still
           a
           Bottomless
           Pit
           )
           he
           evidently
           abandons
           his
           own
           positive
           Assertion
           ,
           and
           effectually
           gives
           up
           the
           whole
           Matter
           in
           Dispute
           .
           For
           surely
           the
           
             Antecedent
             Reason
          
           of
           any
           Thing
           ,
           and
           the
           bare
           
             Sign
             ,
             Proof
             ,
             or
             Consequent
             
             of
             the
             same
          
           can
           never
           hold
           the
           same
           place
           in
           Argument
           ,
           nor
           produce
           the
           same
           Conclusion
           .
        
         
           And
           so
           likewise
           in
           the
           Third
           and
           last
           place
           ,
           the
           Question
           is
           not
           ,
           whether
           the
           Trinity
           be
           
             Three
             distinct
             Intelligent
             Persons
          
           ,
           (
           which
           in
           a
           rightly
           stated
           Sence
           is
           true
           )
           but
           whether
           these
           
             Persons
             be
             three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
          
           ?
           That
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           
             Three
             distinct
             Absolute
             Beings
             ,
             Essences
          
           or
           Substances
           ?
           which
           it
           is
           impossible
           for
           them
           in
           any
           Sence
           to
           be
           .
           And
           consequently
           for
           this
           Man
           to
           change
           the
           Term
           [
           Minds
           ]
           into
           that
           of
           [
           
             Intelligent
             Persons
          
           ]
           ,
           is
           quite
           to
           alter
           the
           Question
           ;
           and
           so
           ,
           to
           relinquish
           the
           Thing
           which
           he
           himself
           had
           so
           often
           ,
           and
           expresly
           asserted
           ;
           and
           that
           as
           the
           Principal
           part
           of
           his
           Hypothesis
           contended
           for
           :
           As
           shall
           be
           fully
           demonstrated
           when
           I
           come
           to
           debate
           this
           particular
           Head
           with
           him
           .
        
         
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           ,
           I
           have
           laid
           the
           Premises
           before
           the
           Reader
           ,
           as
           the
           true
           State
           of
           the
           Point
           ,
           and
           as
           the
           Measure
           ,
           which
           I
           will
           deal
           with
           this
           Man
           upon
           ,
           and
           resolve
           to
           hold
           him
           to
           .
           And
           so
           I
           address
           my self
           to
           the
           Examination
           of
           the
           Answers
           which
           he
           pretends
           to
           bring
           to
           the
           Animadverter's
           Arguments
           .
           Where
           I
           cannot
           but
           first
           observe
           the
           Complement
           which
           he
           ushers
           them
           in
           with
           ;
           viz.
           That
           the
           Animadverter
           in
           the
           very
           Entrance
           
             runs
             headlong
             past
             all
             recovery
          
           :
           which
           ,
           since
           it
           must
           needs
           bring
           his
           Head
           to
           the
           ground
           first
           ,
           I
           heartily
           wish
           him
           this
           Author's
           Forehead
           to
           endure
           it
           .
        
         
           But
           to
           come
           to
           his
           Answers
           ,
           The
           Animadverter
           having
           in
           direct
           contradiction
           to
           this
           Author
           ,
           denied
           Self-Consciousness
           to
           be
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           ,
           or
           Internal
           constituent
           Principle
           of
           Personality
           in
           Finite
           Persons
           ;
           This
           Author
           replies
           to
           him
           these
           Two
           Things
           .
        
         
         
           1.
           
           That
           he
           never
           said
           one
           word
           of
           
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
          
           ,
           in
           his
           whole
           Discourse
           upon
           the
           Trinity
           ;
           nor
           has
           at
           all
           concerned
           himself
           about
           it
           .
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           ,
           I
           here
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           though
           he
           uses
           not
           the
           Term
           it self
           ,
           yet
           if
           he
           asserts
           the
           Thing
           signified
           by
           the
           Term
           ,
           as
           he
           does
           by
           affirming
           ,
           that
           Self-Consciousness
           makes
           
             a
             Person
             to
             be
             properly
             what
             he
             is
             ,
          
           or
           in
           other
           words
           is
           
             that
             ,
             wherein
             his
             Personality
             ,
             or
             being
             a
             Person
             does
             consist
             ,
          
           This
           is
           all
           ,
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           expresses
           by
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
          
           ]
           and
           that
           he
           has
           affirmed
           this
           concerning
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           I
           refer
           the
           Reader
           to
           the
           Passages
           newly
           cited
           to
           this
           Purpose
           out
           of
           his
           Books
           ;
           which
           demonstrate
           the
           same
           beyond
           all
           pretence
           or
           possibility
           of
           denyal
           ,
        
         
           Secondly
           ,
           He
           says
           ,
           That
           it
           is
           only
           the
           
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             with
          
           it self
           and
           
             its
             distinct
             ,
             and
             separate
             Subsistence
             from
             all
             other
             Created
             Spirits
             ,
             which
          
           consists
           
             in
             Self-Consciousness
          
           .
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           this
           is
           that
           very
           Thing
           which
           the
           Animadverter
           affirms
           to
           be
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           a
           Thing
           ,
           viz.
           that
           which
           gives
           it
           Being
           ,
           Unity
           in
           it self
           ,
           and
           Distinction
           from
           all
           other
           Things
           .
           I
           mean
           the
           
             Principal
             ,
             Original
             Distinction
          
           ,
           by
           which
           it
           is
           so
           distinguished
           .
           So
           that
           the
           meaning
           of
           this
           Term
           being
           thus
           adjusted
           ,
           I
           shall
           ,
           without
           any
           further
           regard
           to
           this
           Author's
           Exceptions
           proceed
           to
           dispute
           the
           Thing
           it self
           in
           the
           Case
           now
           before
           us
           .
           In
           which
           he
           reasons
           thus
           ,
           p.
           37.
           at
           the
           end
           .
           
             If
             that
             be
             one
             distinct
             separate
             Mind
             which
             is
             conscious
             only
             to
             it self
             ,
             and
             feels
             all
             that
             is
             in
             it self
             ,
             and
             nothing
             else
             ,
             and
             those
             be
             Two
             distinct
             separate
             Minds
             ,
             each
             of
             which
             is
             thus
             conscious
             to
             it self
             ,
             and
             not
             to
             each
             other
             ,
             then
             the
             Dean
             has
             gained
             his
             Point
             .
          
           And
           no
           
           doubt
           he
           has
           ,
           if
           a
           
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
             's
             feeling
             it self
             one
             in
             it self
             ,
             makes
          
           it
           to
           be
           so
           .
           And
           its
           feeling
           
             it self
             a
             distinct
             ,
             and
             separate
             mind
             from
             all
             other
             minds
             ,
          
           gives
           it
           that
           distinction
           and
           separation
           :
           otherwise
           ,
           it
           is
           a
           most
           senceless
           and
           ridiculous
           Inconsequence
           :
           For
           the
           dispute
           here
           is
           ,
           Whether
           Self-Consciousness
           be
           the
           Principle
           and
           Reason
           of
           
             Personal
             Being
             and
             Vnity
          
           ,
           not
           whether
           it
           be
           the
           
             Proof
             of
             it
          
           ,
           or
           that
           whereby
           a
           Man
           comes
           
             to
             know
          
           this
           of
           himself
           ?
           This
           latter
           we
           may
           allow
           it
           to
           be
           ,
           but
           the
           former
           it
           can
           never
           be
           .
           For
           as
           much
           as
           the
           Consequent
           may
           indeed
           infer
           ,
           and
           prove
           both
           
             the
             Being
             and
             Vnity
          
           of
           the
           Antecedent
           ,
           but
           cause
           ,
           or
           give
           it
           ,
           it
           neither
           does
           ,
           nor
           can
           .
           So
           that
           when
           he
           says
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Dean
             has
             gained
             his
             Point
          
           ;
           I
           suppose
           he
           means
           
             his
             Deanry
          
           ;
           For
           otherwise
           certainly
           there
           was
           never
           a
           more
           absurd
           inference
           made
           by
           Man
           ,
           than
           to
           conclude
           ,
           that
           because
           a
           Spirit
           by
           an
           Intimate
           Self-Sensation
           (
           as
           he
           cants
           )
           feels
           it self
           to
           be
           one
           and
           not
           another
           ,
           therefore
           its
           feeling
           it self
           so
           ,
           is
           that
           very
           thing
           ,
           which
           makes
           it
           so
           .
           And
           yet
           so
           very
           fond
           is
           he
           of
           this
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           that
           there
           is
           no
           drawing
           or
           driving
           him
           off
           from
           it
           .
        
         
           But
           the
           Defender
           ,
           it
           seems
           ,
           will
           prove
           his
           Point
           against
           the
           Animadverter
           from
           his
           own
           Maxime
           laid
           down
           in
           the
           third
           Chapter
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           page
           70.
           
             viz.
             That
             wheresoever
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             is
             ,
             there
             is
             Personality
             :
          
           And
           again
           ,
           
             That
             wheresoever
             Personality
             is
             ,
             there
             is
             the
             Formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             ,
          
           viz.
           
             That
             they
             exist
             convertibly
             ,
             and
             mutually
             ,
             and
             essentially
             infer
             one
             Another
             .
          
           Whereupon
           the
           Defender
           argues
           thus
           .
           That
           since
           there
           is
           such
           a
           convertible
           Existence
           between
           Person
           and
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           as
           the
           
             Proprium
             quarto
             modo
          
           of
           it
           ,
           So
           that
           they
           mutually
           infer
           one
           another
           ,
           
           it
           must
           follow
           that
           Self-Consciousness
           (
           even
           according
           to
           the
           Animadverter's
           own
           Rule
           )
           is
           and
           must
           be
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           Personality
           .
           To
           which
           wonderful
           piece
           of
           Logick
           I
           have
           these
           Two
           Things
           to
           answer
           .
        
         
           First
           ,
           That
           Self-Consciousness
           neither
           exists
           convertibly
           with
           ,
           nor
           is
           the
           
             Proprium
             quarto
             modo
          
           of
           a
           Person
           :
           for
           though
           every
           Person
           be
           Self-Conscious
           ,
           yet
           every
           Thing
           that
           is
           Self-Conscious
           is
           not
           a
           Person
           :
           as
           the
           second
           and
           third
           Arguments
           do
           sufficiently
           evince
           .
        
         
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           though
           a
           Thing
           always
           
             exists
             convertibly
             with
          
           its
           formal
           Reason
           ,
           yet
           every
           Thing
           which
           
             it
             exists
             convertibly
             with
          
           ,
           is
           not
           therefore
           
             the
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           it
           .
           Which
           ,
           had
           this
           Man
           been
           aware
           of
           ,
           he
           could
           not
           have
           been
           guilty
           of
           such
           a
           Blunder
           ,
           as
           to
           make
           the
           
             Proprium
             quarto
             modo
          
           of
           a
           Thing
           the
           Formal
           Reason
           of
           the
           same
           .
           For
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Thing
           may
           exist
           convertibly
           with
           several
           Things
           ,
           though
           there
           cannot
           be
           several
           
             formal
             Reasons
          
           of
           the
           same
           Thing
           .
           And
           does
           this
           Man
           think
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           by
           affirming
           a
           mutual
           and
           convertible
           Existence
           between
           a
           Thing
           ,
           and
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           thereof
           ,
           does
           therefore
           deny
           ,
           that
           Thing
           to
           exist
           convertibly
           with
           any
           Thing
           besides
           its
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           ?
           or
           that
           he
           affirms
           this
           convertible
           Existence
           to
           be
           that
           which
           makes
           this
           formal
           Reason
           ?
           no
           ,
           it
           is
           enough
           to
           his
           Purpose
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           one
           inseparable
           Qualification
           belonging
           always
           to
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           a
           Thing
           ,
           though
           it
           does
           not
           
             belong
             to
             that
             alone
          
           .
           I
           suppose
           this
           Author
           may
           have
           heard
           of
           that
           Maxime
           ,
           
             Positâ
             causâ
             ponitur
             effectus
          
           ;
           and
           so
           ,
           
             Vice
             versâ
          
           :
           which
           is
           universally
           true
           of
           all
           causes
           and
           effects
           ,
           relatively
           considered
           ;
           so
           that
           here
           is
           a
           
             convertible
             existence
          
           between
           them
           (
           for
           it
           is
           this
           properly
           ,
           and
           not
           a
           convertibility
           in
           direct
           Predication
           ,
           which
           is
           here
           spoken
           of
           )
           .
           Now
           I
           
           would
           know
           whether
           this
           cause
           has
           not
           also
           its
           
             Specifick
             Difference
          
           ,
           and
           its
           Property
           ,
           and
           whether
           it
           may
           not
           sustain
           several
           Relations
           upon
           several
           Accounts
           ?
           And
           if
           so
           ,
           will
           this
           new
           Logician
           say
           ,
           That
           because
           this
           cause
           exists
           convertibly
           with
           its
           effect
           ,
           it
           cannot
           exist
           convertibly
           also
           with
           its
           
             Specifick
             Difference
          
           ,
           and
           with
           its
           Property
           ,
           and
           with
           its
           several
           correlates
           ,
           or
           if
           it
           does
           exist
           convertibly
           with
           all
           and
           each
           of
           these
           ,
           that
           therefore
           all
           and
           every
           one
           of
           them
           must
           be
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           it
           ?
           I
           protest
           I
           am
           amazed
           at
           his
           Ignorance
           ,
           and
           must
           declare
           ,
           that
           I
           can
           find
           nothing
           Invincible
           in
           all
           his
           Arguments
           ,
           but
           That
           .
           And
           I
           hope
           the
           Reader
           will
           take
           a
           True
           measure
           of
           his
           Logical
           Talent
           from
           his
           Discourse
           about
           
             Proprium
             quarto
             modo
          
           :
           which
           way
           of
           discoursing
           ,
           though
           I
           shall
           not
           ascribe
           to
           him
           as
           his
           Property
           ,
           yet
           it
           has
           so
           much
           of
           a
           Property
           ,
           that
           he
           is
           like
           
             to
             be
             known
             by
             it
          
           .
        
         
           And
           so
           having
           made
           good
           what
           had
           been
           asserted
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           concerning
           the
           Formal
           Reason
           of
           Personality
           ,
           I
           leave
           Self-Consciousness
           to
           shift
           for
           it self
           ,
           and
           proceed
           to
           vindicate
           the
           Animadverter's
           
             First
             Argument
          
           against
           it
           ;
           
           which
           is
           this
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             Self-Consciousness
             presupposes
             Personality
             in
             the
             Thing
             to
             which
             it
             belongs
             ,
             and
             therefore
             cannot
             be
             the
             Formal
             Reason
             of
             it
             ;
             forasmuch
             as
             nothing
             can
             be
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             that
             which
             is
             in
             Order
             of
             Nature
             before
             it
             .
          
           This
           is
           the
           Summ
           of
           the
           Argument
           ;
           and
           what
           says
           this
           Defender
           to
           it
           ?
           Why
           ,
           he
           shifts
           the
           Terms
           ,
           and
           from
           Self-Consciousness
           understood
           (
           as
           all
           the
           World
           understands
           it
           )
           for
           an
           Act
           ,
           passes
           to
           the
           
             Principle
             of
             Self-Consciousness
          
           ;
           affirming
           ,
           That
           although
           indeed
           he
           speaks
           only
           of
           
             the
             Act
          
           ,
           yet
           that
           (
           by
           an
           unfathomable
           Meaning
           still
           )
           he
           intends
           only
           the
           Principle
           of
           the
           
           said
           Act
           ,
           as
           that
           alone
           which
           
             makes
             a
             Person
          
           ,
           or
           
             gives
             Personality
          
           .
           And
           accordingly
           he
           discourses
           ,
           as
           follows
           :
           Suppose
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             that
             a
             Man
             should
             reason
             thus
             .
             Actual
             Knowledge
             presupposes
             a
             Mind
             ,
             and
             therefore
             Knowledge
             [
             in
             its
             Principle
             ]
             is
             not
             ,
             and
             cannot
             be
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             a
             Mind
             ,
          
           Def.
           p.
           39.
           l.
           13.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           1.
           
           That
           the
           Dispute
           here
           is
           not
           con●●●ning
           the
           
             Formal
             Reason
          
           of
           a
           Mind
           ,
           but
           of
           a
           Person
           ;
           and
           2.
           
           That
           He
           who
           reasons
           in
           this
           manner
           ,
           quite
           alters
           the
           State
           of
           the
           Question
           ;
           which
           proceeds
           not
           upon
           the
           Principle
           but
           the
           Act
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           .
           And
           so
           ,
           the
           true
           Reasoning
           must
           be
           This
           ;
           
             Actual
             Knowledge
             presupposes
             a
             Mind
          
           ,
           and
           therefore
           
             Actual
             Knowledge
             neither
             is
             ,
             nor
             can
             be
             the
             Formal
             Reason
             of
             that
             Mind
             .
          
           This
           ,
           Sir
           ,
           is
           the
           true
           Arguing
           upon
           the
           Point
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           Terms
           ,
           which
           ,
           on
           both
           sides
           ,
           it
           has
           still
           been
           expressed
           by
           ;
           and
           in
           which
           there
           is
           not
           the
           least
           mention
           of
           the
           
             Principle
             of
             Self-Consciousness
          
           ;
           which
           is
           newly
           and
           postliminiously
           thrust
           in
           ,
           and
           is
           quite
           another
           thing
           from
           Self-Consciousness
           it self
           .
           And
           this
           is
           evident
           ,
           not
           only
           from
           the
           proper
           unforced
           Signification
           of
           the
           Word
           ,
           importing
           no
           more
           ,
           than
           
             an
             Act
             in
             Conjunction
             with
             its
             Object
             ,
             viz.
          
           an
           Act
           of
           Knowledge
           ,
           terminated
           upon
           Self
           :
           but
           also
           from
           this
           Author
           's
           own
           Explication
           of
           it
           ,
           as
           still
           setting
           in
           forth
           by
           words
           importing
           bare
           Action
           .
           Such
           as
           are
           a
           Person
           's
           knowing
           himself
           ,
           and
           all
           his
           Internal
           Motions
           ,
           as
           likewise
           his
           
             actual
             Feeling
          
           or
           Sensation
           of
           the
           same
           .
           These
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           are
           the
           words
           which
           he
           always
           expresses
           Self-Consciousness
           by
           .
           And
           will
           this
           Man
           now
           perswade
           the
           World
           ,
           that
           Acts
           of
           Knowledge
           and
           Acts
           of
           Feeling
           or
           Sensation
           ,
           signify
           the
           Principles
           of
           these
           several
           Acts
           ?
           This
           is
           so
           
           gross
           a
           changing
           the
           very
           subject
           of
           the
           Dispute
           ,
           that
           I
           need
           not
           make
           one
           step
           further
           towards
           the
           confutation
           of
           it
           .
           For
           having
           beaten
           him
           off
           from
           his
           own
           Terms
           ,
           which
           he
           himself
           proposed
           and
           declared
           his
           Hypothesis
           by
           ,
           the
           Argument
           stands
           good
           against
           him
           ;
           and
           having
           disproved
           what
           he
           had
           argued
           from
           the
           Act
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           I
           am
           not
           con●●●●ed
           about
           the
           
             new
             Medium
          
           he
           brings
           from
           the
           Principle
           ;
           since
           the
           Act
           was
           the
           only
           Thing
           (
           so
           far
           as
           words
           can
           express
           Things
           )
           which
           he
           has
           all
           along
           mentioned
           and
           insisted
           upon
           .
        
         
           Nevertheless
           ,
           to
           pursue
           him
           through
           his
           Shifts
           ,
           I
           will
           consider
           his
           Self-Consciousness
           even
           in
           the
           Principle
           of
           it
           too
           ;
           and
           ,
           in
           order
           to
           this
           ,
           I
           shall
           observe
           ,
           That
           in
           every
           Suppositum
           or
           completely
           subsisting
           Being
           ,
           and
           consequently
           in
           every
           Person
           (
           which
           is
           only
           a
           Rational
           Suppositum
           )
           considered
           as
           an
           Agent
           ,
           these
           Three
           Things
           are
           to
           be
           taken
           notice
           of
           .
           First
           ,
           The
           Form
           or
           Essence
           ,
           Secondly
           ,
           The
           Powers
           of
           Faculties
           ;
           and
           Thirdly
           ,
           The
           Acts
           proceeding
           immediately
           from
           these
           Powers
           ,
           but
           mediately
           from
           the
           Essence
           or
           Form
           it
           ●elf
           operating
           by
           them
           .
           And
           now
           ,
           let
           us
           see
           whether
           any
           of
           all
           these
           ,
           as
           they
           belong
           to
           a
           Person
           ,
           give
           Personality
           or
           Personal
           Individuation
           to
           that
           Person
           .
           Where
           ,
           in
           the
           First
           place
           ,
           I
           affirm
           ,
           That
           neither
           can
           the
           Acts
           themselves
           ,
           nor
           the
           Powers
           from
           with
           they
           flow
           (
           reckoning
           the
           Act
           and
           Power
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           amongst
           the
           rest
           )
           give
           Personality
           or
           Personal
           Subsistence
           to
           the
           Nature
           to
           which
           they
           belong
           ;
           and
           that
           as
           ,
           for
           other
           Reasons
           ,
           so
           particularly
           for
           this
           ,
           That
           both
           Acts
           and
           Powers
           are
           Accidents
           ,
           and
           that
           no
           Accident
           can
           give
           Personality
           ,
           or
           be
           
             the
             Formal
             Reason
             of
             a
             Person
          
           ;
           because
           the
           
             Formal
             Reason
          
           
           of
           any
           Thing
           must
           be
           always
           of
           the
           same
           Kind
           or
           Rank
           of
           Being
           with
           the
           Thing
           it self
           ,
           which
           is
           formally
           constituted
           by
           it
           .
           But
           a
           Person
           is
           an
           Intelligent
           Substance
           ,
           compleated
           by
           its
           proper
           Subsistence
           as
           by
           its
           
             Substantial
             Mode
          
           .
           And
           nothing
           Substantial
           ,
           whether
           it
           be
           a
           Substance
           it self
           ,
           or
           but
           a
           
             Mode
             of
             Substance
          
           (
           which
           is
           always
           reduced
           to
           it
           )
           is
           or
           can
           be
           of
           the
           same
           Kind
           with
           any
           Accident
           ;
           since
           these
           Two
           make
           the
           Two
           grand
           different
           Orders
           or
           Ranks
           of
           Being
           ,
           and
           consequently
           no
           Power
           or
           Faculty
           ,
           nor
           Action
           proceeding
           from
           it
           ,
           can
           constitute
           the
           Nature
           they
           belong
           to
           ,
           a
           Person
           ,
           by
           being
           the
           
             Formal
             Reason
          
           thereof
           .
           To
           which
           we
           may
           add
           this
           further
           Consideration
           ;
           That
           no
           Accident
           can
           give
           so
           much
           as
           a
           
             Natural
             Individuation
          
           to
           its
           Subject
           ,
           and
           therefore
           much
           less
           can
           it
           give
           Personality
           or
           Personal
           Subsistence
           to
           the
           same
           ;
           This
           being
           a
           Degree
           of
           Perfection
           in
           the
           way
           of
           Existence
           ,
           beyond
           that
           of
           bare
           Individuation
           ,
           and
           consequently
           neither
           upon
           this
           Account
           can
           any
           Action
           ,
           or
           Power
           ,
           or
           Faculty
           of
           the
           Soul
           constitute
           an
           Humane
           or
           Intelligent
           Nature
           ,
           a
           Person
           .
           In
           the
           next
           place
           therefore
           (
           having
           thus
           shewn
           ,
           That
           neither
           the
           Act
           nor
           the
           Power
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           can
           give
           Personality
           )
           .
           Let
           us
           see
           whether
           it
           can
           be
           derived
           from
           an
           higher
           Principle
           of
           Action
           ,
           viz.
           the
           Form
           of
           the
           Self-Conscious
           Being
           ,
           which
           is
           the
           
             Rational
             Soul
          
           ?
           Now
           this
           ,
           we
           shall
           find
           ,
           sustains
           the
           Capacity
           of
           a
           double
           Principle
           ,
           viz.
           of
           a
           Constituent
           ,
           as
           it
           concurs
           with
           the
           Body
           informed
           by
           it
           ,
           towards
           the
           Constitution
           of
           an
           
             Humane
             Nature
          
           ;
           and
           ,
           Secondly
           ,
           of
           an
           Efficient
           ;
           and
           that
           both
           Emanative
           ,
           in
           respect
           of
           the
           Powers
           and
           Faculties
           belonging
           to
           it
           ;
           and
           
             properly
             Effective
          
           ,
           in
           respect
           of
           all
           the
           Acts
           ,
           whether
           
           Intellection
           ,
           or
           Volition
           ,
           &c.
           produced
           by
           the
           Instrumental
           mediation
           of
           the
           said
           faculties
           .
           But
           now
           ,
           under
           which
           of
           these
           capacities
           is
           it
           the
           
             Formal
             Reason
          
           of
           a
           Person
           ?
           why
           ;
           under
           neither
           :
           For
           as
           much
           as
           in
           the
           
             humane
             Nature
             of
             Christ
          
           it
           sustains
           Both
           of
           them
           ,
           viz.
           of
           a
           
             principal
             part
          
           concurring
           to
           the
           Constitution
           of
           the
           said
           Nature
           ,
           both
           as
           to
           its
           being
           and
           unity
           ,
           and
           of
           an
           
             efficient
             Principle
          
           ,
           giving
           it
           all
           the
           Powers
           and
           Acts
           properly
           issuing
           from
           that
           Nature
           .
           But
           for
           all
           that
           ,
           (
           we
           know
           )
           that
           it
           makes
           not
           that
           Nature
           a
           Person
           by
           giving
           it
           a
           Proper
           humane
           subsistence
           .
           Since
           the
           Humanity
           of
           Christ
           has
           no
           such
           subsistence
           ,
           but
           subsists
           by
           that
           of
           the
           Eternal
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ;
           which
           shews
           ,
           that
           the
           said
           Subsistence
           has
           no
           such
           necessary
           connexion
           with
           Nature
           absolutely
           considered
           ,
           but
           that
           so
           considered
           (
           as
           in
           the
           Present
           Case
           )
           Nature
           may
           be
           without
           it
           .
           For
           if
           it
           were
           necessarily
           included
           in
           Nature
           (
           as
           Personality
           and
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           thereof
           mutually
           and
           essentially
           imply
           and
           infer
           one
           Another
           )
           the
           humane
           Nature
           of
           Christ
           could
           neither
           Naturally
           nor
           Supernaturally
           be
           without
           its
           proper
           humane
           Subsistence
           any
           more
           than
           without
           its
           Essence
           .
           For
           still
           we
           speak
           here
           ,
           not
           of
           such
           a
           Subsistence
           as
           is
           opposed
           to
           
             inhesion
             in
             a
             Subject
          
           ,
           and
           so
           makes
           a
           Substance
           ;
           but
           of
           such
           an
           one
           ,
           as
           is
           opposed
           to
           all
           Dependance
           upon
           another
           ,
           as
           upon
           a
           Suppositum
           ,
           and
           so
           makes
           a
           
             Substance
             Complete
          
           ,
           and
           incommunicable
           ,
           by
           giving
           it
           its
           ultimate
           and
           most
           perfect
           manner
           of
           Existing
           .
           But
           of
           this
           more
           again
           presently
           in
           my
           Examination
           of
           his
           Answer
           to
           the
           
           Animadverter's
           next
           Argument
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           ,
           the
           sum
           of
           what
           has
           been
           argued
           is
           this
           .
           That
           if
           Self-Consciousness
           neither
           in
           the
           Act
           ,
           nor
           in
           the
           faculty
           or
           Power
           ,
           nor
           yet
           in
           its
           higher
           Principle
           ,
           viz.
           the
           form
           or
           essence
           from
           which
           it
           flows
           ,
           
           can
           formally
           give
           Personality
           or
           Personal
           Individuation
           to
           the
           Nature
           to
           which
           it
           belongs
           ,
           then
           Self-Consciousness
           in
           no
           respect
           whatsoever
           can
           be
           said
           to
           be
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           a
           Person
           .
           But
           you
           will
           say
           ,
           what
           is
           it
           then
           that
           formally
           constitutes
           a
           Person
           ?
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           ,
           though
           it
           is
           sufficient
           for
           me
           to
           have
           overthrown
           my
           Adversary's
           assertion
           ,
           yet
           that
           I
           may
           not
           be
           only
           upon
           the
           Negative
           ,
           I
           affirm
           ,
           that
           that
           which
           formally
           gives
           Personality
           ,
           or
           constitutes
           a
           Person
           ,
           is
           
             an
             Intelligent
             Nature
             ultimately
             compleated
             by
             its
             proper
             Subsistence
             .
          
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           I
           hold
           and
           let
           this
           Man
           of
           Arrogance
           and
           Ignorance
           overthrow
           it
           if
           he
           can
           .
           As
           for
           what
           he
           says
           p.
           40.
           l.
           3.
           of
           
             Self-Consciousness
             in
             the
             Abstract
          
           ,
           viz.
           That
           it
           is
           as
           capable
           of
           being
           
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             a
             Person
             ,
          
           as
           Rationality
           is
           of
           being
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           a
           
             Rational
             Nature
          
           ,
           it
           needs
           no
           other
           Answer
           ,
           than
           that
           it
           is
           precariously
           and
           falsly
           said
           ;
           For
           the
           True
           Parallel
           between
           these
           two
           reaches
           no
           further
           than
           this
           ;
           That
           as
           Rationality
           constitutes
           and
           denominates
           its
           
             concrete
             Rational
          
           ;
           so
           
             Self-Consciousness
             constitutes
             and
             denominates
             its
             concrete
             Self-conscious
             .
          
           And
           what
           then
           ?
           a
           [
           Person
           ]
           is
           not
           the
           proper
           concrete
           of
           [
           Self-Consciousness
           ]
           but
           a
           
             Self-Conscious
             Nature
             or
             Being
          
           ,
           whether
           it
           be
           a
           Person
           or
           no
           ;
           and
           a
           
             Self-Conscious
             Nature
          
           it
           may
           be
           ,
           and
           yet
           not
           a
           Person
           .
           By
           which
           it
           is
           manifest
           ,
           that
           this
           Man
           understands
           not
           what
           Abstract
           and
           
             Concrete
             ,
             Person
          
           and
           Personality
           mean.
           He
           uses
           the
           Terms
           indeed
           at
           a
           venture
           ,
           but
           they
           may
           be
           so
           many
           Greek
           words
           in
           English
           Characters
           ,
           for
           ought
           he
           knows
           .
        
         
           But
           he
           will
           not
           give
           over
           the
           Animadverter
           so
           ,
           but
           has
           another
           terrible
           Objection
           against
           that
           assertion
           of
           his
           ,
           viz.
           That
           
             Personality
             is
             the
             ground
             and
             Principle
             of
             
             Action
             ,
             wheresoever
             it
             is
          
           ;
           Bragging
           (
           forsooth
           )
           that
           he
           has
           been
           taught
           other
           and
           better
           Things
           ,
           viz.
           That
           
             Natura
             est
             principium
             motûs
             &
             quietis
             ,
          
           and
           consequently
           of
           all
           other
           Actions
           .
           But
           was
           he
           never
           taught
           also
           the
           Difference
           between
           the
           
             Principium
             Quod
          
           ,
           and
           the
           
             Principium
             Quo
          
           of
           an
           Action
           ?
           and
           does
           he
           not
           consider
           withal
           ,
           that
           the
           Dispute
           here
           is
           not
           indifferently
           of
           any
           sort
           of
           Actions
           ,
           but
           only
           of
           such
           as
           are
           Personal
           ,
           and
           belong
           to
           a
           complete
           Agent
           ,
           or
           Suppositum
           ?
           And
           I
           would
           fain
           have
           this
           wonderfully-taught
           Man
           ,
           shew
           me
           any
           such
           Action
           proceeding
           from
           Nature
           ,
           as
           the
           
             Principium
             Quo
          
           ,
           which
           does
           not
           also
           proceed
           from
           the
           whole
           Suppositum
           ,
           as
           the
           
             Principium
             Quod
          
           ;
           and
           as
           that
           which
           alone
           claims
           the
           proper
           Denomination
           of
           Agent
           ,
           in
           respect
           of
           the
           said
           Action
           .
           Which
           being
           the
           true
           state
           of
           this
           matter
           ,
           I
           suppose
           he
           has
           been
           told
           often
           enough
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           a
           
             Complete
             Subsistence
          
           added
           to
           Nature
           which
           makes
           a
           Suppositum
           ,
           and
           to
           an
           
             Intelligent
             Nature
          
           which
           makes
           a
           Person
           .
           I
           have
           no
           more
           to
           say
           to
           him
           upon
           this
           head
           ,
           but
           that
           ,
           upon
           a
           Review
           of
           the
           Confirmation
           which
           I
           have
           now
           given
           the
           forementioned
           Argument
           ,
           viz.
           
             That
             Self-Consciousness
             cannot
             be
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             ,
             because
             in
             order
             of
             Nature
             it
             follows
             and
             presupposes
             it
             ,
          
           I
           shall
           not
           stick
           (
           in
           spight
           of
           this
           Man's
           Ignorance
           )
           to
           affirm
           it
           again
           and
           again
           a
           Demonstration
           of
           the
           Point
           against
           him
           .
           And
           therefore
           those
           words
           of
           the
           Defender
           upon
           this
           occasion
           are
           very
           pleasant
           .
           
             I
             cannot
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             but
             think
             how
             this
             Animadverter
             must
             look
             when
             he
             reads
             over
             this
             Argument
             again
             with
             its
             triumphant
             Conclusion
             ,
             p.
          
           41.
           l.
           26.
           
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           he
           must
           give
           me
           leave
           to
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           (
           thanks
           be
           to
           God
           )
           the
           
           Animadverter's
           looks
           are
           not
           quite
           so
           bad
           yet
           ,
           as
           to
           put
           him
           in
           any
           danger
           
           of
           being
           mistaken
           for
           
             this
             Author
             's
             living
             Image
          
           .
           And
           as
           for
           his
           other
           scoff
           ,
           that
           this
           
             Argument
             was
             worth
             its
             weight
             in
             Gold
             ,
             though
             ,
             he
             fears
             ,
             it
             will
             not
             much
             enrich
             the
             Buyer
             ,
             p.
          
           39.
           l.
           9.
           
           What
           is
           that
           to
           him
           ?
           let
           him
           mind
           his
           own
           Markets
           ,
           who
           never
           writes
           to
           
             enrich
             the
             Buyer
          
           but
           the
           Seller
           ;
           and
           that
           Seller
           is
           himself
           :
           and
           since
           he
           is
           so
           ,
           well
           is
           it
           for
           his
           Books
           ,
           and
           his
           Bookseller
           too
           ,
           that
           Men
           generally
           Buy
           ,
           before
           they
           Read.
           The
           Animadverter
           for
           his
           part
           affects
           not
           the
           Reputation
           of
           a
           Scribler
           ,
           and
           much
           less
           of
           an
           Huckster
           .
           But
           pass
           we
           now
           ,
           to
           the
           Consideration
           and
           Vindication
           of
           the
           Animadverter's
           second
           Argument
           against
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           which
           proceeds
           thus
           .
        
         
           
           
             The
             Humanity
             or
             Humane
             Nature
             of
             Christ
             is
             perfectly
             Conscious
             to
             it self
             of
             all
             the
             Internal
             Acts
             ,
             whether
             of
             Knowledge
             ,
             Volition
             or
             desire
             ,
          
           &c.
           
             that
             pass
             in
             it
             ,
             or
             belong
             to
             it
             ,
             and
             yet
             the
             humanity
             ,
             or
             humane
             Nature
             of
             Christ
             is
             not
             a
             Person
             ,
             and
             therefore
             Self-Consciousness
             does
             not
             properly
             and
             formally
             give
             Personality
             ;
             for
             as
             much
             as
             it
             may
             be
             in
             that
             ,
             which
             is
             not
             a
             Person
             .
          
           Thus
           the
           Animadverter
           .
           And
           what
           says
           our
           Author
           to
           the
           contrary
           ?
           Why
           in
           the
           first
           place
           (
           according
           to
           his
           constant
           custom
           of
           denying
           what
           he
           had
           before
           affirmed
           )
           he
           says
           ,
           p.
           40.
           l.
           10.
           
           
             That
             he
             never
             [
             expresly
             ]
             taught
             that
             Self-Consciousness
             was
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             .
          
           And
           again
           ,
           l.
           27.
           
           
             That
             he
             no
             where
             makes
             Self-Consciousness
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             .
          
           But
           ,
           as
           it
           is
           very
           possible
           for
           a
           Man
           not
           always
           to
           understand
           his
           own
           words
           ,
           so
           I
           would
           have
           this
           good
           Man
           know
           ,
           that
           he
           has
           over
           and
           over
           made
           Self-Consciousness
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           Personality
           ,
           whether
           he
           understands
           so
           much
           or
           no.
           For
           ,
           if
           by
           his
           forementioned
           denyal
           of
           it
           ,
           he
           means
           no
           more
           than
           that
           he
           never
           
           made
           use
           of
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Formal
             Reason
          
           ]
           this
           is
           readily
           granted
           him
           ;
           but
           then
           it
           is
           arrant
           trifling
           ,
           since
           it
           is
           certain
           ,
           that
           he
           has
           taught
           ,
           and
           asserted
           the
           Thing
           signified
           by
           this
           Term
           ,
           as
           effectually
           and
           plainly
           as
           if
           he
           had
           used
           the
           very
           Term
           it self
           .
           For
           (
           to
           tell
           him
           again
           what
           I
           had
           told
           him
           before
           )
           
             the
             Formal
             Reason
             of
             a
             Thing
          
           is
           that
           ,
           which
           constitutes
           it
           
             such
             a
             Being
          
           ,
           giving
           it
           withal
           its
           proper
           Vnity
           and
           Distinction
           ,
           whether
           Natural
           ,
           or
           Personal
           ,
           according
           as
           the
           Thing
           is
           ,
           which
           it
           belongs
           to
           .
           For
           all
           these
           Three
           necessarily
           go
           together
           ,
           and
           essentially
           imply
           one
           another
           ,
           and
           consequently
           there
           must
           be
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Principle
           of
           them
           all
           .
           And
           now
           ,
           if
           we
           would
           see
           whether
           or
           no
           this
           Author
           applies
           all
           this
           to
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           with
           reference
           to
           Minds
           or
           Spirits
           (
           which
           he
           constantly
           makes
           to
           be
           Persons
           )
           let
           the
           Reader
           cast
           his
           Eye
           back
           upon
           some
           of
           the
           fore-alleged
           Passages
           ;
           particularly
           upon
           that
           in
           
             Vindic.
             p.
          
           49.
           l.
           12.
           
           
             That
             this
             Self-Consciousness
          
           makes
           
             a
             Spirit
             numerically
             one
             with
             it self
             .
          
           And
           in
           
             Vind.
             p.
          
           68.
           l.
           6.
           
           
             That
             the
             Self-Consciousness
             of
             every
             one
             of
             the
             Persons
          
           (
           viz.
           
             in
             the
             Trinity
          
           )
           
             to
             it self
          
           makes
           
             them
             Three
             distinct
             Persons
          
           .
           And
           again
           ,
           Vind.
           p.
           74.
           l.
           13.
           
           
             That
             the
             Essential
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           consists
           
             in
             Self-Consciousness
             ,
             and
             that
             it
             is
             nothing
             else
             which
          
           makes
           
             a
             Spirit
             one
             ,
             and
             distinguishes
             it
             from
             all
             other
             Spirits
             .
          
           Likewise
           in
           this
           
             Defence
             p.
          
           7.
           
           He
           tells
           us
           expresly
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Nature
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           consists
           
             in
             Sensation
          
           ,
           (
           which
           with
           him
           is
           only
           another
           word
           for
           Self-Consciousness
           .
           )
           Nay
           ;
           and
           to
           go
           no
           further
           than
           the
           very
           next
           page
           to
           that
           in
           which
           he
           here
           so
           positively
           declares
           ,
           
             That
             he
             no
             where
             makes
             Self-Consciousness
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             ,
             viz.
          
           Defence
           p.
           43.
           
           He
           roundly
           affirms
           ,
           
             That
             Self-Consciousness
          
           makes
           
             a
             Mind
             
             or
             Spirit
             one
             with
             it self
             ,
             and
             distinguishes
             or
             separates
             it
             from
             all
             other
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             .
             And
             that
             such
             a
             distinct
             and
             separate
             Self-Conscious
             Mind
             is
             a
             Natural
             Person
             .
          
           Now
           I
           would
           have
           this
           Man
           in
           the
           first
           place
           tell
           us
           ,
           whether
           all
           these
           Passages
           have
           not
           in
           them
           a
           
             causal
             sence
          
           ,
           but
           only
           an
           Illative
           or
           Probative
           ,
           and
           no
           more
           ?
           And
           in
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           I
           would
           have
           him
           shew
           me
           whether
           there
           be
           any
           Thing
           more
           signified
           by
           the
           [
           formal
           Reason
           of
           Personality
           ]
           than
           what
           the
           forecited
           Passages
           fully
           contain
           in
           them
           ?
           and
           if
           he
           cannot
           prove
           that
           there
           is
           any
           more
           signified
           by
           it
           (
           as
           there
           is
           not
           )
           then
           let
           him
           for
           the
           future
           leave
           off
           shuffling
           ,
           and
           own
           ,
           that
           by
           what
           he
           has
           asserted
           in
           the
           said
           Passages
           ,
           he
           has
           made
           Self-Consciousness
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           Personality
           with
           reference
           to
           Minds
           or
           Spirits
           ,
           which
           he
           Universally
           affirms
           to
           be
           Persons
           .
           And
           by
           this
           I
           hope
           the
           Judicious
           Reader
           will
           see
           with
           both
           Eyes
           ,
           what
           a
           slippery
           Self-Contradicting
           Caviller
           the
           Animadverter
           has
           to
           dispute
           with
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           the
           sum
           of
           the
           Animadverter's
           Argument
           against
           him
           stands
           thus
           .
           This
           Author
           asserts
           
             every
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
             to
             be
             a
             Person
          
           ;
           He
           places
           this
           Personality
           in
           Self-Consciousness
           ;
           he
           holds
           this
           Self-Consciousness
           to
           be
           Essential
           to
           ,
           and
           Inseparable
           from
           a
           Mind
           ;
           (
           for
           as
           much
           as
           he
           positively
           asserts
           the
           Nature
           of
           a
           Mind
           or
           Spirit
           to
           consist
           in
           it
           ,
           
             Defen
             .
             p.
          
           7.
           l.
           11.
           )
           whereupon
           it
           does
           and
           must
           follow
           ,
           That
           since
           our
           Saviour
           ,
           in
           assuming
           the
           humane
           Nature
           ,
           assumed
           an
           humane
           
             Mind
             ,
             Soul
          
           ,
           or
           Spirit
           ,
           he
           assumed
           an
           
             humane
             Person
          
           too
           ;
           for
           as
           much
           as
           its
           Personality
           was
           as
           Inseparable
           from
           it
           ,
           as
           its
           Self-Consciousness
           (
           from
           which
           it
           necessarily
           resulted
           )
           was
           .
           Nor
           will
           it
           avail
           him
           to
           allege
           the
           Interposal
           of
           Supernatural
           and
           extraordinary
           Power
           
           in
           the
           present
           Instance
           ;
           since
           such
           Power
           ,
           though
           never
           so
           extraordinary
           and
           Supernatural
           ,
           never
           destroys
           the
           Essence
           ,
           or
           Essentially
           necessary
           Connexion
           of
           Things
           .
           And
           therefore
           if
           the
           Personality
           of
           a
           mind
           be
           implied
           in
           the
           very
           Nature
           of
           a
           Mind
           ,
           a
           Mind
           can
           be
           no
           more
           without
           its
           Personality
           than
           without
           its
           Nature
           :
           which
           would
           be
           a
           direct
           Contradiction
           ;
           to
           the
           effecting
           whereof
           the
           Divine
           Power
           it self
           does
           not
           extend
           .
           But
           on
           the
           other
           side
           ,
           when
           we
           state
           the
           Personality
           of
           an
           humane
           Nature
           upon
           the
           compleat
           Subsistence
           of
           it
           ,
           which
           is
           a
           mode
           not
           necessarily
           implied
           in
           it
           ,
           the
           Humane
           Nature
           of
           Christ
           might
           very
           well
           by
           the
           Divine
           Power
           be
           made
           to
           exist
           without
           it
           ,
           and
           so
           in
           a
           supernatural
           way
           be
           taken
           into
           ,
           and
           supported
           by
           the
           Personal
           Subsistence
           of
           the
           
             Eternal
             Word
          
           .
           And
           all
           this
           with
           full
           accord
           to
           the
           strictest
           Principles
           of
           Reason
           ,
           without
           the
           least
           necessity
           of
           making
           Two
           Persons
           in
           our
           Saviour
           ;
           whereas
           according
           to
           this
           Author's
           Hypothesis
           ,
           it
           is
           impossible
           for
           all
           the
           Reason
           of
           Minkind
           to
           keep
           off
           an
           Humane
           Person
           as
           well
           as
           a
           Divine
           from
           belonging
           to
           our
           Saviour
           by
           his
           Incarnation
           or
           Assumption
           of
           the
           humane
           Nature
           .
           As
           for
           his
           taking
           shelter
           in
           
           Boetius's
           Definition
           of
           a
           Person
           ,
           that
           will
           not
           help
           him
           neither
           ;
           since
           the
           utmost
           that
           can
           be
           proved
           against
           it
           ,
           is
           that
           Boetius
           was
           under
           a
           mistake
           (
           and
           one
           Man's
           mistake
           certainly
           cannot
           make
           another
           in
           the
           right
           )
           :
           For
           all
           ,
           both
           Schoolmen
           and
           other
           Divines
           agree
           ,
           that
           this
           Definition
           strictly
           taken
           is
           defective
           ;
           and
           that
           instead
           of
           
             substantia
             Individua
          
           alone
           ,
           it
           should
           be
           
             substantia
             Individua
             ,
             completa
             ,
             &
             Incommunicabilis
             ,
          
           or
           something
           Equivalent
           to
           the
           Two
           last
           Terms
           .
           For
           otherwise
           this
           Definition
           also
           would
           infer
           Two
           Persons
           in
           Christ
           ;
           since
           there
           
           are
           Two
           Individual
           Substances
           belonging
           to
           him
           ,
           viz.
           an
           Humane
           and
           a
           Divine
           .
           But
           after
           all
           we
           have
           great
           reason
           to
           believe
           ,
           that
           Boetius
           here
           uses
           the
           word
           Substantia
           for
           Subsistentia
           ,
           as
           several
           of
           the
           Ancient
           Fathers
           of
           great
           note
           did
           ,
           and
           particularly
           St.
           Hilary
           in
           his
           Books
           of
           the
           Trinity
           very
           often
           ,
           and
           St.
           Austin
           sometimes
           ;
           And
           then
           the
           Boetian
           Definition
           is
           perfect
           and
           good
           ;
           and
           no
           such
           Consequence
           of
           a
           double
           Personality
           in
           our
           Saviour
           can
           be
           drawn
           from
           thence
           ;
           For
           as
           much
           as
           the
           Son
           of
           God
           took
           our
           humane
           Nature
           without
           its
           proper
           Subsistence
           ,
           into
           the
           Subsistence
           of
           his
           own
           
             Eternal
             Person
          
           .
        
         
           
           And
           so
           I
           proceed
           to
           the
           
           Animadverter's
           Third
           Argument
           ,
           proving
           Self-Consciousness
           not
           to
           be
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           Personality
           in
           Created
           Beings
           ,
           which
           is
           this
           .
           
             The
             Soul
             in
             its
             separate
             state
             is
             conscious
             to
             its
             self
             of
             all
             its
             own
             Internal
             Acts
             or
             Motions
             ,
          
           &c.
           
             and
             yet
             the
             Soul
             in
             such
             a
             state
             is
             not
             a
             Person
             ,
          
           and
           therefore
           Self-Consciousness
           is
           not
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           Personality
           :
           for
           if
           it
           were
           ,
           it
           would
           constitute
           a
           
             Person
             wheresoever
             it
             was
          
           .
           This
           Argument
           is
           of
           the
           same
           Nature
           with
           the
           former
           ;
           each
           of
           them
           being
           brought
           as
           a
           Particular
           Negative
           against
           an
           Universal
           Affirmative
           .
           And
           how
           does
           this
           Defender
           confute
           it
           ?
           Why
           ;
           by
           the
           easiest
           way
           of
           Confutation
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           possible
           for
           Ignorance
           to
           give
           it
           ;
           viz.
           by
           saying
           ,
           
             That
             it
             is
             nothing
             to
             the
             Purpose
             .
          
           But
           does
           he
           know
           what
           is
           and
           what
           is
           not
           an
           Argument
           ?
           and
           what
           is
           to
           confute
           an
           Assertion
           ,
           or
           Position
           ,
           and
           what
           is
           not
           ?
           Let
           him
           know
           then
           ,
           That
           to
           confute
           an
           Argument
           is
           properly
           to
           conclude
           the
           Contradictory
           Proposition
           of
           that
           which
           is
           held
           by
           the
           Respondent
           or
           Defendant
           ,
           and
           is
           called
           by
           the
           Greeks
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           and
           by
           the
           Latines
           
           Redargutio
           .
           And
           here
           ,
           I
           would
           have
           this
           hardy
           Ignoramus
           own
           before
           the
           World
           ,
           if
           he
           dares
           ,
           That
           one
           Negative
           Instance
           does
           not
           overthrow
           an
           
             Vniversal
             Affirmative
          
           as
           really
           and
           effectually
           as
           Ten
           Thousand
           .
           But
           possibly
           one
           ,
           who
           can
           be
           
             of
             all
             sides
          
           ,
           may
           be
           for
           
             both
             sides
          
           of
           the
           Contradiction
           too
           ,
           and
           hold
           ,
           That
           Self-Consciousness
           is
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           
             Personality
             ,
             Personal
             Vnity
          
           ,
           and
           distinction
           wheresoever
           it
           is
           ,
           and
           yet
           that
           there
           may
           be
           a
           Self-Conscious
           Being
           ,
           one
           in
           it self
           ,
           and
           distinguished
           from
           all
           others
           ,
           which
           is
           not
           a
           Person
           ;
           of
           which
           two
           Propositions
           this
           Man
           has
           affirmed
           the
           former
           (
           though
           he
           uses
           not
           the
           Term
           
             Formal
             Reason
          
           )
           ,
           and
           the
           Animadverter
           asserts
           the
           Latter
           .
           And
           the
           whole
           dispute
           shall
           be
           resumed
           ,
           and
           the
           Thing
           debated
           again
           presently
           .
           But
           as
           for
           that
           insufferably
           Rude
           and
           Scurrilous
           Reflexion
           here
           passed
           by
           him
           upon
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           p.
           43.
           l.
           33.
           
           I
           shall
           take
           no
           further
           notice
           of
           it
           now
           ,
           intending
           effectually
           to
           account
           with
           him
           ,
           both
           for
           that
           ,
           and
           several
           other
           of
           his
           
           Billingsgate-Scurrilities
           ,
           as
           soon
           as
           I
           shall
           have
           finished
           the
           Argumentative
           part
           of
           my
           Reply
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           he
           declares
           in
           a
           Bravado
           ,
           p.
           44.
           l.
           15.
           
           
             Th●●
             if
             the
             Animadverter
             can
             prove
             ,
             That
             the
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Mind
             and
             its
             distinction
             from
             all
             other
             Minds
             does
             not
             consist
             in
             Self-Consciousness
             ,
             the
             Dean
             is
             then
             a
             lost
             Man
             for
             ever
             ,
             and
             must
             be
             content
             to
             follow
             his
             triumphant
             Chariot
             .
          
           And
           I
           on
           the
           other
           side
           affirm
           ,
           That
           if
           the
           Essential
           Being
           ,
           Unity
           ,
           and
           original
           distinction
           of
           every
           Thing
           is
           and
           must
           be
           in
           order
           of
           Nature
           before
           any
           Act
           can
           proceed
           ,
           or
           be
           so
           much
           as
           conceived
           to
           proceed
           ,
           from
           the
           said
           Thing
           ;
           then
           it
           has
           been
           already
           proved
           (
           and
           that
           in
           Defence
           of
           the
           first
           Argument
           )
           beyond
           all
           Contradiction
           ,
           That
           
             the
             Original
             
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Mind
             and
             its
             distinction
             from
             all
             other
             Minds
             ,
          
           neither
           does
           nor
           can
           consist
           in
           
             Self-Consciousness
             ,
             Act
             or
             Power
          
           ,
           these
           being
           in
           Nature
           posterior
           to
           the
           said
           Unity
           and
           Distinction
           .
           And
           that
           one
           known
           short
           Axiom
           ,
           
             Agere
             praesupponit
             esse
          
           (
           to
           which
           we
           may
           add
           also
           ,
           
             esse
             in
             se
             Vnum
             ,
             &
             distinctum
             ab
             aliis
             omnibus
          
           )
           utterly
           overthrows
           this
           part
           of
           his
           Senceless
           Hypothesis
           .
           But
           as
           for
           his
           Scoff
           of
           
             following
             the
             Animadverter's
             Triumphant
             Chariot
          
           in
           this
           Case
           ,
           he
           will
           not
           claim
           his
           Promise
           ,
           as
           knowing
           something
           much
           fitter
           for
           him
           to
           follow
           than
           that
           ,
           and
           some
           body
           as
           fit
           to
           follow
           him
           .
        
         
           But
           I
           shall
           now
           come
           to
           debate
           the
           Personality
           of
           the
           Soul
           with
           him
           :
           which
           dispute
           ,
           he
           first
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             is
             nothing
             at
             all
             to
             the
             Purpose
          
           ;
           and
           then
           very
           discreetly
           bestows
           the
           full
           fifth
           part
           of
           his
           whole
           work
           against
           the
           Animadverter
           (
           viz.
           Twenty
           Pages
           of
           99.
           )
           wholly
           upon
           this
           very
           point
           ,
           and
           this
           he
           also
           calls
           
             making
             some
             short
             Reflections
             upon
             it
             :
          
           though
           more
           by
           half
           than
           what
           he
           has
           made
           upon
           any
           Two
           or
           Three
           (
           and
           those
           principal
           )
           Parts
           or
           Branches
           of
           the
           whole
           Controversy
           .
           But
           whereas
           he
           says
           ,
           p.
           44.
           l.
           24.
           
           
             That
             all
             this
          
           was
           done
           only
           
             with
             a
             purpose
             to
             expose
             Mr.
             Dean
          
           (
           forsooth
           )
           I
           must
           assure
           him
           that
           it
           is
           a
           mistake
           ;
           for
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           found
           this
           work
           effectually
           done
           to
           his
           hands
           ,
           before
           ever
           he
           set
           Pen
           to
           Paper
           .
        
         
           But
           to
           proceed
           ,
           This
           Author
           in
           his
           Vindication
           has
           asserted
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Soul
             without
             a
             Vital
             Vnion
             to
             an
             Humane
             Body
             ,
             is
             a
             Person
             ,
          
           Vind.
           p.
           262
           ,
           l.
           17.
           
           And
           not
           long
           after
           he
           tells
           us
           also
           ▪
           
             That
             the
             Soul
             as
             Vnited
             with
             the
             Body
             is
             a
             Person
             too
             ,
          
           Vind.
           p.
           268.
           l.
           28.
           
           In
           opposition
           to
           both
           which
           Propositions
           the
           Animadverter
           holds
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Soul
             of
             Man
             is
             not
             a
             Person
             ,
             and
             that
             
             neither
             in
             its
             Conjunction
             with
             the
             Body
             ,
             nor
             in
             its
             separation
             from
             it
             .
          
           And
           what
           says
           our
           Author
           to
           this
           ?
           Why
           in
           the
           first
           place
           he
           says
           ,
           
             He
             grants
             ,
             That
             the
             Person
             of
             a
             Man
             ,
             as
             it
             is
             used
             in
             common
             speech
             to
             signify
             a
             Man
             ,
             must
             include
             both
             Soul
             and
             Body
             as
             the
             constituent
             parts
             of
             an
             Humane
             Person
             ;
             but
             that
             when
             we
             enquire
             into
             the
             strict
             Notion
             of
             Personality
             ,
             that
             must
             be
             a
             simple
             Vncompounded
             Thing
             ,
             as
             Indivisible
             as
          
           self
           
             is
             ,
             which
             cannot
             consist
             of
             parts
             separate
             from
             each
             other
             ,
          
           p.
           45.
           l.
           11.
           
           Whereupon
           with
           much
           foolish
           Confidence
           he
           disputes
           against
           the
           supposed
           Absurdity
           of
           Two
           Parts
           of
           Personality
           .
           To
           all
           which
           I
           have
           several
           Things
           to
           Answer
           ,
           As
           first
           ,
           That
           he
           ought
           to
           prove
           ,
           and
           not
           gratis
           only
           to
           affirm
           ,
           That
           the
           Philosophical
           sence
           of
           this
           Term
           [
           
             Humane
             Person
          
           ]
           and
           the
           Popular
           commonly
           received
           sence
           of
           it
           ,
           
             are
             not
             the
             same
          
           .
           Whereas
           I
           affirm
           they
           are
           ,
           and
           challenge
           him
           to
           prove
           the
           contrary
           if
           he
           can
           :
           For
           otherwise
           it
           is
           a
           meer
           supposing
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           and
           a
           gross
           
             Petitio
             Principii
          
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           he
           disputes
           not
           
             ad
             Idem
          
           ;
           for
           that
           he
           passes
           from
           the
           Concrete
           to
           the
           
             Abstract
             :
             viz.
          
           from
           [
           Person
           ]
           which
           consists
           of
           Parts
           ,
           to
           Personality
           which
           does
           not
           ;
           and
           then
           surely
           ,
           when
           the
           dispute
           is
           concerning
           
             the
             having
          
           ,
           or
           not
           
             having
             Parts
          
           ,
           there
           can
           be
           no
           concluding
           in
           that
           respect
           from
           one
           to
           the
           other
           .
           Thirdly
           I
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           
             self
             is
             not
             a
             simple
             indivisible
             Vncompounded
             Thing
             ,
          
           but
           as
           compounded
           as
           the
           Man
           himself
           ,
           and
           consists
           of
           Parts
           separable
           from
           one
           another
           ,
           viz.
           of
           Soul
           and
           Body
           ,
           as
           the
           Man
           himself
           does
           ,
           and
           is
           as
           much
           a
           Concrete
           as
           he
           is
           .
           Fourthly
           and
           lastly
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           though
           Personality
           in
           the
           Abstract
           be
           a
           simple
           Indivisible
           Term
           (
           as
           all
           other
           Abstracts
           are
           )
           and
           so
           cannot
           
           actually
           consist
           of
           Parts
           ,
           yet
           it
           connotes
           and
           implies
           a
           necessary
           inseparable
           Relation
           to
           the
           Essential
           parts
           of
           the
           Concrete
           ;
           and
           in
           this
           respect
           ,
           parts
           are
           and
           may
           be
           ascribed
           to
           it
           ,
           viz.
           by
           way
           of
           Connotation
           ,
           though
           not
           by
           way
           of
           
             Physical
             Composition
          
           .
           And
           therefore
           that
           Question
           of
           his
           ,
           
             viz.
             Will
             the
             Animadverter
             venture
             to
             make
             the
             Body
             part
             of
             the
             Personality
             of
             a
             Man
             ?
          
           is
           very
           easily
           answered
           ,
           viz.
           That
           by
           actual
           ,
           real
           ,
           and
           Physical
           Composition
           it
           is
           not
           so
           ,
           but
           by
           Essential
           Connotation
           of
           ,
           and
           Relation
           to
           ,
           the
           Body
           ,
           as
           to
           part
           of
           the
           Concrete
           ,
           it
           is
           so
           .
           That
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           Personality
           implies
           a
           Body
           as
           an
           Essential
           Part
           of
           a
           Person
           ,
           though
           not
           of
           the
           Personality
           it self
           .
           And
           so
           both
           his
           silly
           Objection
           ,
           and
           his
           sillier
           Scoff
           of
           a
           
             compounded
             Personality
             ,
             page
          
           48.
           and
           of
           the
           Bodies
           being
           a
           part
           of
           this
           
             Personality
             ,
             page
          
           47.
           are
           at
           an
           end
           .
        
         
           But
           his
           Absurdity
           in
           asserting
           a
           Beast
           to
           be
           a
           Person
           will
           never
           be
           so
           ,
           but
           stands
           as
           firm
           as
           ever
           .
           For
           whereas
           he
           says
           ,
           
             Defence
             p.
          
           46.
           l.
           6.
           
           
             That
             he
             gave
             notice
             of
             the
             Impropriety
             of
             the
             Expression
             ,
          
           and
           
             used
             it
             only
             by
             way
             of
             Allusion
             and
             Accommodation
             ,
          
           Let
           the
           Reader
           but
           consult
           his
           
             Vind.
             p.
          
           262.
           and
           he
           will
           find
           every
           Tittle
           of
           this
           an
           Impudent
           falshood
           .
           For
           he
           speaks
           not
           there
           so
           much
           as
           one
           Syllable
           of
           the
           Impropriety
           of
           it
           ;
           nor
           does
           he
           pretend
           to
           use
           it
           by
           
             way
             of
             Allusion
          
           ,
           but
           as
           a
           Real
           and
           a
           Proper
           Instance
           of
           the
           Nature
           of
           a
           Person
           ,
           dogmatically
           asserting
           a
           brute
           to
           be
           a
           Person
           as
           much
           as
           a
           Suppositum
           ;
           and
           this
           without
           the
           help
           or
           Qualification
           of
           either
           [
           a
           
             so
             say
          
           ,
           or
           a
           
             so
             speak
          
           ]
           .
           With
           such
           a
           shameless
           front
           can
           this
           Man
           deny
           a
           Thing
           ,
           as
           soon
           as
           ever
           he
           has
           affirmed
           it
           :
           And
           yet
           before
           the
           Denyal
           of
           it
           is
           well
           out
           of
           his
           mouth
           ,
           he
           offers
           with
           still
           a
           greater
           Impudence
           to
           justify
           it
           ;
           affirming
           
           p.
           47.
           
           That
           Beasts
           may
           be
           said
           to
           have
           reason
           in
           
             a
             certain
             measure
             and
             degree
          
           ,
           and
           moreover
           proves
           their
           Rationality
           from
           their
           Self-Consciousness
           .
           So
           that
           we
           see
           here
           ,
           of
           what
           Virtue
           this
           Self-Consciousness
           is
           ,
           that
           it
           can
           extend
           even
           to
           Beasts
           themselves
           ,
           and
           make
           them
           Rational
           .
           For
           having
           said
           That
           a
           Beast
           is
           
             Self-Conscious
             ,
             p.
          
           46.
           l.
           21.
           he
           adds
           ,
           
             That
             wheresoever
             there
             is
             a
             Conscious
             Life
             there
             is
             some
             degree
             of
             Reason
             .
          
           And
           is
           not
           this
           ,
           think
           we
           ,
           a
           blessed
           Assertion
           ,
           both
           in
           Philosophy
           and
           Divinity
           ?
           For
           according
           to
           what
           he
           has
           here
           asserted
           ,
           a
           Beast
           may
           be
           properly
           defined
           
             Animal
             Rationale
          
           ;
           And
           ,
           which
           is
           more
           ,
           a
           Beast
           is
           not
           a
           different
           Species
           from
           a
           Man
           ;
           for
           Rationality
           is
           the
           Specifick
           difference
           of
           a
           Man
           :
           And
           if
           a
           Beast
           has
           
             Reason
             to
             a
             certain
             degree
          
           (
           as
           he
           affirms
           it
           has
           )
           then
           the
           difference
           between
           a
           Man
           and
           a
           Beast
           (
           the
           grinning
           race
           it self
           not
           excepted
           )
           is
           only
           Gradual
           ,
           and
           consequently
           neither
           is
           nor
           can
           be
           Specifical
           .
           I
           shall
           say
           no
           more
           upon
           this
           subject
           ,
           but
           leave
           the
           whole
           World
           to
           consider
           what
           this
           Man
           is
           ,
           and
           what
           fit
           Propositions
           these
           are
           to
           be
           Licensed
           by
           Authority
           .
           However
           I
           would
           have
           the
           Reader
           observe
           ,
           that
           this
           poor
           Creature
           who
           explodes
           
             Parts
             in
             Personality
          
           (
           which
           his
           Adversary
           ,
           in
           a
           strict
           and
           proper
           Sence
           ,
           never
           did
           ,
           nor
           does
           assert
           )
           yet
           admits
           and
           holds
           Degrees
           in
           
             Personality
             ,
             p.
          
           46.
           l.
           22.
           
           For
           ,
           says
           he
           ,
           wheresoever
           there
           is
           a
           
             Conscious
             Life
             ,
             there
             must
             be
             some
             Degree
             of
             Reason
             ;
             and
             that
             entitles
             them
          
           [
           viz.
           Beasts
           ]
           
             to
             as
             much
             share
             in
             Personality
             as
             they
             have
             in
             Reason
             .
          
           But
           let
           me
           tell
           this
           utter
           stranger
           to
           all
           Philosophy
           ,
           That
           as
           there
           is
           no
           such
           Thing
           as
           a
           magis
           and
           minus
           in
           substance
           ,
           so
           neither
           is
           there
           in
           
             substantial
             modes
          
           ,
           of
           which
           Personality
           is
           one
           ,
           and
           the
           Principal
           one
           too
           .
           But
           he
           goes
           on
           
           and
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             no
             Man
             will
             pretend
             ,
             that
             an
             human●
             Body
             ,
             though
             united
             to
             a
             Reasonable
             Soul
             ,
             has
             any
             Reason
             or
             Sence
             either
             ,
          
           p.
           46.
           l.
           27.
           
           And
           yet
           this
           very
           Man
           says
           ,
           
             Vind.
             p.
          
           269.
           l.
           18
           ,
           19.
           
           
             That
             the
             Body
             is
             conscious
             to
             all
             the
             Commands
             of
             the
             Will.
          
           Which
           how
           it
           can
           be
           without
           any
           thing
           of
           Sence
           belonging
           to
           it
           ,
           I
           must
           profess
           surpasses
           all
           the
           Sence
           ,
           that
           I
           am
           Master
           of
           ,
           to
           conceive
           ;
           and
           I
           cannot
           but
           declare
           withal
           ,
           That
           if
           a
           Thing
           may
           be
           Conscious
           ,
           and
           yet
           have
           no
           sence
           at
           all
           in
           it
           ,
           I
           shall
           have
           a
           worse
           and
           a
           meaner
           opinion
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           than
           ever
           I
           had
           before
           .
           But
           these
           and
           the
           like
           wonderful
           Things
           I
           suppose
           our
           Author
           will
           tell
           us
           ,
           that
           he
           speaks
           only
           by
           
             way
             of
             Allusion
          
           ;
           which
           ,
           next
           to
           his
           meaning
           is
           the
           surest
           refuge
           he
           has
           (
           when
           he
           is
           baffled
           )
           to
           fly
           to
           .
        
         
           And
           so
           from
           hence
           he
           comes
           to
           this
           Hypothetical
           Decision
           of
           the
           Point
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             if
             Personality
             belongs
             only
             to
             a
             Reasonable
             Nature
             ,
             it
             is
             certain
             ,
             that
             the
             Soul
             makes
             or
             constitutes
             the
             Person
             ,
          
           p.
           46.
           l.
           31.
           
           Which
           is
           an
           Extraordinary
           Consequence
           indeed
           ;
           nevertheless
           I
           deny
           it
           as
           utterly
           false
           .
           For
           in
           Men
           neither
           is
           the
           Soul
           all
           that
           is
           contained
           in
           a
           
             Reasonable
             Nature
          
           ,
           nor
           a
           Reasonable
           Nature
           all
           that
           is
           contained
           in
           a
           Person
           :
           And
           therefore
           ,
           as
           the
           Soul
           cannot
           adequately
           constitute
           a
           
             Reasonable
             Nature
          
           ,
           so
           much
           less
           can
           it
           adequately
           constitute
           a
           Person
           .
           A
           Reasonable
           or
           rather
           an
           Intelligent
           Nature
           ,
           may
           be
           either
           simple
           as
           the
           Divine
           and
           Angelical
           ,
           or
           Compound
           as
           the
           humane
           Nature
           is
           ,
           which
           essentially
           consists
           of
           Soul
           and
           Body
           (
           as
           the
           whole
           World
           agrees
           )
           and
           since
           it
           does
           so
           ,
           I
           deny
           that
           the
           Soul
           can
           adequately
           make
           or
           constitute
           either
           a
           
             Reasonable
             Nature
          
           ,
           or
           Person
           (
           which
           includes
           in
           it
           the
           Nature
           and
           something
           besides
           )
           
           any
           more
           than
           one
           Essential
           Part
           of
           the
           said
           Nature
           or
           Person
           can
           do
           the
           joint
           office
           of
           Two.
           And
           whereas
           he
           adds
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Soul
          
           (
           as
           he
           may
           so
           speak
           )
           
             is
             the
             Centre
          
           of
           Personality
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           I
           own
           the
           Soul
           to
           be
           the
           Principal
           constituent
           Part
           of
           the
           Person
           ,
           but
           as
           for
           the
           other
           Notion
           ,
           I
           know
           no
           more
           of
           the
           
             Centre
             of
             Personality
          
           than
           I
           do
           of
           the
           
             Continuity
             of
             Sensation
          
           .
           Which
           word
           ,
           as
           it
           is
           perfectly
           new
           ,
           and
           not
           used
           before
           ,
           so
           it
           is
           very
           absurdly
           applied
           here
           ;
           for
           I
           demand
           of
           him
           ,
           how
           that
           can
           be
           called
           the
           
             Centre
             of
             Personality
          
           which
           diffuses
           it self
           through
           the
           whole
           Person
           even
           to
           the
           utmost
           extremity
           of
           its
           subsistence
           ;
           and
           consequently
           reaches
           as
           far
           as
           the
           Personality
           of
           the
           said
           Person
           does
           or
           can
           ;
           Nay
           ,
           and
           (
           to
           use
           his
           own
           Cant
           )
           as
           far
           as
           the
           
             conscious
             life
             extends
          
           ?
           For
           certainly
           it
           must
           needs
           be
           a
           pleasant
           thing
           to
           imagine
           a
           Centre
           reaching
           as
           far
           as
           That
           ,
           which
           must
           be
           drawn
           to
           such
           a
           considerable
           distance
           from
           it
           one
           way
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           terminate
           in
           it
           Another
           .
           But
           if
           ,
           after
           all
           this
           ,
           our
           Author
           means
           by
           these
           words
           the
           
             Centre
             of
             Non-sence
          
           ,
           I
           assure
           him
           his
           Writings
           are
           of
           a
           Compass
           large
           enough
           to
           pass
           for
           the
           Circumference
           .
        
         
           But
           let
           us
           see
           some
           more
           of
           his
           Monstrous
           Assertions
           .
           
             The
             Body
          
           ,
           says
           he
           ,
           
             is
             part
             of
             the
             Man
             ,
             and
             so
             part
             of
             the
             Person
             ,
             but
             it
             does
             not
             make
             the
             Person
             ,
             but
             is
             taken
             into
             the
             Person
             by
             a
             Vital
             Vnion
             ,
          
           p.
           47.
           l.
           7.
           
           To
           this
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           for
           the
           Body
           to
           be
           
             actually
             a
             part
             of
             the
             Person
             ,
          
           and
           yet
           ,
           while
           it
           is
           so
           ,
           not
           to
           go
           to
           the
           
             making
             of
             the
             Person
          
           ,
           as
           a
           Part
           to
           the
           making
           of
           the
           whole
           ,
           is
           a
           direct
           Contradiction
           .
           And
           whereas
           he
           talks
           ,
           
             of
             its
             being
             taken
             into
             the
             Person
             by
             a
             Vital
             Vnion
             :
          
           Let
           me
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           there
           is
           no
           such
           Thing
           as
           a
           
             Vital
             Vnion
          
           
           in
           Created
           Beings
           ,
           which
           is
           not
           also
           a
           Composition
           ,
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           A
           Concurrence
           of
           Parts
           to
           the
           Constitution
           of
           the
           whole
           ;
           And
           let
           him
           shew
           me
           in
           
             Created
             Natures
          
           one
           Instance
           of
           such
           an
           Union
           as
           is
           not
           also
           a
           Composition
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           .
           So
           that
           all
           Composition
           ,
           as
           such
           ,
           is
           an
           Union
           of
           Parts
           ,
           and
           all
           Vital
           Union
           of
           Parts
           a
           Composition
           ;
           and
           the
           Body
           is
           as
           essential
           ,
           though
           not
           so
           noble
           a
           Part
           of
           the
           Person
           as
           the
           Soul
           it self
           .
           For
           the
           Person
           of
           a
           Man
           supposes
           and
           includes
           in
           it
           the
           whole
           humane
           Nature
           ,
           and
           the
           humane
           Nature
           includes
           in
           it
           the
           Essential
           parts
           of
           humane
           Nature
           ,
           which
           are
           Soul
           and
           Body
           .
           But
           he
           tells
           us
           further
           ,
           
             That
             since
             all
             Life
             ,
             Reason
             and
             Sensation
             are
             only
             in
             the
             Soul
             ,
             the
             whole
             Personality
             must
             be
             in
             the
             Soul
             also
             ,
             though
             the
             Soul
             when
             Vnited
             to
             the
             Body
             is
             not
             the
             whole
             Person
             ,
             p.
          
           47.
           l.
           22.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           the
           
             whole
             Person
          
           ,
           and
           the
           
             whole
             Personality
          
           ,
           adequately
           connote
           one
           Another
           ,
           and
           belong
           to
           one
           and
           the
           same
           suppositum
           ;
           and
           that
           otherwise
           there
           would
           be
           no
           Commensuration
           between
           the
           Abstract
           and
           the
           Concrete
           ,
           but
           there
           would
           be
           an
           essential
           part
           of
           the
           Concrete
           ,
           to
           which
           the
           Abstract
           could
           not
           extend
           or
           belong
           :
           which
           would
           be
           a
           gross
           absurdity
           .
           But
           besides
           ,
           I
           deny
           the
           Thing
           supposed
           by
           him
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             all
             Life
             ,
             Reason
             and
             Sensation
             are
             only
             in
             the
             Soul.
          
           For
           though
           they
           may
           be
           in
           the
           Soul
           as
           the
           
             Subjectum
             proximum
             &
             Principium
             Quo
          
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           as
           immediately
           proceeding
           from
           it
           ,
           and
           subjected
           in
           it
           ,
           yet
           they
           are
           properly
           in
           the
           whole
           compound
           ,
           viz.
           the
           whole
           Man
           or
           Person
           ,
           as
           the
           
             Subjectum
             ultimum
          
           ,
           and
           
             Principium
             Quod
          
           ;
           and
           as
           that
           which
           receives
           the
           whole
           Denomination
           from
           what
           belongs
           immediately
           to
           any
           Part
           of
           it
           .
           For
           it
           is
           the
           whole
           Man
           or
           Person
           ,
           who
           is
           properly
           said
           to
           be
           a
           living
           ,
           
           Reasonable
           ,
           Sensible
           Creature
           ,
           though
           it
           be
           by
           Virtue
           of
           his
           Soul
           ,
           as
           the
           
             Principium
             Quo
          
           ,
           that
           he
           is
           so
           .
        
         
           After
           this
           comes
           another
           Absurdity
           ,
           where
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           p.
           48.
           l.
           2.
           
           
             That
             an
             Hypostatical
             Vnion
             is
             the
             swallowing
             up
             of
             a
             Natural
             Personality
             in
             its
             Vnion
             with
             a
             superior
             Person
             .
          
           Which
           if
           it
           be
           so
           ,
           Then
           ,
           say
           I
           ,
           where
           is
           the
           Hypostatical
           Union
           of
           Christ's
           Person
           with
           the
           humane
           Nature
           ?
           for
           the
           humane
           Nature
           which
           was
           united
           to
           his
           Divine
           Person
           ,
           had
           no
           Personality
           of
           its
           own
           to
           be
           swallowed
           up
           :
           for
           Christ
           assumed
           it
           without
           any
           Subsistence
           or
           Personality
           belonging
           to
           it
           ;
           which
           it
           neither
           has
           ,
           nor
           ever
           had
           ;
           and
           consequently
           could
           never
           be
           said
           to
           be
           lost
           or
           swallowed
           up
           by
           this
           Union
           :
           So
           that
           we
           have
           a
           new
           sort
           of
           Heresie
           started
           ;
           viz.
           That
           as
           Eutyches
           heretofore
           affirmed
           Christ's
           
             Humane
             Nature
          
           to
           have
           been
           swallowed
           up
           by
           His
           Divine
           ;
           so
           this
           Author
           holds
           an
           
             Humane
             Personality
          
           to
           have
           belong'd
           to
           this
           
             Humane
             Nature
          
           ,
           which
           in
           like
           manner
           is
           swallowed
           up
           by
           the
           
             Superior
             Person
          
           of
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           .
           But
           where
           these
           vile
           Heterodoxies
           will
           stop
           ,
           God
           only
           knows
           :
           For
           I
           cannot
           see
           ,
           but
           this
           Innovator
           may
           freely
           and
           uncontrollably
           vent
           as
           many
           of
           them
           as
           he
           pleases
           ;
           and
           no
           doubt
           he
           has
           a
           great
           many
           more
           such
           in
           Reserve
           ,
           and
           will
           in
           due
           time
           produce
           them
           .
        
         
           But
           the
           Animadverter
           had
           argued
           against
           the
           Personality
           of
           the
           Soul
           in
           Conjunction
           with
           the
           Body
           ,
           thus
           ;
           
             If
             the
             Soul
             ,
             in
             the
             Composition
             of
             a
             Man's
             Person
             ,
             were
             an
             entire
             Person
             it self
             ;
             and
             ▪
             as
             such
             ,
             concurred
             with
             the
             Body
             towards
             the
             Constitution
             of
             the
             Man
             ,
             then
             the
             Man
             would
             be
             an
             Imperfect
             Accidental
             ,
             and
             not
             a
             Perfect
             Natural
             Compound
             .
             He
             would
             be
             that
             which
             
             Philosophy
             calls
          
           Unum
           per
           Accidens
           ,
           
             that
             is
             ,
             a
             Thing
             made
             up
             of
             such
             Beings
             as
             cannot
             perfectly
             coalesce
             and
             unite
             into
             One
             ,
          
           Animadvers
           .
           p.
           75.
           
           And
           what
           says
           he
           to
           this
           ?
           Why
           ,
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           That
           the
           Soul
           and
           the
           Body
           are
           vitally
           united
           ,
           and
           that
           the
           Animadverter's
           own
           
             beloved
             Philosophy
             never
             calls
             Things
             vitally
             united
          
           Unum
           per
           Accidens
           .
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           no
           
             Created
             Person
          
           ever
           was
           or
           could
           be
           
             vitally
             united
          
           to
           any
           
             Being
             distinct
             from
             it self
          
           :
           And
           therefore
           since
           it
           is
           certain
           ,
           That
           the
           Soul
           is
           
             vitally
             united
          
           to
           the
           Body
           ,
           it
           is
           impossible
           that
           the
           Soul
           should
           be
           a
           Person
           .
           For
           this
           
             beloved
             Philosophy
          
           teaches
           me
           ,
           That
           in
           
             Created
             Beings
          
           there
           can
           be
           no
           
             Vital
             Vnion
          
           but
           between
           Parts
           ;
           and
           consequently
           ,
           that
           since
           there
           is
           a
           
             Vital
             Vnion
          
           between
           Soul
           and
           Body
           ,
           this
           Soul
           and
           Body
           must
           be
           united
           as
           concurrent
           Parts
           of
           the
           same
           Compound
           ;
           And
           this
           ,
           by
           this
           Author's
           Favour
           must
           utterly
           destroy
           his
           senceless
           Notion
           of
           the
           Personality
           of
           the
           Soul
           ;
           since
           that
           which
           is
           a
           Part
           cannot
           be
           a
           Suppositum
           ,
           or
           completely
           subsisting
           Nature
           ,
           and
           whatsoever
           is
           not
           so
           ,
           can
           never
           be
           a
           Person
           .
           So
           that
           the
           Animadverter's
           Argument
           stands
           good
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             in
             created
             Beings
             an
             Entire
             Person
             united
             to
             a
             Body
             would
             make
             an
          
           Unum
           per
           Accidens
           ;
           and
           consequently
           that
           a
           
             Vital
             Vnion
          
           between
           them
           would
           be
           impossible
           :
           Yet
           nevertheless
           ,
           since
           it
           is
           certain
           ,
           that
           there
           is
           actually
           such
           a
           
             Vital
             Vnion
          
           between
           Soul
           and
           Body
           ,
           it
           is
           upon
           the
           same
           account
           also
           as
           certain
           ,
           That
           the
           Soul
           (
           which
           must
           be
           one
           of
           the
           Terms
           of
           that
           Vnion
           ,
           and
           by
           consequence
           a
           Part
           )
           cannot
           be
           a
           Person
           .
           So
           that
           all
           this
           is
           but
           a
           meer
           
             Petitio
             Principii
          
           :
           first
           to
           suppose
           the
           Soul
           a
           Person
           ,
           which
           is
           the
           
             principal
             Thing
          
           in
           Dispute
           ;
           and
           then
           to
           say
           ,
           that
           its
           being
           
             vitally
             united
          
           to
           the
           Body
           ,
           keeps
           it
           from
           making
           
           a
           Man
           ▪
           That
           ,
           which
           we
           call
           
             Vnum
             per
             Accide●s
          
           .
           Whereas
           it
           is
           affirmed
           and
           argued
           against
           him
           ,
           That
           this
           very
           
             Vital
             Vnion
          
           of
           the
           Soul
           with
           the
           Body
           overthrows
           the
           
             Soul's
             Personality
          
           ,
           as
           a
           Thing
           which
           this
           Vnion
           is
           utterly
           inconsistent
           with
           .
           In
           short
           ,
           the
           
           Soul
           's
           being
           a
           Person
           (
           if
           it
           were
           so
           )
           can
           never
           prove
           it
           
             vitally
             united
          
           to
           the
           Body
           ,
           but
           its
           being
           vitally
           so
           united
           ,
           irrefragably
           proves
           it
           to
           be
           no
           Person
           .
        
         
           But
           he
           is
           now
           for
           confounding
           the
           Animadverter
           with
           
             Two
             Questions
          
           ,
           but
           still
           in
           pursuit
           of
           the
           same
           Point
           .
           First
           ,
           Whether
           the
           Eternal
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           before
           the
           Incarnation
           were
           a
           Compleat
           Being
           ?
           which
           is
           readily
           answered
           in
           the
           Affirmative
           ,
           That
           he
           was
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           Whether
           the
           
             Humane
             Nature
          
           assumed
           by
           him
           were
           a
           Compleat
           or
           
             Incompleat
             Being
          
           ?
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           though
           it
           were
           a
           
             Perfect
             Nature
          
           ,
           yet
           since
           it
           was
           without
           a
           proper
           
             Natural
             Subsistence
          
           of
           its
           own
           ,
           it
           was
           upon
           that
           account
           an
           
             Incompleat
             Being
          
           .
           But
           then
           I
           add
           ,
           that
           this
           was
           a
           Peculiar
           ,
           and
           a
           Supernatural
           Case
           ;
           there
           being
           no
           other
           particular
           
             Humane
             Nature
          
           in
           the
           World
           without
           its
           particular
           proper
           Subsistence
           but
           this
           alone
           ,
           which
           subsists
           wholly
           by
           a
           borrowed
           Subsistence
           ,
           as
           being
           assumed
           into
           that
           of
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           .
           But
           now
           what
           is
           all
           this
           to
           the
           Vnion
           between
           the
           Soul
           and
           Body
           ,
           which
           are
           
             vitally
             united
          
           as
           essential
           Parts
           of
           the
           whole
           Humane
           Person
           ?
           But
           the
           Person
           of
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           is
           not
           vitally
           united
           to
           the
           Humane
           Nature
           as
           to
           a
           Part
           of
           it
           .
           And
           though
           (
           as
           I
           noted
           before
           )
           it
           be
           impossible
           for
           a
           
             Finite
             Person
          
           to
           be
           vitally
           united
           to
           any
           other
           Being
           distinct
           from
           it self
           ,
           yet
           an
           
             Infinite
             Person
          
           (
           as
           we
           see
           in
           the
           Person
           of
           our
           Saviour
           )
           may
           be
           united
           to
           another
           distinct
           Being
           or
           Nature
           .
           For
           this
           is
           neither
           a
           Composition
           ,
           nor
           yet
           a
           
           
             Natural
             Vnion
          
           .
           But
           to
           this
           our
           Author
           very
           Learnedly
           excepts
           ,
           and
           affirms
           the
           Vnion
           between
           the
           Person
           of
           Christ
           and
           his
           Humane
           Nature
           to
           be
           a
           
             Natural
             Vnion
          
           ;
           and
           gives
           this
           as
           a
           Reason
           for
           it
           ,
           
             Because
             it
             is
             a
             Vnion
             of
             Natures
             ,
             and
             that
             an
             Vnion
             of
             Natures
             is
             a
             Natural
             Vnion
             by
             whatsoever
             Power
             it
             is
             done
             ,
             p.
          
           49.
           
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           ,
           though
           I
           might
           say
           ,
           That
           This
           is
           not
           properly
           (
           at
           least
           not
           immediately
           )
           an
           Vnion
           of
           Natures
           ,
           but
           of
           the
           
             Divine
             Person
          
           of
           Christ
           to
           the
           
             Humane
             Nature
          
           ,
           which
           by
           and
           through
           the
           Person
           comes
           to
           be
           united
           to
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ;
           yet
           ,
           to
           let
           that
           pass
           ,
           I
           absolutely
           deny
           both
           his
           Propositions
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             the
             Vnion
             between
             the
             Person
             of
             Christ
             and
             his
             Humane
             Nature
             is
             a
             Natural
             Vnion
             .
          
           And
           
             that
             all
             Vnion
             of
             Natures
             must
             be
             a
             Natural
             Vnion
             ,
             by
             what
             Power
             soever
             it
             is
             wrought
             .
          
           Both
           which
           are
           absolutely
           false
           .
           Forasmuch
           as
           a
           
             Natural
             Vnion
          
           is
           only
           that
           which
           is
           wrought
           by
           a
           
             Natural
             Cause
          
           or
           Principle
           ,
           acting
           according
           to
           the
           Ordinary
           Course
           and
           Measures
           of
           Nature
           ;
           which
           an
           Vnion
           between
           
             Two
             Natures
          
           so
           vastly
           disproportioned
           as
           a
           Finite
           and
           an
           Infinite
           ,
           can
           never
           be
           effected
           by
           :
           For
           will
           this
           Man
           affirm
           ,
           That
           GOD
           ,
           by
           the
           ordinary
           Exercise
           of
           that
           Power
           ,
           by
           which
           He
           carries
           on
           the
           daily
           Production
           of
           Things
           in
           the
           World
           ,
           (
           and
           which
           is
           properly
           called
           Nature
           )
           united
           the
           
             Divine
             Person
          
           of
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           and
           the
           
             Humane
             Nature
          
           together
           ?
           If
           this
           be
           not
           a
           
             Supernatural
             Effect
          
           ,
           (
           and
           consequently
           no
           
             Natural
             Vnion
          
           )
           let
           this
           Man
           assign
           me
           any
           one
           that
           ever
           was
           or
           can
           be
           reputed
           such
           .
           And
           therefore
           let
           him
           take
           notice
           for
           the
           future
           ,
           That
           it
           is
           not
           the
           bare
           Terms
           or
           Extreams
           of
           an
           Vnion
           ,
           as
           that
           it
           is
           between
           Two
           Natures
           ,
           that
           can
           make
           it
           Natural
           ;
           But
           an
           Agent
           acting
           ,
           and
           joining
           
           those
           Natures
           together
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           
             Ordinary
             Course
             of
             Nature
          
           ,
           which
           must
           make
           it
           formally
           so
           ;
           and
           which
           can
           never
           be
           wrought
           by
           any
           Agent
           so
           working
           ,
           where
           one
           of
           the
           Natures
           to
           be
           united
           is
           Finite
           ,
           and
           the
           other
           Infinite
           .
           But
           (
           as
           I
           said
           before
           )
           what
           is
           all
           this
           to
           this
           present
           Argument
           ,
           which
           has
           nothing
           to
           do
           with
           the
           
             Hypostatick
             Vnion
          
           ,
           but
           only
           with
           that
           way
           or
           kind
           of
           Union
           ,
           by
           which
           
             Created
             Beings
          
           are
           united
           together
           ?
           And
           will
           this
           Man
           argue
           from
           one
           sort
           of
           Union
           to
           another
           ,
           between
           which
           there
           is
           no
           Cognation
           at
           all
           ?
           Wherefore
           let
           the
           Charge
           not
           only
           of
           Boldness
           ,
           but
           Prophaneness
           too
           rest
           upon
           him
           ,
           who
           dares
           make
           the
           common
           way
           of
           Natural
           Unions
           ,
           the
           measure
           of
           a
           Supernatural
           ;
           and
           that
           such
           a
           one
           as
           exceeds
           all
           the
           Miracles
           that
           Omnipotence
           it self
           ever
           yet
           wrought
           in
           the
           World.
           
        
         
           But
           now
           (
           as
           he
           tells
           us
           )
           he
           is
           for
           
             quitting
             the
             School-Terms
          
           ,
           (
           which
           he
           never
           understood
           )
           
             and
             for
             speaking
             so
             as
             .
             all
             may
             understand
             him
             .
          
           And
           here
           the
           first
           Oracle
           thus
           delivered
           by
           him
           is
           this
           ;
           
             viz.
             That
             the
             Soul
             may
             be
             a
             Compleat
             and
             Perfect
             Person
             ,
             but
             not
             a
             Perfect
             Man
             ,
          
           p.
           49.
           l.
           28.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           a
           
             perfect
             Man
          
           is
           essentially
           a
           
             Compound
             Nature
          
           or
           Being
           ;
           And
           that
           an
           
             Humane
             Person
          
           is
           essentially
           so
           too
           ;
           And
           that
           therefore
           the
           Soul
           being
           as
           essentially
           a
           simple
           
             Vncompounded
             Being
          
           ,
           can
           neither
           be
           a
           
             Perfect
             Man
          
           ,
           nor
           a
           
             Perfect
             Person
          
           .
           But
           this
           is
           such
           a
           Proposition
           ,
           that
           I
           shall
           say
           no
           more
           of
           it
           ,
           but
           leave
           it
           wholly
           to
           the
           Reader
           's
           Admiration
           .
           Nevertheless
           ,
           to
           dis-encumber
           him
           from
           such
           Stuff
           ,
           as
           this
           Man's
           Ignorance
           is
           still
           throwing
           in
           his
           way
           ,
           I
           think
           fit
           here
           to
           note
           the
           Difference
           between
           a
           Perfect
           and
           a
           
             Compleat
             Being
          
           .
           
           Now
           a
           Thing
           is
           said
           to
           be
           Perfect
           in
           respect
           of
           its
           Essence
           ,
           as
           wanting
           nothing
           that
           is
           Essential
           to
           it
           .
           But
           it
           is
           called
           Compleat
           in
           respect
           of
           its
           Subsistence
           ,
           as
           subsisting
           so
           by
           it self
           ,
           as
           to
           be
           neither
           a
           Part
           ,
           nor
           Adjunct
           of
           another
           Thing
           .
           Accordingly
           the
           first
           of
           these
           is
           the
           
             Perfection
             of
             a
             Man
          
           considered
           barely
           as
           a
           Man
           ,
           as
           an
           
             Animal
             Rationale
          
           ,
           compounded
           of
           Soul
           and
           Body
           .
           But
           the
           other
           is
           the
           
             Perfection
             of
             a
             Person
          
           ,
           or
           of
           a
           Man
           ,
           considered
           not
           only
           as
           a
           
             Rational
             Nature
          
           ,
           but
           as
           a
           Rational
           Nature
           
             completely
             subsisting
          
           .
           From
           whence
           it
           follows
           ,
           That
           neither
           does
           the
           Perfection
           of
           a
           Man
           ,
           nor
           the
           Perfection
           of
           a
           Person
           ,
           depend
           upon
           the
           Perfections
           or
           Operations
           belonging
           to
           him
           ;
           as
           being
           neither
           Essential
           to
           him
           as
           a
           Man
           ,
           or
           as
           a
           Person
           ;
           and
           consequently
           ,
           though
           they
           be
           never
           so
           defective
           ,
           yet
           he
           who
           has
           the
           Essence
           or
           Essentials
           of
           a
           Man
           ,
           is
           a
           
             Perfect
             Man
          
           ;
           and
           he
           who
           has
           this
           Essence
           or
           Nature
           of
           a
           Man
           ,
           completed
           with
           the
           Proper
           Subsistence
           of
           the
           same
           ,
           is
           a
           
             Perfect
             Person
          
           .
        
         
           But
           our
           Author
           is
           for
           explaining
           this
           matter
           to
           us
           further
           by
           an
           Instance
           :
           
             Let
             us
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             consider
             a
             Soul
             vitally
             Vnited
             to
             a
             Body
             ,
             with
             Organs
             so
             indisposed
             for
             Sensation
             ,
             that
             a
             Man
             can
             neither
             see
             ,
             nor
             hear
             ,
             nor
             tast
             ,
             nor
             smell
             ,
             but
             only
             just
             lives
             and
             breaths
             ,
             you
             will
             not
             say
             this
             is
             a
             perfect
             Man
             ,
          
           p.
           50.
           l.
           8.
           
           Yes
           ,
           good
           Sir
           ,
           I
           both
           will
           and
           do
           say
           so
           .
           For
           he
           who
           has
           the
           perfect
           Essence
           of
           a
           Man
           ,
           is
           a
           perfect
           Man
           ,
           whether
           Halt
           ,
           or
           Blind
           ,
           or
           Deaf
           ,
           and
           as
           defective
           in
           the
           Actual
           Exercise
           of
           his
           faculties
           as
           of
           his
           Limbs
           .
           But
           you
           will
           say
           ,
           do
           not
           all
           these
           great
           defects
           render
           a
           Man
           more
           Imperfect
           than
           he
           would
           be
           otherwise
           ?
           Yes
           ,
           as
           to
           his
           
             State
             or
             Condition
          
           they
           do
           ,
           but
           not
           as
           to
           his
           Nature
           
           or
           Essence
           :
           And
           therefore
           this
           Author
           may
           take
           notice
           ,
           That
           there
           is
           a
           twofold
           Perfection
           belonging
           to
           a
           Man
           ,
           the
           first
           Essential
           ,
           which
           we
           have
           been
           hitherto
           speaking
           of
           ,
           and
           properly
           consists
           in
           that
           perfection
           of
           Nature
           ,
           or
           Essence
           ,
           without
           which
           he
           could
           not
           be
           a
           Man
           ;
           The
           other
           is
           Extra-essential
           ,
           and
           in
           respect
           of
           the
           former
           Accidental
           ,
           and
           may
           (
           as
           we
           have
           noted
           )
           be
           called
           a
           perfection
           of
           
             State
             or
             Condition
          
           ;
           and
           consists
           properly
           in
           an
           Integrity
           of
           Parts
           ,
           and
           a
           right
           disposition
           of
           the
           Faculties
           ,
           enabling
           a
           Man
           to
           exert
           all
           the
           Operations
           belonging
           to
           him
           .
           And
           I
           do
           here
           ,
           according
           to
           all
           the
           Principles
           of
           Philosophy
           ,
           and
           the
           concurrent
           sence
           of
           Philosophers
           affirm
           ,
           that
           notwithstanding
           an
           Universal
           failure
           of
           all
           those
           Accidental
           Perfections
           ,
           a
           Man
           is
           as
           perfectly
           a
           Man
           by
           vertue
           of
           his
           bare
           Essence
           ,
           and
           as
           perfectly
           a
           Person
           by
           vertue
           of
           his
           Compleat
           Subsistence
           ,
           as
           if
           he
           had
           them
           all
           in
           their
           highest
           Pitch
           .
           But
           our
           Author
           goes
           on
           ;
           If
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             a
             Compleat
             Person
             may
             not
             be
             a
             Compleat
             and
             perfect
             Man
             ,
             then
             the
             Formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             ,
             and
             the
             Natural
             Perfection
             of
             a
             Man
             ,
             are
             Two
             Things
             ,
          
           p.
           50.
           l.
           15.
           
           I
           grant
           they
           are
           so
           ;
           But
           utterly
           deny
           ,
           That
           a
           Compleat
           Person
           can
           be
           otherwise
           than
           a
           
             Perfect
             Man
          
           ;
           though
           there
           may
           be
           a
           
             Perfect
             Man
          
           who
           is
           not
           a
           Person
           .
           For
           every
           Person
           includes
           in
           it
           a
           
             Nature
             Rationalis
          
           ,
           (
           which
           makes
           a
           Perfect
           Man
           )
           and
           ,
           besides
           that
           ,
           a
           
             Compleat
             Subsistence
          
           of
           the
           same
           ,
           which
           makes
           the
           Person
           ;
           and
           whereas
           he
           says
           ,
           
             That
             the
             whole
             Personality
             must
             be
             in
             the
             Soul
             ,
             if
             a
             Man
             be
             a
             perfect
             Man
             ,
             who
             is
             united
             to
             a
             Body
             which
             is
             worse
             than
             none
             ,
          
           p.
           50.
           l.
           20.
           
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           first
           ,
           
             That
             there
             is
             no
             such
             Thing
             as
             a
             Man's
             being
             united
             to
             a
             Body
             :
          
           for
           though
           the
           Soul
           is
           united
           to
           a
           Body
           ,
           yet
           the
           Man
           is
           not
           ,
           
           but
           contains
           both
           Body
           and
           Soul
           united
           to
           one
           Another
           .
           And
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           further
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Soul
             's
             being
             united
             to
             a
             Body
             which
             is
             worse
             than
             none
             ,
          
           does
           not
           make
           that
           Body
           less
           an
           Essential
           Part
           of
           the
           Man
           and
           of
           the
           Person
           ,
           than
           if
           it
           were
           the
           most
           accomplish'd
           Body
           in
           the
           World.
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           I
           must
           desire
           the
           Reader
           to
           take
           Notice
           of
           the
           Intolerable
           Absurdity
           of
           this
           Author
           's
           affirming
           a
           
             Man
             to
             be
             united
             to
             a
             Body
             ,
          
           and
           that
           
             his
             own
             Body
          
           too
           :
           For
           ,
           at
           this
           rate
           ,
           the
           Man
           must
           be
           one
           Term
           of
           the
           Vnion
           ,
           and
           his
           Body
           the
           other
           .
           But
           still
           he
           goes
           boldly
           on
           ,
           and
           tells
           us
           ,
           p.
           51.
           l.
           2
           ,
           3.
           
           
             That
             the
             Soul
             is
             the
             Person
             ,
             and
             the
             Body
          
           only
           
             the
             Instrument
             or
             Organ
             of
             it
             .
          
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           not
           the
           Soul
           ,
           but
           the
           whole
           Compositum
           is
           the
           Person
           ,
           and
           that
           the
           Body
           is
           not
           the
           Instrument
           of
           the
           Soul
           ,
           as
           of
           the
           Principal
           Agent
           ,
           but
           of
           the
           whole
           Compositum
           ;
           and
           ,
           moreover
           ,
           that
           the
           Soul
           is
           as
           much
           the
           Instrument
           of
           the
           said
           Compositum
           ,
           as
           the
           Body
           is
           or
           can
           be
           :
           and
           lastly
           ,
           That
           Both
           of
           them
           are
           such
           Instruments
           ,
           as
           are
           also
           
             Vital
             ,
             Essential
             Parts
          
           of
           the
           Compound
           ,
           or
           Person
           ;
           which
           makes
           them
           of
           a
           quite
           different
           Kind
           from
           Instruments
           commonly
           so
           called
           ,
           which
           are
           dis-joined
           from
           the
           Agent
           that
           employs
           them
           .
           But
           he
           has
           not
           done
           yet
           ,
           but
           tells
           us
           ;
           
             That
             our
             Bodies
             can
             be
             no
             part
             of
             our
             Personality
             ,
             because
             they
             are
             in
             continual
             Flux
             ,
             so
             that
             we
             are
             no
             more
             the
             same
             for
             a
             Month
             ,
             or
             a
             Year
             ,
             than
             a
             River
             is
             ,
             whose
             Waters
             perpetually
             flow
             ,
             and
             change
             their
             place
             ;
             and
             yet
             we
             feel
             our selves
             to
             be
             the
             same
             Persons
             still
             ,
             and
             consequently
             that
             the
             Personality
             rests
             wholly
             in
             the
             Soul
             ,
          
           p.
           51.
           l.
           10.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           by
           denying
           positively
           ,
           That
           there
           is
           such
           a
           
             Total
             Change
          
           and
           Flux
           of
           our
           Bodies
           ,
           as
           of
           the
           Waters
           of
           a
           
           River
           ;
           but
           that
           on
           the
           contrary
           the
           principal
           parts
           of
           the
           Body
           remain
           the
           same
           from
           first
           to
           last
           ;
           only
           with
           a
           due
           Accretion
           of
           matter
           ,
           till
           they
           come
           to
           their
           just
           Magnitude
           and
           Proportion
           ;
           after
           which
           there
           is
           little
           or
           no
           Efflux
           from
           them
           at
           all
           :
           and
           let
           this
           Man
           of
           Novelty
           instead
           of
           Philosophy
           ,
           prove
           it
           otherwise
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           .
           But
           he
           is
           now
           falling
           to
           his
           old
           Trade
           of
           proving
           his
           point
           by
           
             Impossible
             Suppositions
          
           ,
           and
           it
           is
           a
           mercy
           ,
           that
           he
           does
           not
           plague
           his
           Reader
           with
           the
           Nonsence
           of
           Another
           
             living
             Image
             .
             For
             suppose
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           p.
           51.
           l.
           19.
           
             it
             were
             possible
             ,
             That
             the
             Souls
             of
          
           John
           and
           Peter
           
             should
             change
             Bodies
          
           ,
           &c.
           
           
             I
             would
             ask
             the
             Animadverter
             ,
             if
             he
             thinks
             that
             such
             a
             Change
             of
             Bodies
             would
             make
             any
             Change
             of
             their
             Persons
             ?
          
           But
           before
           I
           answer
           this
           most
           wise
           question
           ,
           I
           hope
           ,
           that
           I
           also
           may
           have
           the
           Privilege
           to
           propound
           another
           .
           
             Suppose
             then
          
           ,
           say
           I
           ,
           that
           Socrates
           and
           Xantippe
           
             should
             change
             Bodies
             too
             ,
             What
             would
             be
             the
             Effect
             and
             Consequence
             of
             such
             a
             Change
             ?
          
           Why
           it
           would
           be
           this
           ,
           First
           ,
           That
           the
           Soul
           of
           Socrates
           vitally
           joined
           with
           a
           Female
           Body
           ,
           would
           certainly
           make
           a
           Woman
           ;
           and
           yet
           ,
           according
           to
           this
           Author's
           Principle
           ,
           (
           affirming
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           the
           Soul
           ,
           and
           the
           Soul
           only
           ,
           which
           makes
           the
           Person
           )
           Socrates
           ,
           with
           such
           a
           Change
           of
           Body
           ,
           would
           continue
           the
           same
           Person
           ,
           and
           consequently
           the
           same
           Socrates
           still
           ;
           and
           in
           like
           manner
           for
           Xantippe
           ;
           the
           Conjunction
           of
           her
           Soul
           ,
           with
           a
           Body
           of
           another
           Sex
           ,
           would
           certainly
           make
           the
           whole
           Compound
           a
           Man
           ,
           and
           yet
           nevertheless
           Xantippe
           would
           continue
           the
           same
           Person
           ,
           and
           the
           same
           Xantippe
           still
           :
           save
           only
           ,
           I
           confess
           ,
           that
           upon
           such
           an
           Exchange
           of
           Bodies
           with
           her
           Husband
           Socrates
           ,
           she
           would
           have
           more
           right
           to
           
             wear
             the
             Breeches
          
           than
           she
           had
           before
           .
           So
           that
           this
           may
           pass
           for
           another
           
           of
           his
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           '
           s.
           But
           to
           leave
           this
           Man
           of
           Questions
           and
           Suppositions
           to
           his
           Trifling
           ,
           and
           his
           Trifling
           to
           him
           (
           since
           they
           are
           not
           to
           be
           parted
           )
           I
           do
           here
           ,
           in
           Answer
           to
           his
           Question
           ,
           tell
           him
           in
           plain
           Terms
           ,
           That
           if
           Peter
           and
           Iohn
           should
           shift
           Bodies
           ,
           it
           would
           make
           two
           other
           Numerically
           distinct
           Persons
           from
           both
           of
           them
           .
           For
           the
           Persons
           of
           Peter
           and
           Iohn
           would
           be
           first
           dissolved
           ,
           and
           then
           two
           new
           Essential
           Compositions
           ,
           with
           a
           new
           Essential
           Compounding
           Part
           in
           each
           of
           them
           ,
           would
           certainly
           make
           two
           New
           Compositums
           .
           But
           this
           is
           such
           Idle
           ,
           Ridiculous
           Trash
           ,
           that
           I
           am
           ashamed
           to
           Answer
           it
           ,
           though
           he
           is
           not
           ashamed
           to
           write
           it
           ,
           and
           value
           himself
           upon
           it
           .
        
         
           In
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           he
           proceeds
           to
           prove
           the
           Personality
           of
           the
           Soul
           in
           a
           State
           of
           Separation
           ;
           and
           indeed
           ,
           if
           it
           could
           have
           been
           proved
           to
           be
           a
           Person
           while
           it
           is
           united
           to
           the
           Body
           ,
           I
           will
           readily
           grant
           it
           to
           be
           so
           after
           its
           disjunction
           from
           it
           .
           But
           on
           the
           contrary
           ,
           if
           it
           were
           ever
           United
           to
           the
           Body
           ,
           as
           an
           
             Essential
             part
          
           of
           the
           whole
           Compound
           ;
           I
           positively
           affirm
           ,
           that
           no
           disunion
           of
           it
           from
           the
           Body
           ,
           can
           ever
           after
           make
           that
           which
           had
           been
           an
           Essential
           part
           ,
           to
           become
           a
           Suppositum
           ,
           nor
           consequently
           a
           Person
           .
           This
           is
           what
           I
           Assert
           ;
           And
           accordingly
           the
           Animadverter's
           design
           in
           this
           dispute
           was
           to
           confute
           his
           Adversarie's
           Assertion
           of
           the
           Personality
           of
           the
           Soul
           thus
           considered
           ,
           by
           Arguing
           against
           it
           
             ab
             Absurdo
          
           ,
           and
           shewing
           ,
           what
           Paradoxes
           unavoidably
           issued
           from
           it
           ,
           and
           therefore
           that
           it
           must
           needs
           be
           False
           ,
           since
           if
           it
           were
           True
           ,
           nothing
           but
           Truth
           could
           follow
           from
           it
           .
           And
           here
           ,
           one
           of
           the
           Animadverter's
           Arguments
           proceeded
           thus
           ;
           
             If
             the
             Soul
             in
             such
             a
             state
             be
             a
             Person
             ,
             then
             it
             is
             either
             the
             same
             Person
             which
             the
             Man
             himself
             was
             ,
             while
             he
             was
             living
             ,
             
             and
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
             or
             it
             is
             another
             Person
             ,
          
           &c.
           
           To
           which
           this
           Author
           (
           shrewdly
           no
           doubt
           )
           replies
           ,
           
             Pray
             what
             is
             this
             Person
          
           (
           says
           He
           )
           
             which
             He
             calls
             the
             Man
             Himself
             which
             Lives
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
             I
             hope
             it
             is
             not
             the
             Body
             which
             Lives
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
             and
             then
             I
             know
             no
             Man
             nor
             Person
             that
             Lives
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
             but
             only
             the
             Soul
             ,
          
           p.
           52.
           l.
           20.
           
           Thus
           He.
           But
           does
           this
           weak
           Man
           think
           that
           this
           Expression
           
             of
             a
             Man's
             being
             in
             the
             Body
          
           imports
           his
           being
           
             locally
             or
             properly
             in
             it
          
           ,
           as
           a
           Thing
           is
           kept
           in
           a
           Case
           ,
           or
           shut
           up
           in
           a
           Bag
           ?
           I
           must
           tell
           Him
           ,
           that
           to
           say
           [
           
             A
             Man
             is
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
          
           or
           
             Personally
             in
             a
             Body
          
           ]
           is
           a
           form
           or
           way
           of
           speaking
           ,
           which
           has
           obtained
           in
           the
           World
           ,
           and
           signifies
           no
           more
           than
           that
           He
           is
           in
           a
           
             Bodily
             state
          
           or
           condition
           .
           And
           will
           His
           Ignorance
           then
           Exact
           the
           Popular
           use
           of
           a
           Word
           of
           Phrase
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           strictness
           of
           its
           litteral
           signification
           ?
           Do
           we
           not
           commonly
           say
           ,
           That
           a
           Man
           is
           
             in
             a
             Passion
             ,
             in
             Love
             ,
          
           in
           
             a
             Rage
          
           ,
           or
           
             in
             Drink
          
           ,
           and
           yet
           in
           Truth
           ,
           and
           in
           strictness
           of
           Speech
           ,
           all
           these
           Things
           are
           in
           the
           Man
           ,
           and
           not
           the
           Man
           in
           them
           ?
           and
           much
           after
           the
           like
           manner
           ,
           when
           we
           say
           
             a
             Man
             is
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
          
           the
           True
           sence
           of
           it
           is
           ,
           that
           the
           Body
           is
           in
           the
           Man
           ,
           as
           the
           part
           properly
           is
           and
           must
           be
           in
           the
           whole
           .
           And
           as
           for
           that
           Expression
           in
           St.
           
             Paul
             ,
             I
             knew
             a
             Man
             in
             Christ
             fourteen
             Years
             ago
             ,
             whether
             in
             the
             Body
             I
             cannot
             tell
             ,
             or
             whether
             out
             of
             the
             Body
             ,
             God
             knoweth
             ,
             such
             an
             one
             caught
             up
             to
             the
             Third
             Heaven
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           Which
           He
           alleges
           to
           prove
           ,
           that
           the
           Soul
           of
           St.
           Paul
           out
           of
           the
           Body
           ,
           was
           the
           Person
           of
           St.
           Paul
           ;
           This
           does
           not
           prove
           it
           at
           all
           ;
           for
           his
           Soul
           might
           be
           caught
           up
           into
           Heaven
           without
           the
           Body
           ,
           and
           Hear
           all
           this
           without
           being
           a
           Person
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           the
           Souls
           of
           just
           Men
           do
           ,
           which
           go
           to
           Heaven
           ,
           and
           there
           have
           such
           like
           discoveries
           made
           to
           them
           ,
           but
           yet
           are
           not
           Persons
           
           for
           all
           that
           ;
           nor
           can
           this
           Author
           prove
           that
           they
           are
           .
           But
           the
           True
           meaning
           of
           the
           forementioned
           words
           is
           no
           more
           than
           this
           ;
           That
           St.
           Paul
           could
           not
           certainly
           tell
           ,
           whether
           the
           discovery
           of
           these
           Wonderful
           Things
           was
           made
           to
           Him
           by
           the
           Ministry
           of
           his
           Bodily
           Senses
           ,
           or
           whether
           the
           Revelation
           of
           them
           was
           made
           immediately
           to
           his
           Mind
           ,
           without
           being
           conveyed
           to
           it
           through
           his
           Senses
           .
           And
           as
           this
           ,
           I
           conceive
           ,
           is
           all
           that
           can
           be
           gathered
           from
           hence
           ,
           so
           is
           it
           far
           enough
           from
           proving
           ,
           that
           either
           his
           Soul
           was
           then
           separated
           from
           his
           Body
           ,
           or
           ,
           if
           it
           were
           ,
           that
           it
           was
           properly
           a
           Person
           during
           that
           Separation
           .
           But
           see
           how
           he
           disputes
           further
           upon
           this
           matter
           .
           
             Does
             the
             Man
          
           (
           says
           He
           )
           
             and
             his
             Person
             dye
             ?
             then
             the
             Man
             is
             not
             Immortal
             ;
             and
             if
             the
             Man
             and
             his
             Person
             lives
             ,
             then
             the
             Soul
             is
             the
             Man
             ,
             and
             the
             Person
             ,
             and
             the
             very
             same
             Person
             out
             of
             the
             Body
             ,
             that
             it
             was
             in
             it
             ,
          
           p.
           52.
           l.
           29.
           
           All
           which
           as
           it
           is
           a
           Notorious
           Paradox
           ,
           so
           the
           proof
           of
           it
           is
           no
           more
           than
           one
           pitiful
           Branch
           of
           the
           fallacy
           called
           
             Ignoratio
             Elenchi
          
           ,
           which
           supposes
           a
           contradiction
           between
           Propositions
           where
           there
           is
           none
           ,
           by
           pretending
           to
           argue
           
             de
             eodem
          
           ,
           when
           it
           does
           not
           .
           For
           certain
           it
           is
           ,
           That
           the
           whole
           Person
           of
           the
           Man
           truly
           and
           properly
           dies
           ,
           as
           Death
           ,
           in
           the
           proper
           and
           received
           Sence
           of
           the
           word
           ,
           imports
           a
           dissolution
           ,
           or
           separation
           of
           the
           Essential
           parts
           of
           the
           Person
           :
           And
           yet
           as
           certain
           also
           it
           is
           ,
           That
           the
           same
           Person
           is
           Immortal
           ,
           and
           
             never
             dies
          
           ,
           as
           Death
           imports
           an
           utter
           destruction
           of
           the
           said
           parts
           .
           Both
           which
           Propositions
           are
           certainly
           and
           confessedly
           true
           ,
           but
           in
           their
           different
           Sences
           .
           Where
           ,
           for
           this
           Man
           's
           further
           Instruction
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           also
           ,
           That
           whatsoever
           immediately
           affects
           ,
           or
           belongs
           to
           any
           part
           of
           the
           Person
           
           (
           especially
           an
           Essential
           Part
           )
           does
           properly
           and
           ultimately
           denominate
           the
           whole
           person
           ;
           forasmuch
           as
           all
           Denomination
           rests
           in
           the
           Suppositum
           .
           Thus
           Moses
           (
           which
           name
           certainly
           expresses
           the
           Person
           of
           Moses
           )
           is
           said
           to
           have
           died
           ,
           and
           been
           buried
           ,
           Deut.
           34.5
           ,
           6.
           though
           it
           was
           his
           Body
           only
           that
           descended
           into
           the
           Grave
           :
           And
           the
           same
           Moses
           again
           is
           represented
           as
           living
           and
           discoursing
           with
           our
           Saviour
           ,
           Luke
           9.30
           .
           at
           which
           time
           it
           is
           certain
           also
           ,
           that
           it
           was
           only
           the
           Soul
           of
           Moses
           ,
           that
           could
           do
           this
           .
           From
           whence
           I
           argue
           ,
           that
           if
           this
           Man
           will
           infer
           the
           Soul
           of
           Moses
           to
           have
           been
           the
           Person
           of
           Moses
           ,
           because
           he
           finds
           That
           ,
           which
           could
           immediately
           belong
           only
           to
           his
           Soul
           ,
           attributed
           to
           his
           whole
           Person
           ,
           it
           will
           follow
           ,
           that
           he
           may
           with
           the
           same
           Reason
           affirm
           the
           Body
           of
           Moses
           to
           have
           been
           the
           Person
           of
           Moses
           likewise
           ,
           since
           that
           which
           did
           and
           could
           belong
           only
           to
           his
           Body
           ,
           we
           find
           equally
           attributed
           to
           his
           whole
           Person
           too
           .
           This
           is
           plain
           consequence
           ,
           and
           expressed
           in
           proper
           Terms
           ,
           whether
           this
           Man
           understands
           them
           or
           no.
           But
           he
           goes
           on
           ,
           and
           argues
           most
           invincibly
           thus
           ;
           
             If
             the
             Personality
             be
             not
             compounded
             of
             Soul
             and
             Body
             ,
             the
             Soul
             may
             be
             the
             whole
             and
             same
             Person
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
             and
             out
             of
             it
             ,
          
           p.
           53.
           l.
           14.
           
           Now
           in
           the
           name
           of
           Sence
           and
           Logick
           what
           a
           Consequence
           is
           this
           ,
           That
           because
           Personality
           is
           not
           compounded
           of
           Soul
           and
           Body
           ,
           therefore
           the
           Person
           is
           not
           compounded
           so
           neither
           ,
           and
           consequently
           ,
           that
           the
           Soul
           may
           be
           the
           whole
           Person
           ?
           For
           will
           he
           conclude
           the
           same
           of
           the
           Concrete
           ,
           which
           he
           does
           of
           the
           Abstract
           ?
           I
           have
           told
           him
           before
           ,
           and
           tell
           him
           here
           again
           ,
           That
           Personality
           being
           an
           Abstract
           Form
           has
           neither
           parts
           nor
           composition
           properly
           and
           Physically
           belonging
           to
           it
           ;
           but
           only
           by
           Connotation
           ,
           as
           it
           
           essentially
           connotes
           and
           implies
           both
           these
           in
           its
           Concrete
           ,
           which
           is
           here
           the
           Humane
           Person
           ;
           and
           consequently
           ,
           since
           the
           Soul
           can
           neither
           have
           parts
           nor
           composition
           in
           it
           ,
           it
           is
           impossible
           that
           it
           should
           be
           that
           Person
           .
           I
           protest
           I
           am
           ashamed
           to
           dispute
           any
           more
           against
           such
           gross
           Absurdities
           ;
           but
           it
           is
           my
           ill
           fate
           to
           be
           forced
           to
           follow
           this
           Blunderer
           through
           thick
           and
           thin
           .
        
         
           But
           he
           is
           now
           for
           trying
           how
           he
           can
           fence
           against
           the
           Absurdities
           charged
           upon
           his
           Assertion
           of
           the
           Personality
           of
           the
           Soul
           in
           its
           Separation
           from
           the
           Body
           .
           For
           the
           Animadverter
           having
           proved
           ,
           That
           if
           the
           Soul
           in
           that
           condition
           was
           a
           Person
           ,
           it
           was
           essentially
           another
           Person
           from
           what
           the
           Man
           himself
           was
           when
           he
           was
           alive
           (
           forasmuch
           as
           a
           compound
           Person
           ,
           and
           a
           simple
           uncompounded
           one
           ,
           can
           never
           be
           the
           same
           )
           he
           inferred
           from
           hence
           ,
           
             That
             it
             would
             be
             one
             Person
             who
             lives
             well
             or
             ill
             in
             this
             World
             ,
          
           viz.
           
             The
             Man
             himself
             while
             he
             was
             personally
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
             and
             another
             Person
             who
             passes
             out
             of
             the
             Body
             into
             Heaven
             or
             Hell
             ,
             there
             to
             be
             rewarded
             or
             punished
             (
             at
             least
             till
             the
             Resurrection
             )
             for
             what
             ,
             that
             other
             Person
             had
             done
             well
             or
             ill
             here
             upon
             Earth
             .
          
           And
           what
           does
           he
           answer
           to
           this
           ?
           Why
           in
           the
           first
           place
           he
           repeats
           the
           same
           Cavil
           ,
           that
           he
           used
           before
           ,
           and
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             to
             say
             that
             a
             Man
             is
             personally
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
             if
             the
             Person
             of
             the
             Man
             consists
             of
             Body
             and
             Soul
             ,
             is
             downright
             Nonsence
             ,
          
           p.
           53.
           l.
           28.
           
           To
           which
           I
           reply
           as
           I
           did
           before
           ;
           That
           if
           it
           be
           Nonsence
           ,
           it
           is
           such
           as
           the
           whole
           World
           commonly
           speaks
           ,
           and
           (
           as
           I
           have
           already
           shewn
           )
           such
           as
           signifies
           no
           more
           than
           a
           Man's
           being
           personally
           in
           a
           Corporeal
           ,
           
             or
             Bodily
             Estate
          
           ;
           and
           let
           this
           Man
           of
           Confidence
           instead
           of
           Sence
           shew
           ,
           either
           that
           all
           Mankind
           speaks
           in
           this
           Absurdly
           ,
           or
           intends
           any
           other
           thing
           by
           it
           than
           what
           I
           
           have
           said
           .
           But
           whereas
           he
           speaks
           of
           the
           
             Personal
             Presence
             of
             the
             Man
             in
             the
             Body
             and
             the
             Absurdity
             of
             it
             ,
          
           p.
           53.
           l.
           1.
           
           It
           is
           purely
           his
           own
           Expression
           :
           for
           the
           Animadverter
           neither
           uses
           it
           ,
           nor
           has
           any
           Thing
           to
           do
           with
           it
           .
           For
           though
           he
           speaks
           of
           [
           
             a
             Man
             's
             being
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
          
           and
           personally
           in
           the
           Body
           ]
           because
           it
           is
           a
           way
           of
           speaking
           commonly
           used
           ,
           and
           thereby
           Authorized
           ,
           yet
           he
           finds
           no
           such
           Expression
           used
           as
           [
           a
           Man
           's
           Personal
           Presence
           
             in
             the
             Body
          
           ,
           or
           his
           
             being
             personally
             present
             in
             the
             Body
          
           ]
           and
           therefore
           he
           neither
           speaks
           so
           ,
           nor
           is
           responsible
           for
           such
           a
           way
           of
           Speech
           ,
           whether
           it
           be
           defensible
           or
           no.
           So
           that
           this
           Man
           may
           take
           his
           
             personal
             presence
          
           (
           as
           he
           calls
           it
           )
           back
           again
           to
           himself
           ,
           for
           it
           is
           a
           contemptible
           thing
           ,
           and
           none
           ,
           that
           I
           know
           of
           ,
           regard
           it
           .
           But
           in
           the
           next
           place
           he
           pretends
           to
           return
           the
           charge
           of
           the
           same
           ,
           or
           the
           like
           Absurdity
           upon
           the
           Animadverter
           himself
           ,
           thus
           :
           If
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             the
             Man
             be
             a
             Person
             ,
             and
             the
             Soul
             no
             Person
             ,
             then
             the
             Person
             sins
             ,
             and
             that
             which
             is
             no
             Person
             suffers
             .
             And
             ,
             if
             a
             Man
             be
             a
             whole
             Person
             ,
             and
             the
             Soul
             only
             a
             part
             of
             the
             Person
             ,
             then
             the
             whole
             sins
             ,
             and
             a
             part
             suffers
             for
             the
             whole
             .
             And
             let
             him
             choose
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             which
             is
             most
             agreeable
             to
             the
             Principles
             of
             Reason
             and
             Divinity
             ,
          
           p.
           54.
           l.
           21.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           first
           ,
           That
           though
           a
           Part
           suffers
           for
           what
           it
           did
           in
           the
           whole
           ,
           yet
           it
           does
           not
           suffer
           
             for
             the
             whole
          
           .
           And
           secondly
           ,
           That
           for
           a
           Part
           which
           bore
           its
           share
           in
           the
           Sin
           ,
           while
           it
           was
           joined
           with
           the
           Body
           ,
           to
           bear
           its
           proportion
           of
           the
           Punishment
           while
           it
           is
           disjoined
           from
           it
           ,
           carries
           with
           it
           nothing
           incongruous
           either
           to
           the
           Principles
           of
           Reason
           or
           Divinity
           .
           If
           indeed
           the
           Soul
           in
           its
           separation
           from
           the
           Body
           should
           suffer
           the
           whole
           punishment
           due
           for
           the
           sins
           of
           the
           whole
           Person
           ,
           the
           Case
           would
           be
           very
           different
           .
           But
           
           I
           hope
           this
           Author
           (
           as
           Confident
           and
           Heterodox
           as
           he
           is
           )
           will
           not
           affirm
           ,
           that
           the
           Soul
           in
           its
           separate
           Estate
           bears
           the
           whole
           punishment
           due
           to
           the
           Sinner
           ;
           or
           that
           God
           inflicts
           it
           ,
           till
           the
           Soul
           and
           Body
           meet
           ,
           and
           are
           reunited
           together
           at
           the
           Resurrection
           .
           But
           that
           
             one
             Person
             should
             suffer
             for
             what
             was
             done
             by
             another
             Person
             ,
          
           I
           am
           sure
           is
           not
           resolvable
           into
           the
           stated
           Course
           ,
           or
           Rule
           of
           God's
           dispensing
           Rewards
           ,
           and
           Punishments
           .
        
         
           But
           he
           now
           lays
           about
           him
           at
           an
           higher
           rate
           :
           
             Does
             this
             profound
             Philosopher
          
           (
           says
           He
           )
           
             think
             indeed
             that
             the
             Body
             either
             sins
             or
             suffers
             ?
          
           p.
           54.
           l.
           24.
           
           My
           reply
           to
           which
           shall
           be
           neither
           by
           an
           Absolute
           affirmation
           or
           negation
           ,
           but
           by
           Distinction
           .
           And
           here
           ,
           that
           must
           be
           repeated
           and
           applyed
           which
           was
           mentioned
           before
           ,
           viz.
           that
           we
           must
           distinguish
           between
           the
           Principal
           and
           Proper
           Agent
           ,
           or
           the
           
             Principium
             Quod
          
           ,
           and
           between
           the
           Instrumental
           Principle
           ,
           or
           
             Principium
             Quo
          
           ,
           by
           which
           that
           Agent
           is
           properly
           said
           to
           Act
           ;
           Likewise
           between
           the
           
             Subjectum
             Quod
          
           ,
           which
           is
           also
           called
           the
           Ultimate
           Subject
           ,
           and
           the
           subject
           of
           Denomination
           ,
           and
           between
           the
           
             Subjectum
             Quo
          
           ,
           or
           
             Subjectum
             proximum
          
           ,
           which
           is
           the
           immediate
           subject
           of
           Inhesion
           .
           Accordingly
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           ,
           as
           from
           the
           
             Principium
             Quod
          
           ,
           or
           Prime
           Agent
           ,
           the
           sinful
           Act
           proceeds
           from
           the
           whole
           Person
           or
           Suppositum
           ;
           but
           as
           from
           the
           immediate
           Producing
           Principle
           ,
           or
           
             Principium
             Quo
          
           ,
           the
           said
           Act
           proceeds
           from
           the
           Soul.
           In
           like
           manner
           ,
           as
           the
           
             Subjectum
             Quod
          
           ,
           or
           Ultimate
           Subject
           of
           denomination
           ,
           the
           whole
           Man
           or
           Person
           suffers
           ;
           but
           as
           the
           
             Subjectum
             Quo
          
           ,
           or
           immediate
           Recipient
           of
           the
           Impression
           ,
           it
           is
           the
           Body
           that
           suffers
           :
           So
           that
           by
           Reason
           of
           this
           Subordination
           of
           the
           
             Principium
             
             Quo
          
           ,
           to
           the
           
             Principium
             Quod
          
           ,
           and
           the
           
             Subjectum
             Quo
          
           to
           the
           
             Subjectum
             Quod
          
           ,
           the
           Soul
           is
           not
           properly
           denominated
           the
           Sinner
           ,
           but
           the
           whole
           person
           who
           sins
           in
           and
           by
           his
           Soul
           ;
           nor
           the
           Body
           the
           Sufferer
           ,
           but
           the
           whole
           Man
           who
           suffers
           in
           and
           through
           both
           his
           Body
           and
           Soul
           too
           .
           And
           this
           is
           the
           true
           Answer
           to
           this
           his
           silly
           Objection
           ,
           and
           to
           that
           other
           too
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             Vice
             and
             Vertue
             are
             seated
             only
             in
             the
             Soul
             ,
          
           p.
           54.
           l.
           30.
           
           For
           we
           affirm
           them
           to
           be
           seated
           only
           in
           the
           Soul
           as
           in
           the
           
             Subjectum
             Quo
          
           ,
           or
           immediate
           subject
           of
           Inhesion
           ,
           but
           in
           the
           whole
           Person
           as
           the
           Ultimate
           and
           Proper
           Subject
           of
           Denomination
           .
           By
           which
           it
           is
           manifest
           ,
           that
           this
           Author's
           Ignorance
           of
           these
           Terms
           ,
           or
           his
           inability
           to
           apply
           them
           ,
           has
           betrayed
           him
           into
           all
           these
           wretched
           Paradoxes
           about
           the
           Personality
           of
           the
           Soul.
           But
           whereas
           in
           the
           next
           place
           he
           says
           ,
           
             That
             as
             the
             Body
             may
             be
             made
             the
             Instrument
             of
             Vertue
             or
             Vice
             ,
             so
             it
             may
             be
             the
             instrument
             of
             Rewards
             or
             Punishments
             ,
          
           p.
           54.
           l.
           27.
           
           Could
           there
           well
           be
           a
           grosser
           Blunder
           than
           to
           call
           that
           the
           Instrument
           of
           Rewards
           and
           Punishments
           ,
           which
           is
           properly
           the
           
             subject
             of
             them
          
           ?
           For
           an
           Instrument
           is
           properly
           an
           inferior
           sort
           of
           efficient
           cause
           ,
           acting
           in
           the
           vertue
           and
           strength
           of
           the
           Principal
           ;
           but
           a
           Subject
           is
           not
           so
           .
           And
           the
           Principal
           Cause
           of
           Rewards
           and
           Punishments
           is
           God
           himself
           ;
           and
           if
           there
           be
           any
           Instrument
           or
           Instrumental
           Cause
           of
           the
           same
           ,
           it
           is
           properly
           that
           
             by
             which
          
           ,
           and
           not
           that
           
             upon
             which
          
           he
           bestows
           the
           One
           and
           inflicts
           the
           Other
           .
        
         
           The
           next
           Thing
           he
           carps
           at
           is
           the
           Animadverter's
           way
           of
           concluding
           his
           Argument
           .
           
             It
             is
             worth
             observing
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           p.
           55.
           l.
           1.
           
             how
             notably
             he
             winds
             up
             his
             Argument
          
           (
           and
           possibly
           the
           Animadverter
           may
           not
           be
           quite
           so
           well
           skilled
           in
           the
           Art
           of
           winding
           ,
           as
           this
           Man
           
           is
           in
           that
           of
           turning
           .
           )
           Nevertheless
           ,
           as
           he
           lays
           it
           before
           us
           ,
           so
           let
           us
           consider
           it
           .
           
             If
             it
             be
             intolerably
             Absurd
          
           (
           as
           no
           doubt
           it
           is
           )
           said
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Soul
             in
             the
             other
             World
             should
             not
             be
             responsible
             for
             what
             the
             Man
             himself
             in
             Person
             had
             done
             in
             this
             ,
          
           &c.
           
           To
           this
           replies
           our
           Author
           ,
           
             What
             then
             ?
             One
             would
             then
             expect
             the
             Conclusion
             should
             be
             ,
             That
             the
             Soul
             is
             the
             Man
             himself
             in
             Person
             ,
          
           p.
           55.
           l.
           5.
           
           No
           ;
           stay
           a
           little
           ,
           good
           Sir
           ,
           you
           are
           not
           to
           form
           the
           Animadverter's
           Argument
           for
           him
           (
           for
           fear
           you
           should
           cast
           it
           into
           a
           Syllogism
           consisting
           only
           of
           Two
           Terms
           as
           you
           have
           done
           for
           the
           
             Socinians
             ,
             p.
          
           82.
           )
           but
           if
           the
           Animadverter
           had
           designed
           to
           give
           the
           Principal
           Inference
           from
           the
           Thing
           it self
           there
           spoken
           of
           ,
           the
           Consequence
           of
           the
           forementioned
           Hypothetick
           should
           have
           been
           this
           ,
           
             Then
             it
             is
             equally
             absurd
             to
             affirm
             the
             Soul
             in
             the
             other
             World
             to
             be
             another
             Numerically
             distinct
             Person
             from
             what
             the
             Man
             himself
             had
             been
             in
             This.
          
           This
           ,
           Sir
           ,
           would
           and
           should
           have
           then
           been
           the
           Consequence
           .
           But
           since
           the
           Animadverter
           had
           sufficiently
           shewn
           this
           before
           ;
           and
           moreover
           ,
           since
           this
           Author
           had
           so
           often
           and
           so
           insolently
           exploded
           all
           the
           Terms
           used
           by
           the
           Ancients
           in
           their
           Discourses
           ,
           about
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           as
           good
           for
           nothing
           but
           to
           confound
           Men's
           Notions
           of
           it
           ,
           he
           thought
           fit
           by
           way
           of
           over-plus
           to
           his
           Argument
           ,
           to
           return
           the
           Reproach
           upon
           him
           ,
           by
           shewing
           that
           he
           treated
           of
           Things
           in
           such
           false
           and
           such
           misapplied
           Terms
           ,
           that
           they
           must
           of
           Necessity
           
             throw
             all
             Discourse
             and
             reasoning
             about
             them
             into
             Paradox
             and
             Confusion
             .
          
           In
           a
           word
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           had
           no
           intent
           here
           to
           shew
           the
           immediate
           Logical
           Consequence
           of
           the
           Thing
           laid
           down
           in
           that
           Hypothetick
           Proposition
           ;
           as
           being
           evident
           to
           the
           first
           apprehensions
           of
           all
           Mankind
           ,
           and
           having
           
           withal
           been
           effectually
           proved
           by
           what
           went
           before
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             one
             Person
             could
             not
             be
             responsible
             for
             what
             had
             been
             done
             by
             another
          
           ;
           But
           his
           sole
           Purpose
           was
           to
           shew
           by
           the
           present
           Instance
           the
           Intolerable
           Inconvenience
           of
           this
           Man's
           way
           of
           discoursing
           of
           Things
           in
           words
           quite
           contrary
           to
           the
           sence
           which
           the
           whole
           World
           took
           them
           in
           .
           For
           surely
           none
           before
           him
           (
           if
           he
           had
           but
           one
           grain
           of
           Philosophy
           )
           ever
           affirmed
           
             The
             Soul
             to
             be
             the
             Person
             of
             the
             Man.
          
           And
           therefore
           whereas
           he
           represents
           the
           Animadverter
           in
           this
           matter
           
             like
             one
             who
             runs
             out
             at
             the
             back
             door
             to
             avoid
             paying
             the
             Reckoning
             :
          
           Let
           him
           not
           fear
           it
           ;
           for
           I
           assure
           him
           that
           he
           shall
           be
           
             effectually
             reckon'd
             with
          
           ,
           before
           I
           have
           done
           with
           him
           ,
           and
           
             Paid
             home
          
           too
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           I
           would
           not
           have
           him
           despise
           
             Back
             doors
          
           too
           much
           ,
           considering
           what
           singular
           use
           they
           have
           been
           of
           ,
           in
           Conventicles
           ,
           and
           possibly
           may
           be
           again
           .
        
         
           But
           the
           Animadverter
           had
           argued
           further
           against
           him
           upon
           the
           same
           subject
           ,
           thus
           .
           
             That
             the
             Soul
             's
             thus
             changing
             its
             state
             forwards
             and
             backwards
             ,
             from
             one
             manner
             of
             subsistence
             to
             another
             ,
             looks
             very
             odd
             and
             unnatural
             .
             As
             that
             from
             an
             Incomplete
             state
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
             it
             should
             pass
             to
             a
             Personal
             and
             Complete
             State
             out
             of
             the
             Body
             (
             which
             state
             is
             yet
             preternatural
             to
             it
             )
             and
             then
             fall
             back
             into
             an
             incomplete
             state
             again
             by
             its
             reunion
             to
             the
             body
             at
             the
             Resurrection
             ;
             (
             which
             yet
             ,
             one
             would
             think
             ,
             should
             rather
             improve
             our
             Principal
             Parts
             in
             all
             respects
             ,
             not
             merely
             relating
             to
             the
             Animal
             Life
             ;
             as
             the
             bare
             subsistence
             of
             them
             ,
             I
             am
             sure
             ,
             does
             not
             .
             )
             These
             things
             ,
             I
             say
             ,
             seem
             very
             uncouth
             and
             improbable
             ,
             and
             such
             as
             ought
             not
             ,
             without
             manifest
             necessity
             ,
             to
             be
             allowed
             of
             :
             which
             here
             does
             not
             appear
             ;
             since
             all
             this
             Inconvenience
             may
             be
             avoided
             ,
             by
             holding
             ,
             That
             the
             Soul
             continues
             but
             a
             Part
             of
             the
             whole
             Person
             and
             no
             more
             in
             all
             its
             conditions
             ,
          
           Animadv
           .
           p.
           77.
           
           And
           
           now
           ,
           what
           has
           this
           Defender
           here
           to
           except
           against
           ?
           Why
           ;
           as
           if
           he
           were
           upon
           a
           Tryal
           of
           skill
           in
           Ribaldry
           ,
           or
           railing
           Prizes
           with
           his
           old
           Parishioners
           of
           Billingsgate
           ;
           He
           says
           ,
           
             It
             is
             all
             mere
             GypsyCant
          
           (
           For
           it
           seems
           ,
           none
           but
           Conventicle-Cant
           will
           down
           with
           Him
           )
           p.
           56.
           l.
           13.
           
           But
           for
           that
           ,
           by
           his
           favour
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           will
           be
           judged
           by
           Philosophers
           and
           Divines
           ,
           and
           not
           by
           him
           who
           is
           neither
           .
           All
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           thinks
           fit
           to
           say
           at
           present
           is
           this
           .
           That
           to
           subsist
           as
           a
           Part
           is
           an
           
             incomplete
             state
          
           ;
           and
           to
           subsist
           
             as
             a
             Person
          
           (
           which
           this
           Author
           holds
           the
           Soul
           to
           be
           out
           of
           the
           Body
           )
           is
           a
           
             complete
             state
          
           .
           Again
           ,
           that
           for
           the
           Soul
           to
           subsist
           
             in
             the
             body
          
           is
           a
           state
           Natural
           to
           it
           ,
           and
           to
           subsist
           out
           of
           the
           Body
           is
           Preternatural
           .
           And
           accordingly
           the
           Animadverter
           affirms
           ,
           That
           to
           make
           the
           Soul
           first
           subsist
           as
           
             a
             part
             ,
             viz.
          
           while
           it
           is
           in
           the
           Body
           ,
           and
           then
           as
           a
           Person
           in
           its
           separation
           from
           the
           Body
           ;
           and
           then
           lastly
           ,
           as
           a
           Part
           again
           in
           its
           Reunion
           to
           the
           Body
           ,
           at
           the
           Resurrection
           ,
           is
           absurd
           and
           Preposterous
           .
           And
           if
           this
           Man
           of
           scorn
           cannot
           understand
           this
           ,
           I
           shall
           not
           concern
           my self
           to
           instruct
           him
           .
           Only
           I
           think
           fit
           to
           state
           the
           sense
           of
           the
           word
           Natural
           ,
           as
           it
           is
           used
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           .
           Now
           it
           may
           be
           taken
           either
           in
           a
           strict
           and
           proper
           sense
           ,
           Only
           for
           that
           which
           is
           done
           by
           a
           Natural
           Agent
           or
           Principle
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           stated
           ordinary
           course
           and
           measure
           of
           Nature
           ;
           Or
           secondly
           ,
           it
           may
           be
           taken
           in
           a
           large
           and
           less
           proper
           sence
           for
           that
           which
           
             agrees
             and
             sutes
             with
             Nature
          
           ,
           and
           any
           way
           improves
           or
           advances
           it
           by
           adding
           to
           it
           some
           accidental
           or
           extra-essential
           perfection
           .
           And
           this
           sence
           the
           Animadverter
           here
           does
           not
           use
           the
           word
           [
           Natural
           ]
           in
           ,
           but
           speaks
           of
           it
           only
           in
           its
           first
           ,
           proper
           ,
           and
           Phisophical
           sence
           ;
           which
           quite
           blows
           off
           all
           this
           Man's
           Cobweb
           Arguments
           and
           Objections
           taken
           from
           those
           
           Advantages
           of
           
             Grace
             ,
             Happiness
          
           and
           Glory
           ,
           which
           may
           attend
           the
           Soul
           after
           its
           dislodgment
           from
           the
           Body
           .
           So
           that
           when
           he
           flourishes
           with
           these
           vaunting
           Questions
           ,
           p.
           59.
           l.
           15.
           
           
             Is
             not
             the
             Perfection
             of
             our
             Graces
             the
             perfection
             of
             humane
             Nature
             ?
          
           I
           answer
           ,
           Yes
           ;
           The
           
             Accidental
             perfection
          
           of
           our
           Nature
           it
           is
           ,
           but
           not
           the
           Essential
           .
           And
           again
           ,
           
             Is
             not
             the
             Perfection
             of
             Nature
             a
             Natural
             Perfection
          
           ?
           I
           answer
           ,
           Not
           always
           ;
           but
           only
           when
           it
           is
           wrought
           by
           a
           Natural
           Principle
           ,
           and
           that
           in
           a
           Natural
           way
           .
           For
           God
           is
           to
           be
           considered
           both
           as
           
             Author
             Naturae
          
           ,
           and
           as
           
             Author
             Gratiae
          
           ;
           And
           Divines
           always
           look
           upon
           these
           considerations
           of
           him
           as
           so
           very
           different
           ,
           that
           what
           God
           is
           said
           to
           do
           under
           one
           of
           the
           said
           Capacities
           ,
           he
           is
           reckoned
           not
           to
           do
           under
           the
           other
           .
           What
           he
           does
           as
           
             Author
             Naturae
          
           ,
           is
           properly
           Natural
           ,
           and
           what
           he
           does
           as
           
             Author
             Gratiae
          
           ,
           is
           supernatural
           .
           And
           if
           this
           Author
           will
           abide
           by
           this
           Assertion
           ,
           
             That
             whatsoever
             perfects
             Nature
             is
             a
             Natural
             Perfection
             ,
          
           then
           Grace
           and
           Glory
           are
           and
           must
           be
           
             natural
             Perfections
          
           ,
           and
           God
           never
           bestows
           any
           thing
           supernatural
           upon
           the
           Souls
           of
           Men
           ,
           either
           in
           this
           World
           ,
           or
           the
           next
           .
           Which
           would
           be
           a
           blessed
           assertion
           indeed
           ,
           but
           much
           fitter
           to
           proceed
           from
           an
           arrant
           Heathen
           ,
           or
           an
           Atheist
           ,
           than
           a
           Dignitary
           of
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           ,
           I
           do
           again
           affirm
           to
           this
           Man
           ,
           That
           all
           the
           Gifts
           of
           Grace
           and
           Glory
           that
           God
           bestows
           upon
           the
           Soul
           in
           its
           state
           of
           separation
           from
           the
           Body
           ,
           make
           it
           not
           a
           Person
           ,
           nor
           any
           other
           than
           an
           
             Incompletely
             subsisting
             Being
          
           still
           .
           For
           being
           essentially
           but
           a
           Part
           (
           whether
           in
           the
           Body
           ,
           or
           out
           of
           the
           Body
           )
           it
           is
           essentially
           incomplete
           ,
           and
           consequently
           must
           be
           so
           for
           ever
           .
           And
           this
           assertion
           the
           Animadverter
           has
           considered
           too
           well
           to
           be
           either
           
           shamed
           or
           huffed
           out
           of
           it
           .
           But
           to
           pass
           from
           the
           Incomplete
           subsistence
           of
           the
           Soul
           to
           the
           Naturalness
           ,
           or
           Preternaturalness
           of
           its
           Estate
           ,
           which
           quite
           differ
           from
           the
           former
           ;
           Those
           words
           of
           this
           Author
           ,
           p.
           55.
           l.
           28.
           for
           the
           boldness
           and
           absurdity
           of
           them
           are
           very
           Remarkable
           .
           How
           (
           says
           He
           )
           
             does
             the
             Soul's
             subsisting
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
             or
             out
             of
             the
             Body
             ,
             change
             the
             Soul's
             manner
             of
             subsisting
             any
             more
             than
             the
             Body
             changes
             its
             manner
             of
             subsisting
             when
             it
             is
             naked
             and
             when
             cloathed
             ?
          
           A
           very
           learned
           Question
           indeed
           ,
           as
           most
           of
           his
           are
           .
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           .
           That
           though
           the
           Soul
           ,
           as
           to
           its
           
             Incomplete
             state
          
           ,
           changes
           not
           its
           manner
           of
           Subsisting
           ,
           as
           being
           always
           but
           a
           part
           and
           no
           more
           in
           any
           Condition
           ,
           yet
           as
           to
           the
           Naturalness
           or
           Preternaturalness
           of
           its
           state
           it
           does
           change
           the
           manner
           of
           its
           Subsistence
           ,
           and
           greatly
           too
           .
           And
           would
           any
           Man
           living
           ,
           but
           himself
           ,
           affirm
           it
           to
           be
           as
           natural
           for
           the
           Soul
           to
           subsist
           in
           the
           Body
           ,
           or
           out
           of
           the
           Body
           ,
           as
           it
           is
           for
           the
           Body
           to
           be
           cloathed
           or
           uncloathed
           ,
           when
           the
           Body
           is
           vitally
           united
           to
           the
           Soul
           ,
           and
           in
           the
           very
           Nature
           of
           it
           designed
           to
           concur
           with
           the
           Soul
           ,
           as
           an
           essential
           part
           towards
           the
           constitution
           of
           the
           whole
           Man
           ,
           whereas
           his
           Cloaths
           are
           neither
           united
           to
           ,
           nor
           part
           of
           ,
           nor
           any
           way
           essential
           to
           his
           Body
           ?
           What
           Senceless
           Paradoxes
           are
           these
           ?
           But
           he
           tells
           us
           in
           the
           last
           line
           but
           one
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Soul
             owes
             not
             its
             subsistence
             to
             the
             Body
             .
          
           And
           what
           though
           it
           does
           not
           ?
           it
           owes
           the
           
             Natural
             manner
             of
             its
             subsisting
          
           to
           its
           being
           in
           the
           Body
           ,
           for
           all
           that
           .
           And
           as
           for
           his
           saying
           in
           the
           next
           line
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Soul
             can
             neither
             subsist
          
           more
           nor
           less
           
             in
             or
             out
             of
             the
             Body
             ,
             and
             that
             he
             knows
             no
             degrees
             of
             Subsistence
             in
             the
             Soul.
          
           All
           this
           is
           meer
           Impertinence
           ,
           since
           none
           affirms
           the
           contrary
           ;
           For
           Natural
           
           and
           Preternatural
           import
           not
           here
           
             different
             degrees
          
           ,
           but
           
             different
             sorts
          
           or
           conditions
           of
           Subsistence
           ,
           and
           are
           founded
           upon
           different
           states
           of
           the
           Soul
           ,
           viz.
           Its
           conjunction
           with
           ,
           or
           its
           disjunction
           from
           the
           Body
           .
           But
           he
           goes
           on
           and
           tells
           us
           ,
           p.
           56.
           l.
           30.
           
           
             That
             the
             Souls
             of
             good
             Men
             out
             of
             the
             Body
             are
             more
             happy
             than
             in
             the
             Body
             ,
             and
             therefore
             not
             in
             a
             Preternatural
             state
             ,
             which
             can
             never
             be
             a
             more
             happy
             state
             .
          
           Which
           is
           no
           more
           than
           a
           fallacy
           of
           the
           Accident
           .
           Forasmuch
           as
           it
           is
           perfectly
           accidental
           to
           a
           Natural
           or
           Preternatural
           State
           ,
           that
           either
           of
           them
           are
           Happy
           or
           not
           Happy
           .
           For
           if
           the
           Soul
           be
           out
           of
           the
           Body
           ,
           let
           it
           be
           never
           so
           happy
           upon
           other
           Accounts
           ,
           it
           is
           still
           out
           of
           that
           estate
           which
           it
           was
           Naturally
           designed
           to
           ,
           and
           therefore
           in
           a
           state
           Preternatural
           .
           But
           he
           adds
           ,
           p.
           57.
           l.
           9.
           
           
             That
             the
             Natural
             progress
             of
             the
             Soul
             in
             this
             lapsed
             estate
             ,
             is
             from
             a
             less
             perfect
             to
             a
             more
             perfect
             ,
             and
             from
             thence
             to
             the
             most
             perfect
             state
             of
             the
             Soul.
          
           All
           which
           is
           true
           indeed
           of
           the
           moral
           perfection
           of
           the
           Soul
           ,
           but
           not
           of
           the
           Natural
           ;
           and
           proves
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           the
           duty
           of
           the
           Soul
           ,
           and
           very
           agreeable
           to
           the
           Nature
           of
           it
           ,
           to
           make
           a
           progress
           in
           its
           moral
           accomplishments
           ,
           but
           by
           no
           means
           necessary
           or
           essential
           to
           it
           to
           proceed
           from
           a
           less
           to
           a
           more
           
             perfect
             Natural
             state
          
           .
           For
           the
           Soul
           knows
           no
           
             Natural
             state
          
           but
           in
           its
           vital
           Union
           to
           a
           
             Natural
             Body
          
           :
           which
           from
           first
           to
           last
           is
           equally
           Perfect
           and
           the
           same
           .
        
         
           But
           this
           Man
           is
           not
           to
           be
           stopped
           in
           his
           Heterodoxies
           .
           And
           therefore
           ,
           whereas
           the
           Animadverter
           had
           all
           along
           asserted
           ,
           That
           the
           Soul
           in
           a
           state
           of
           separation
           from
           the
           Body
           is
           but
           a
           part
           of
           the
           Person
           still
           ,
           by
           reason
           of
           its
           essential
           Relation
           to
           the
           Compound
           .
           He
           here
           very
           insultingly
           as
           well
           as
           Ignorantly
           
           asks
           ,
           
             What
             is
             this
             compound
             ,
             and
             where
             is
             this
             whole
             Man
             ,
             which
             the
             Soul
             in
             its
             separate
             estate
             is
             related
             to
             ?
             p.
          
           57.
           l.
           27
           ,
           &
           30.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           it
           is
           
             that
             compound
          
           ,
           and
           
             that
             whole
             Man
          
           of
           which
           the
           Soul
           was
           once
           actually
           a
           Part
           ,
           and
           of
           which
           it
           shall
           be
           a
           Part
           again
           at
           the
           Resurrection
           .
           But
           can
           it
           then
           be
           part
           of
           a
           Compound
           which
           is
           not
           actually
           in
           being
           ?
           Yes
           ,
           by
           an
           Essential
           Relation
           to
           it
           ,
           it
           may
           be
           ,
           and
           is
           so
           ;
           though
           by
           an
           Actual
           Conjunction
           with
           the
           other
           part
           of
           it
           ,
           it
           cannot
           .
           But
           to
           shew
           the
           captiousness
           of
           this
           Question
           ,
           
             Where
             is
             that
             Man
             ,
             and
             where
             is
             that
             compound
             which
             the
             Soul
             ,
             while
             separate
             ,
             must
             relate
             to
             as
             a
             Part
             ,
             since
             it
             is
             certain
             ,
             that
             it
             can
             be
             no
             Part
             of
             the
             Body
             ?
          
           I
           say
           ,
           to
           shew
           the
           silly
           Sophistry
           of
           this
           Question
           ,
           Let
           us
           see
           it
           in
           this
           obvious
           Instance
           :
           Suppose
           a
           Fowl
           or
           Beast
           divided
           into
           its
           several
           parts
           ,
           I
           now
           ask
           concerning
           each
           of
           these
           parts
           ,
           where
           ,
           and
           what
           That
           is
           ,
           which
           it
           is
           a
           Part
           of
           ?
           For
           it
           cannot
           be
           a
           Part
           of
           any
           of
           the
           other
           parts
           ,
           nor
           yet
           (
           according
           to
           this
           Author
           )
           of
           the
           
             whole
             Beast
          
           ,
           for
           that
           ceases
           ,
           and
           there
           is
           no
           such
           Thing
           as
           
             an
             whole
             Beast
          
           after
           the
           supposed
           Division
           .
           Nevertheless
           it
           is
           certain
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           still
           a
           Part
           ,
           and
           relates
           to
           that
           Beast
           as
           a
           Part
           of
           it
           :
           From
           which
           it
           is
           evident
           ,
           that
           it
           must
           be
           understood
           of
           the
           
             whole
             Beast
             ,
             that
             was
          
           ,
           though
           at
           present
           the
           
             whole
             of
             it
          
           be
           actually
           dissolved
           :
           And
           so
           in
           like
           manner
           the
           Soul
           in
           its
           state
           of
           Separation
           still
           retains
           the
           Relation
           of
           a
           Part
           to
           the
           whole
           Man
           ,
           viz.
           the
           whole
           Man
           
             that
             was
          
           ,
           though
           he
           does
           not
           now
           actually
           exist
           .
           So
           that
           all
           such
           Questions
           are
           meerly
           Sophistical
           ,
           and
           proeeed
           
             à
             sensu
             diviso
             ad
             sensum
             compositum
             .
          
           But
           he
           has
           another
           Question
           to
           confound
           the
           Animadverter
           with
           ,
           p.
           57.
           l.
           31.
           
           
             Does
             he
             mean
          
           (
           says
           He
           )
           
             That
             
             it
             is
             essential
             to
             the
             Soul
             to
             live
             in
             an
             earthly
             Body
             ?
          
           No
           ,
           Sir
           ,
           But
           he
           both
           means
           and
           says
           ,
           That
           it
           is
           essential
           to
           the
           Soul
           
             to
             relate
          
           to
           the
           Body
           ,
           as
           a
           Concurrent
           part
           naturally
           designed
           for
           the
           Constitution
           of
           the
           whole
           Man
           ;
           and
           consequently
           ,
           that
           it
           cannot
           live
           out
           of
           the
           Body
           ,
           but
           still
           in
           the
           capacity
           of
           a
           Part.
           Which
           makes
           it
           essentially
           an
           
             Incomplete
             Being
          
           ;
           as
           its
           being
           actually
           disjoined
           from
           the
           Body
           ,
           puts
           it
           into
           a
           
             Preternatural
             state
          
           besides
           .
           Well
           ,
           but
           the
           Animadverter
           says
           also
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Soul
             has
             a
             Natural
             Aptitude
             to
             live
             in
             the
             Body
             .
          
           To
           which
           this
           Author
           replies
           ,
           
             So
             has
             it
             a
             Natural
             Aptitude
             to
             live
             out
             of
             the
             Body
             too
             ,
          
           p.
           58.
           l.
           15.
           
           But
           this
           ,
           by
           his
           good
           leave
           ,
           I
           deny
           ;
           and
           affirm
           ,
           that
           it
           has
           only
           
             a
             non-Repugnancy
          
           to
           live
           out
           of
           the
           Body
           ;
           but
           a
           
             Natural
             aptitude
          
           which
           carries
           in
           it
           a
           positive
           Inclination
           or
           disposition
           to
           live
           out
           of
           it
           ,
           it
           has
           not
           ;
           but
           on
           the
           contrary
           ,
           a
           very
           strong
           one
           ,
           both
           to
           continue
           in
           the
           Body
           ,
           and
           (
           as
           most
           judge
           )
           when
           separated
           from
           it
           to
           return
           to
           it
           .
           But
           ,
           says
           our
           Author
           ,
           
             This
             no
             Man
             can
             know
          
           ,
           p.
           58.
           l.
           21.
           
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           the
           mighty
           aversion
           which
           the
           Soul
           has
           to
           part
           from
           the
           Body
           ,
           is
           a
           sufficient
           proof
           of
           the
           former
           ,
           and
           a
           Rational
           Presumption
           of
           the
           latter
           .
           But
           says
           He
           again
           ,
           
             Does
             not
             St.
          
           Paul
           
             desire
             to
             be
             absent
             from
             the
             Body
             ,
             and
             present
             with
             the
             Lord
             ?
             p.
          
           58.
           l.
           26.
           
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           this
           desire
           does
           not
           prove
           the
           Absence
           of
           St.
           
           Paul's
           Soul
           from
           the
           Body
           a
           
             more
             Natural
             state
          
           to
           it
           ,
           though
           it
           might
           upon
           
             a
             supernatural
             Account
          
           ,
           (
           and
           by
           reason
           of
           that
           corruption
           accidentally
           adhering
           to
           a
           bodily
           estate
           ,
           )
           be
           a
           more
           blessed
           one
           ,
           and
           more
           desirable
           ;
           as
           neither
           was
           this
           Desire
           it self
           a
           
             Natural
             Desire
          
           ,
           but
           such
           an
           one
           as
           proceeded
           from
           a
           
             Supernatural
             Principle
             of
             Grace
          
           ;
           as
           is
           evident
           from
           hence
           ▪
           that
           where
           there
           is
           one
           ,
           who
           
           (
           with
           St.
           Paul
           )
           desires
           this
           ,
           there
           are
           Millions
           who
           desire
           the
           quite
           contrary
           :
           which
           questionless
           is
           a
           surer
           Indication
           of
           the
           Bent
           and
           Tendency
           of
           Nature
           ,
           than
           St.
           
           Paul's
           Particular
           
             wish
             or
             desire
          
           could
           be
           .
           But
           to
           give
           this
           Author
           an
           Instance
           which
           may
           shew
           him
           his
           Ignorance
           in
           the
           midst
           of
           his
           Confidence
           :
           Let
           us
           suppose
           a
           Diamond
           ,
           or
           some
           other
           precious
           Stone
           placed
           in
           a
           King's
           Diadem
           ,
           Certainly
           it
           could
           not
           be
           placed
           more
           gloriously
           :
           But
           for
           all
           that
           ,
           I
           ask
           His
           Profoundness
           ,
           whether
           this
           Diamond
           has
           not
           a
           more
           
             Natural
             place
          
           in
           its
           proper
           Centre
           (
           as
           low
           as
           it
           is
           )
           than
           in
           the
           Royal
           Diadem
           ?
           And
           for
           the
           proof
           of
           this
           ,
           let
           it
           be
           but
           unfixed
           from
           its
           place
           there
           ,
           and
           then
           we
           shall
           see
           whether
           it
           would
           not
           fall
           from
           its
           former
           glorious
           situation
           ,
           as
           low
           as
           possibly
           it
           could
           .
           So
           that
           this
           very
           instance
           duly
           applyed
           ,
           were
           there
           no
           other
           answer
           to
           his
           Impertinent
           Objections
           ,
           would
           be
           sufficient
           .
           For
           Nature
           is
           one
           thing
           ,
           and
           the
           Accidental
           State
           and
           condition
           of
           a
           Thing
           is
           quite
           another
           .
           But
           the
           Paradoxes
           vented
           by
           this
           Author
           upon
           this
           Subject
           are
           Innumerable
           .
        
         
           And
           now
           after
           all
           that
           he
           has
           said
           ,
           and
           that
           so
           confidently
           ,
           and
           without
           any
           Reserve
           ,
           he
           has
           the
           face
           to
           run
           counter
           to
           himself
           so
           far
           as
           to
           ask
           ,
           p.
           60.
           l.
           6.
           
           
             Whether
             he
             any
             where
             affirms
             the
             Soul
             ,
             while
             united
             to
             the
             Body
             to
             be
             the
             whole
             Person
             ?
          
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           if
           the
           Person
           be
           the
           
             whole
             Person
          
           (
           as
           it
           is
           and
           must
           be
           )
           he
           has
           affirmed
           it
           over
           and
           over
           ,
           and
           there
           is
           hardly
           a
           Page
           where
           he
           treats
           of
           this
           subject
           in
           which
           he
           does
           not
           affirm
           it
           ,
           either
           expresly
           ,
           or
           by
           evident
           and
           direct
           consequence
           .
           Particularly
           
             Vind.
             p.
          
           268.
           l.
           28.
           
           
             The
             Soul
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             is
             the
             Person
          
           :
           and
           Defence
           p.
           51.
           l.
           2.
           
           
             The
             Soul
             is
             the
             Person
             ,
             and
             the
             Body
             only
             the
             Instrument
             .
          
           
           And
           again
           ,
           p.
           60.
           l.
           26.
           he
           affirms
           ,
           
             that
             the
             Soul
             ,
             whether
             in
             the
             Body
             or
             out
             of
             the
             Body
             ,
             is
             the
             same
             Person
             still
             ;
             and
             that
             its
             separation
             from
             the
             Body
             makes
             no
             more
             change
             in
             the
             Person
             ,
             than
             a
             Man's
             putting
             on
             or
             off
             his
             Cloaths
             does
             in
             the
             Man.
          
           But
           if
           the
           Soul
           in
           the
           Body
           
             is
             not
             the
             whole
             Person
          
           ,
           and
           out
           of
           the
           Body
           
             it
             is
             so
          
           ,
           I
           hope
           that
           is
           a
           Change
           with
           a
           Witness
           :
           Nor
           does
           he
           only
           affirm
           it
           ,
           while
           united
           to
           the
           Body
           to
           be
           the
           Person
           ,
           but
           he
           also
           denies
           it
           to
           be
           any
           
             Part
             of
             the
             Person
             ,
             p.
          
           61.
           l.
           3.
           and
           the
           Body
           likewise
           to
           be
           any
           
             Part
             of
             the
             Person
             ,
             p.
          
           60.
           l.
           23.
           
           And
           surely
           if
           the
           Soul
           be
           so
           
             the
             Person
          
           ,
           as
           neither
           to
           be
           part
           of
           the
           Person
           it self
           ,
           nor
           yet
           admit
           the
           Body
           to
           be
           any
           part
           of
           it
           ,
           then
           by
           immediate
           and
           irresistible
           Consequence
           ,
           
             The
             Soul
          
           (
           according
           to
           this
           Man
           )
           is
           and
           must
           be
           (
           even
           when
           united
           to
           the
           Body
           )
           the
           
             whole
             Person
          
           .
           Add
           to
           this
           ,
           that
           he
           affirms
           the
           Soul
           thus
           united
           
             to
             be
             the
             only
             Seat
             of
             Personality
             ,
          
           p.
           60.
           l.
           7.
           
           And
           if
           this
           Man
           will
           deny
           that
           to
           be
           
             the
             whole
             Person
             ,
             in
             which
             the
             whole
             Personality
             is
             ,
          
           he
           is
           rather
           to
           be
           exploded
           than
           disputed
           with
           .
        
         
           But
           most
           remarkable
           are
           those
           wretched
           Assertions
           of
           his
           ,
           by
           which
           he
           directly
           ,
           and
           inevitably
           makes
           the
           constitution
           of
           every
           Man
           living
           to
           consist
           in
           an
           
             Hypostatick
             Vnion
          
           and
           Incarnation
           .
           For
           the
           proving
           of
           which
           ,
           I
           shall
           first
           give
           this
           Account
           of
           an
           
             Hypostatick
             Vnion
             ,
             viz.
          
           That
           it
           is
           that
           whereby
           a
           Person
           ,
           or
           completely
           subsisting
           Intelligent
           Being
           assumes
           another
           Being
           or
           Nature
           into
           the
           Unity
           of
           its
           own
           Subsistence
           ;
           so
           that
           by
           vertue
           thereof
           the
           Person
           assuming
           ,
           and
           the
           Nature
           assumed
           ,
           are
           both
           but
           one
           Person
           ,
           yet
           so
           ,
           that
           the
           Nature
           assumed
           is
           not
           Part
           of
           the
           said
           Person
           .
           This
           I
           affirm
           to
           be
           an
           
             Hypostatick
             Vnion
          
           ,
           and
           
           I
           gather
           it
           both
           from
           what
           Scripture
           ,
           and
           Reason
           discoursing
           upon
           Scripture
           ,
           teaches
           us
           concerning
           the
           Oeconomy
           of
           Christ's
           Person
           ,
           which
           (
           according
           to
           the
           Unanimous
           Judgment
           of
           all
           Divines
           hitherto
           )
           is
           the
           only
           Instance
           of
           an
           
             Hypostatick
             Vnion
          
           in
           the
           World.
           
        
         
           But
           now
           let
           us
           see
           what
           a
           Parallel
           this
           Heady
           Venturous
           Man
           (
           to
           say
           no
           worse
           )
           makes
           between
           this
           ,
           and
           the
           Union
           of
           an
           humane
           Soul
           and
           Body
           in
           these
           following
           Propositions
           .
        
         
           
             
               The
               Eternal
               
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
              
               is
               a
               Person
               .
            
             
               The
               Eternal
               
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
              
               assumes
               the
               humane
               Nature
               into
               the
               Unity
               of
               the
               same
               person
               .
            
             
               The
               Eternal
               
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
              
               is
               vitally
               united
               to
               the
               humane
               Nature
               assumed
               by
               it
               .
            
             
               The
               Eternal
               
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
              
               and
               the
               humane
               Nature
               thus
               assumed
               by
               it
               ,
               and
               united
               to
               it
               ,
               are
               but
               one
               and
               the
               same
               Person
               .
            
             
               The
               Eternal
               
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
                 〈◊〉
              
               and
               the
               humane
               Nature
               assumed
               by
               it
               ,
               are
               so
               One
               Person
               ,
               that
               the
               Nature
               assumed
               is
               no
               part
               of
               the
               said
               Person
               .
            
             
               The
               Humane
               Soul
               is
               a
               Person
               .
            
             
               The
               Humane
               Soul
               receives
               the
               Body
               into
               the
               Unity
               of
               the
               same
               Person
               ,
               p.
               60.
               l.
               22.
               
            
             
               The
               Humane
               Soul
               ,
               as
               a
               Person
               ,
               is
               vitally
               United
               to
               the
               Body
               ,
               p.
               60.
               l.
               21.
               
            
             
               The
               Body
               being
               United
               to
               the
               Soul
               (
               which
               is
               the
               Person
               )
               becomes
               together
               with
               the
               Soul
               ,
               one
               and
               the
               same
               Person
               ,
               p.
               60.
               l.
               19.
               
            
             
               The
               Soul
               and
               the
               Body
               United
               to
               the
               Soul
               ,
               as
               to
               the
               Person
               ,
               so
               become
               one
               Person
               ,
               that
               the
               Body
               is
               yet
               no
               part
               of
               the
               Person
               ,
               p.
               60.
               l.
               23.
               
            
          
        
         
         
           I
           know
           there
           are
           some
           disparities
           (
           as
           to
           Finite
           and
           Infinite
           ,
           Eternal
           and
           not
           Eternal
           ,
           &c.
           )
           between
           the
           respective
           Subjects
           of
           the
           Union
           here
           represented
           ,
           but
           as
           to
           the
           Union
           it self
           ,
           and
           the
           Kind
           of
           it
           ,
           I
           freely
           refer
           it
           to
           the
           Learned
           Reader
           to
           judge
           ,
           whether
           those
           Conditions
           which
           Divines
           peculiarly
           assign
           and
           ascribe
           to
           that
           
             Supernatural
             Hypostatick
             Vnion
          
           ,
           be
           not
           here
           ascribed
           ,
           by
           this
           Author
           ,
           to
           the
           Natural
           Union
           between
           Soul
           and
           Body
           .
           And
           indeed
           what
           other
           Kind
           of
           Union
           can
           it
           be
           ?
           For
           the
           constitution
           of
           an
           human
           Person
           ,
           must
           be
           either
           by
           such
           an
           Union
           as
           this
           ,
           or
           by
           an
           Essential
           concurrence
           of
           Parts
           compounding
           it
           .
           But
           this
           (
           though
           maintained
           by
           all
           the
           World
           besides
           )
           this
           Author
           utterly
           explodes
           as
           absurd
           ,
           p.
           48.
           l.
           10.
           
           And
           the
           truth
           is
           ,
           if
           neither
           the
           Soul
           be
           a
           part
           of
           the
           Person
           ,
           nor
           the
           Body
           be
           a
           part
           of
           the
           Person
           (
           as
           he
           denies
           both
           of
           them
           to
           be
           )
           how
           can
           the
           Person
           be
           Such
           by
           an
           Essential
           composition
           ,
           where
           there
           are
           no
           Essential
           Parts
           to
           make
           the
           Composition
           ?
           Or
           what
           can
           be
           the
           Essential
           Parts
           ,
           if
           the
           Body
           and
           Soul
           are
           not
           so
           ?
           Nay
           ,
           and
           as
           a
           further
           proof
           of
           what
           he
           holds
           in
           this
           matter
           ,
           in
           the
           268
           ,
           269
           ,
           270
           ,
           271
           ,
           pages
           of
           his
           Vindication
           ,
           he
           explains
           the
           Union
           between
           the
           second
           Person
           of
           the
           Trinity
           and
           the
           humane
           Nature
           ,
           and
           the
           Union
           between
           an
           humane
           Soul
           and
           Body
           ,
           by
           one
           Another
           ;
           and
           that
           in
           many
           more
           particulars
           than
           that
           mentioned
           in
           the
           
             Athanasian
             Creed
          
           .
        
         
           But
           in
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           touching
           the
           Incarnation
           of
           the
           Soul
           in
           the
           Body
           (
           which
           I
           likewise
           charge
           this
           Author's
           Opinion
           with
           ,
           as
           the
           direct
           result
           of
           it
           )
           besides
           ,
           that
           it
           must
           necessarily
           follow
           from
           such
           an
           
             Hypostatick
             Vnion
          
           of
           the
           Soul
           with
           the
           Body
           ,
           as
           has
           been
           described
           ,
           he
           himself
           (
           to
           give
           him
           his
           due
           )
           in
           plain
           and
           express
           Terms
           ,
           owns
           so
           much
           by
           telling
           us
           ,
           
             That
             the
             
             Soul
             is
             an
             Embodied
             Person
             ,
          
           p.
           60.
           l.
           26.
           and
           that
           is
           manifestly
           only
           another
           word
           for
           an
           
             Incarnate
             Person
          
           :
           For
           the
           Eternal
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           I
           am
           sure
           ,
           may
           be
           truly
           said
           to
           be
           
             an
             Embodyed
             Person
          
           ,
           by
           his
           Incarnation
           .
           So
           that
           the
           Parallel
           we
           see
           still
           holds
           .
        
         
           From
           all
           which
           new
           Cartesian
           Divinity
           therefore
           it
           does
           and
           must
           follow
           ,
           That
           so
           many
           Men
           as
           there
           are
           in
           the
           World
           ,
           so
           many
           
             Hypostatick
             Vnions
          
           and
           Incarnations
           there
           are
           also
           ;
           and
           that
           a
           Man
           is
           properly
           constituted
           a
           Man
           by
           an
           
             Hypostatick
             Vnion
          
           of
           the
           Soul
           with
           the
           Body
           ,
           and
           by
           an
           Embodyment
           or
           Incarnation
           of
           it
           in
           the
           Body
           .
           So
           that
           hereafter
           ,
           if
           any
           one
           would
           express
           or
           define
           an
           humane
           Person
           properly
           and
           exactly
           ,
           he
           must
           not
           say
           ,
           That
           it
           is
           an
           Intelligent
           Being
           compounded
           of
           Soul
           and
           Body
           ,
           and
           completely
           subsisting
           (
           for
           that
           is
           the
           Gibberish
           of
           the
           Schools
           )
           but
           he
           must
           say
           ,
           That
           an
           humane
           Person
           is
           a
           
             Soul
             Incarnate
          
           .
           For
           our
           Oracle
           has
           declared
           it
           so
           ,
           and
           therefore
           in
           that
           we
           ought
           to
           rest
           .
           And
           now
           has
           not
           this
           Author
           ,
           think
           we
           ,
           shewn
           himself
           an
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           -
           Man
           indeed
           ?
           For
           was
           there
           ever
           a
           more
           glorious
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           either
           in
           Philosophy
           or
           Theology
           than
           this
           of
           a
           new
           
             Hypostatick
             Vnion
          
           and
           Incarnation
           ?
           Which
           having
           been
           so
           happily
           discovered
           ,
           and
           so
           authentically
           vouched
           ,
           possibly
           when
           the
           Alterers
           of
           our
           Liturgy
           shall
           fall
           to
           work
           again
           ,
           to
           alter
           what
           they
           cannot
           mend
           ,
           it
           may
           be
           brought
           into
           our
           Creed
           too
           .
        
         
           But
           after
           all
           ,
           there
           are
           Three
           Questions
           proposed
           in
           the
           
             Animadversions
             ,
             p.
          
           83
           ,
           84.
           mentioned
           indeed
           here
           ,
           but
           not
           replyed
           to
           .
           And
           since
           they
           are
           not
           ,
           I
           do
           here
           Challenge
           this
           Author
           to
           answer
           them
           ;
           and
           I
           do
           it
           with
           more
           Scorn
           and
           Triumph
           ,
           than
           the
           Animadverter
           (
           as
           he
           pretends
           )
           at
           first
           propounded
           them
           .
           The
           
           design
           of
           which
           Questions
           was
           to
           shew
           ,
           that
           according
           to
           this
           Author's
           Assertions
           ,
           
             The
             Soul
             in
             every
             Man
             and
             the
             Man
             himself
             ,
             are
             and
             must
             be
             Two
             distinct
             Persons
             ,
          
           and
           they
           have
           shewn
           it
           with
           that
           force
           and
           clearness
           ,
           that
           they
           stand
           not
           only
           unanswered
           ,
           but
           against
           him
           unanswerable
           .
           And
           therefore
           to
           direct
           his
           laughter
           to
           its
           Right
           object
           ,
           I
           leave
           him
           and
           his
           Friend
           (
           some
           old
           Conventicler
           ,
           I
           suppose
           )
           to
           laugh
           at
           one
           another
           ;
           and
           to
           take
           notice
           withal
           ,
           That
           nothing
           in
           Nature
           is
           more
           to
           
             be
             laughed
             at
          
           ,
           than
           he
           who
           laughs
           at
           an
           Argument
           because
           he
           cannot
           answer
           it
           .
        
         
           I
           have
           now
           examined
           this
           Man's
           discourse
           about
           the
           Personality
           of
           the
           Soul
           ,
           and
           must
           profess
           ,
           that
           I
           never
           met
           with
           so
           many
           vile
           Heterodoxies
           ,
           in
           so
           small
           a
           compass
           before
           .
           And
           what
           offence
           they
           will
           give
           to
           the
           Pious
           and
           Orthodox
           ,
           and
           what
           advantage
           to
           Hereticks
           and
           Atheists
           ,
           I
           doubt
           not
           but
           the
           complaints
           of
           one
           ,
           and
           the
           scoffs
           of
           the
           other
           ,
           will
           in
           a
           short
           time
           declare
           .
           At
           present
           I
           shall
           only
           venture
           to
           say
           thus
           much
           ,
           that
           if
           this
           Audacious
           Innovator
           and
           Abuser
           of
           our
           Excellent
           Religion
           ,
           shall
           after
           all
           these
           scandalous
           Paradoxes
           escape
           the
           censure
           of
           the
           Church
           ,
           the
           Church
           must
           not
           expect
           to
           escape
           the
           censure
           of
           the
           World
           :
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           I
           know
           no
           security
           that
           our
           Religion
           has
           against
           such
           Invaders
           and
           Invasions
           but
           this
           ;
           That
           though
           they
           get
           Ten
           thousand
           
           Imprimatur's
           to
           introduce
           their
           New
           Christianity
           amongst
           us
           ,
           yet
           (
           thanks
           be
           to
           God
           )
           there
           is
           no
           such
           Thing
           as
           
             Licensing
             Heresy
          
           into
           Truth
           ,
           or
           Nonsence
           into
           Sence
           .
        
         
           And
           so
           I
           now
           pass
           from
           hence
           to
           his
           pretended
           Answer
           to
           some
           part
           of
           the
           fourth
           Chapter
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           .
           But
           before
           I
           enter
           upon
           it
           ;
           it
           may
           be
           
           pleasant
           to
           observe
           how
           at
           the
           Close
           of
           the
           preceding
           Dispute
           ,
           he
           beggs
           his
           
             Friend's
             Pardon
             for
             his
             long
             Excursion
             upon
             this
             Subject
             ,
          
           p.
           61.
           l.
           14.
           whereas
           before
           ,
           at
           his
           Entrance
           upon
           the
           same
           ,
           he
           had
           declared
           ,
           
             That
             he
             would
             only
             make
             some
             short
             Reflections
             upon
             it
             ,
          
           p.
           44.
           l.
           26.
           
           And
           now
           ,
           how
           
             short
             Reflections
          
           can
           pass
           for
           a
           
             long
             Excursion
          
           ,
           or
           a
           
             long
             Excursion
          
           be
           truly
           called
           
             short
             Reflections
          
           ,
           I
           must
           confess
           I
           do
           not
           understand
           .
           But
           catch
           this
           Man
           out
           of
           a
           Self-Contradiction
           ,
           and
           you
           may
           as
           well
           expect
           to
           catch
           him
           out
           of
           himself
           .
        
         
           But
           let
           us
           see
           what
           he
           says
           to
           the
           
           Animadverter's
           Fourth
           Chapter
           :
           Why
           ,
           he
           says
           ,
           
             That
             it
             is
             an
             Answer
             to
             it self
             ,
          
           (
           though
           ,
           I
           hope
           ,
           not
           in
           this
           Author's
           way
           ,
           by
           
             contradicting
             it self
          
           )
           :
           but
           how
           does
           this
           appear
           ?
           Why
           ,
           because
           (
           as
           he
           tells
           us
           )
           
             it
             undertakes
             to
             prove
             ,
             That
             Self-Consciousness
             is
             not
             the
             Formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             in
             the
             Three
             Persons
             of
             the
             Blessed
             Trinity
             .
             Nor
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             does
             the
             Dean
             say
             it
             is
             .
          
           No
           ?
           Does
           he
           not
           say
           it
           ?
           when
           it
           has
           been
           proved
           over
           and
           over
           to
           his
           Face
           from
           his
           own
           Words
           ,
           That
           he
           positively
           affirms
           Self-Consciousness
           to
           be
           That
           ,
           wherein
           their
           
             Personal
             Vnity
          
           ,
           and
           Distinction
           from
           all
           others
           does
           
             essentially
             consist
          
           ,
           Vindic.
           pag.
           74.
           
           And
           to
           
             be
             That
             which
             makes
          
           (
           I
           say
           makes
           )
           Each
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           to
           be
           One
           in
           himself
           ,
           and
           Distinct
           from
           all
           others
           ,
           pag.
           68.
           
           Vind.
           And
           having
           affirmed
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           to
           be
           
             Three
             Spirits
          
           ,
           does
           he
           not
           say
           ,
           That
           the
           Self-Vnity
           of
           a
           Spirit
           can
           be
           nothing
           else
           but
           
             Self-Consciousness
             ?
             Vindic.
             pag.
          
           48.
           
           Again
           ,
           Does
           he
           not
           affirm
           ,
           That
           the
           Nature
           of
           a
           Spirit
           consists
           in
           an
           Internal
           Self-Sensation
           ,
           which
           he
           uses
           only
           as
           another
           Word
           for
           
             Self-Consciousness
             ?
             Defence
          
           ,
           p.
           7.
           
           Nay
           ,
           and
           does
           
           he
           not
           repeat
           the
           same
           in
           several
           places
           of
           both
           his
           Books
           ,
           as
           we
           have
           from
           several
           passages
           ,
           cited
           out
           of
           them
           ,
           before
           demonstrated
           ?
           And
           now
           ,
           what
           ,
           I
           pray
           ,
           does
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           or
           any
           one
           else
           pretend
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           a
           Thing
           to
           be
           but
           that
           which
           makes
           it
           originally
           and
           essentially
           one
           with
           it self
           ,
           and
           distinct
           from
           all
           other
           Things
           ;
           or
           (
           in
           other
           Terms
           )
           that
           wherein
           the
           said
           Unity
           and
           distinction
           does
           consist
           ?
           Well
           :
           but
           having
           thus
           seen
           what
           this
           Author
           has
           unsaid
           ,
           let
           us
           see
           what
           it
           is
           that
           he
           does
           say
           :
           Why
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           That
           the
           Question
           is
           only
           this
           ,
           
             Whether
             Three
             Self-Consciousnesses
             do
             not
             prove
             Three
             Persons
             ,
             each
             of
             which
             is
             Self-Conscious
             ,
             to
             be
             really
             distinct
             from
             one
             Another
             ?
             p.
          
           61.
           l.
           28.
           
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           ,
           I
           do
           earnestly
           desire
           the
           observing
           Reader
           to
           note
           ,
           First
           ,
           how
           shamelesly
           he
           falsifies
           in
           this
           matter
           ,
           contradicting
           his
           own
           most
           positive
           and
           frequently
           repeated
           Assertions
           ;
           and
           then
           how
           utterly
           he
           changes
           the
           whole
           question
           .
           For
           the
           Question
           has
           been
           all
           along
           (
           as
           appears
           from
           what
           has
           been
           so
           faithfully
           quoted
           and
           set
           down
           )
           Not
           ,
           
             what
             proves
          
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           to
           be
           thus
           distinct
           ,
           but
           
             what
             makes
          
           them
           so
           .
           And
           will
           this
           Man
           say
           ,
           
             That
             the
             proving
          
           of
           a
           Thing
           to
           be
           thus
           and
           thus
           ,
           and
           
             the
             making
          
           it
           to
           be
           so
           ,
           are
           the
           same
           ?
           And
           besides
           ,
           supposing
           that
           Self-Consciousness
           may
           prove
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           distinct
           ,
           yet
           it
           can
           prove
           them
           so
           onely
           as
           a
           consequent
           Note
           or
           Sign
           ,
           not
           as
           the
           original
           Cause
           or
           Reason
           of
           that
           Distinction
           ;
           or
           as
           an
           effect
           proves
           its
           cause
           ,
           not
           as
           a
           cause
           proves
           its
           effect
           .
           For
           the
           Person
           is
           originally
           distinguished
           by
           its
           
             personal
             Subsistence
          
           ,
           which
           Subsistence
           is
           not
           owing
           to
           any
           Act
           or
           Principle
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           as
           shall
           be
           fully
           proved
           against
           him
           in
           the
           Vindication
           of
           the
           fourth
           Argument
           .
           In
           the
           
           mean
           time
           I
           do
           here
           refer
           it
           to
           every
           Man
           of
           sence
           to
           judge
           ,
           whether
           by
           this
           utter
           change
           of
           the
           Question
           this
           Author
           does
           not
           plainly
           give
           up
           the
           whole
           Thing
           here
           in
           dispute
           between
           him
           and
           his
           Adversary
           .
           And
           accordingly
           we
           shall
           see
           how
           by
           the
           help
           of
           this
           and
           the
           like
           wretched
           evasions
           ,
           he
           endeavors
           to
           slink
           away
           from
           the
           Animadverter's
        
         
           
           First
           Argument
           ,
           which
           is
           this
           ,
           
             No
             personal
             Act
             can
             be
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             in
             the
             Person
             whose
             Act
             it
             is
             .
             But
             Self-Consciousness
             is
             a
             Personal
             Act
             ,
             and
             therefore
             cannot
             be
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             .
          
           This
           is
           the
           Argument
           ,
           and
           what
           is
           the
           Defender's
           ,
           or
           rather
           the
           
           Dean's
           Answer
           to
           it
           ?
           Why
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             neither
             did
             he
             consider
             Self-Consciousness
             as
             a
             Personal
             Act
             ,
             nor
             assign
             it
             as
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             .
          
           To
           the
           first
           of
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           as
           manifest
           and
           barefaced
           a
           falshood
           as
           any
           that
           he
           has
           uttered
           ;
           and
           that
           if
           
             Knowledge
             ,
             Self-Conscious
             feeling
             ,
             or
             sensation
          
           be
           Acts
           ,
           and
           Things
           are
           to
           be
           understood
           by
           words
           ,
           then
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           which
           he
           has
           constantly
           expressed
           by
           the
           forementioned
           words
           ,
           is
           as
           truly
           ,
           really
           ,
           and
           properly
           an
           Act
           ,
           and
           nothing
           else
           ,
           as
           
             Knowledge
             ,
             feeling
             or
             sensation
          
           are
           ,
           or
           can
           be
           said
           to
           be
           Acts.
           And
           as
           for
           the
           other
           part
           of
           his
           Answer
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             he
             did
             not
             assign
             Self-Consciousness
             for
             the
             Formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
          
           ;
           We
           have
           superabundantly
           proved
           ,
           that
           he
           has
           plainly
           and
           fully
           asserted
           the
           thing
           ,
           and
           we
           must
           pardon
           the
           poor
           Untaught
           Man
           ,
           for
           being
           Ignorant
           of
           the
           word
           .
           Nevertheless
           he
           adds
           ,
           
             That
             if
             we
             consider
             Self-Consciousness
             as
             a
             Personal
             Act
             ,
             though
             it
             cannot
             make
             the
             Person
             ,
             yet
             it
             distinguishes
             one
             Person
             from
             another
             .
             p.
          
           62.
           l.
           21.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           nothing
           but
           that
           which
           
             makes
             the
             Person
          
           can
           originally
           
             distinguish
             the
             
             Person
          
           ,
           and
           consequently
           that
           Self-Consciousness
           distinguishes
           one
           Person
           from
           another
           only
           by
           a
           secondary
           or
           consequent
           Distinction
           ,
           and
           for
           that
           Reason
           can
           no
           more
           originally
           distinguish
           than
           it
           can
           make
           the
           Person
           .
           As
           for
           instance
           ,
           a
           Man's
           Bodily
           Stature
           and
           Dimensions
           ,
           with
           a
           Concurrence
           of
           all
           other
           Accidents
           belonging
           to
           him
           ,
           do
           really
           distinguish
           him
           from
           other
           Men
           :
           but
           for
           all
           that
           ,
           they
           do
           not
           
             originally
             distinguish
             him
          
           ;
           for
           it
           is
           only
           his
           individual
           Numerical
           Nature
           which
           does
           ,
           or
           can
           do
           that
           .
           But
           it
           is
           worth
           observing
           ,
           how
           this
           Ignorant
           Man
           pursues
           his
           point
           ,
           viz.
           that
           Self-Consciousness
           is
           that
           which
           gives
           personal
           Unity
           and
           distinction
           :
           For
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             by
             this
             actual
             Self-Consciousness
             every
             Person
             feels
             himself
             to
             be
             himself
             ,
             and
             not
             to
             be
             another
             ,
             p.
          
           62.
           l.
           23.
           
           And
           is
           not
           this
           ,
           think
           we
           ,
           a
           Demonstration
           ?
           Yes
           ,
           no
           doubt
           it
           is
           so
           of
           the
           
             Ignorance
             of
             him
          
           ,
           who
           thinks
           that
           it
           can
           prove
           any
           Thing
           else
           but
           the
           Weakness
           of
           Him
           who
           uses
           it
           .
           For
           I
           appeal
           to
           the
           whole
           World
           to
           judge
           ,
           what
           a
           Consequence
           this
           is
           ,
           viz.
           That
           because
           every
           Person
           feels
           himself
           by
           Self-Consciousness
           to
           be
           himself
           ,
           and
           not
           to
           be
           another
           ,
           therefore
           this
           Self-Consciousness
           is
           that
           which
           distinguishes
           him
           from
           all
           others
           .
           For
           can
           a
           Person
           's
           perceiving
           his
           own
           Distinction
           ,
           properly
           make
           ,
           or
           give
           him
           this
           Distinction
           ?
           Upon
           the
           whole
           matter
           I
           must
           declare
           ,
           that
           I
           cannot
           think
           any
           one
           ,
           who
           looks
           upon
           this
           as
           serious
           Arguing
           ,
           worth
           arguing
           against
           .
           And
           whereas
           he
           says
           ,
           that
           this
           
             first
             Argument
          
           of
           the
           Animadverter
           
             has
             been
             sufficiently
             exposed
             already
          
           ,
           I
           shall
           securely
           venture
           it
           upon
           the
           Bottom
           upon
           which
           it
           stands
           ,
           without
           any
           fear
           of
           its
           being
           exposed
           any
           more
           than
           answered
           ,
           especially
           by
           one
           who
           never
           yet
           exposed
           any
           Thing
           or
           Person
           but
           himself
           .
           And
           so
           I
           pass
           to
           the
           Animadverter's
        
         
         
           
           
             Second
             Argument
          
           ,
           Which
           proceeds
           thus
           .
           Nothing
           in
           the
           Nature
           of
           it
           
             absolute
             and
             irrelative
          
           ,
           can
           be
           the
           Formal
           Reason
           of
           Personality
           in
           the
           Persons
           of
           the
           
             Blessed
             Trinity
          
           .
           But
           
             Self-Consciousness
             is
             a
             Thing
             in
             the
             Nature
             of
             it
             Absolute
             and
             Irrelative
             ,
             and
             therefore
             it
             cannot
             be
             the
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             in
             any
             of
             the
             said
             Persons
             .
          
        
         
           In
           reply
           to
           which
           Argument
           ,
           thus
           fairly
           ,
           formally
           ,
           and
           Syllogistically
           proposed
           ,
           why
           does
           not
           this
           Author
           (
           as
           in
           all
           Regular
           Disputations
           it
           ought
           ,
           and
           uses
           to
           be
           done
           )
           apply
           an
           answer
           ,
           either
           by
           denying
           one
           of
           the
           Two
           Propositions
           ,
           or
           by
           distinguishing
           one
           or
           more
           of
           the
           Terms
           ?
           but
           this
           not
           being
           to
           be
           done
           without
           Logick
           ,
           our
           Author
           must
           be
           so
           far
           excused
           .
           And
           therefore
           he
           very
           prudently
           wraps
           himself
           up
           in
           such
           a
           Cloud
           of
           Insignificant
           words
           ,
           as
           may
           enable
           him
           to
           escape
           his
           Adversary
           without
           encountring
           him
           .
        
         
           For
           one
           of
           these
           two
           things
           he
           must
           of
           Necessity
           disprove
           ,
           viz.
           Either
           first
           ,
           That
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           and
           Personalities
           are
           perfectly
           and
           wholly
           Relative
           .
           Or
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           Self-Consciousness
           is
           a
           Thing
           wholly
           absolute
           and
           Irrelative
           .
           As
           to
           the
           first
           of
           which
           he
           himself
           elsewhere
           acknowledges
           and
           affirms
           ;
           
             That
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             Three
             Relative
             Subsistences
             .
          
        
         
           And
           let
           me
           tell
           him
           further
           ,
           That
           they
           are
           so
           entirely
           Relative
           ,
           that
           their
           very
           Subsistere
           is
           Referri
           ,
           and
           their
           Referri
           not
           only
           consequent
           upon
           ,
           and
           supervenient
           to
           their
           Subsistence
           (
           as
           it
           is
           in
           Created
           Persons
           )
           but
           one
           and
           the
           same
           with
           it
           ;
           so
           that
           by
           vertue
           thereof
           they
           are
           indifferently
           termed
           by
           all
           Schoolmen
           and
           Divines
           ,
           either
           
             Relative
             Subsistences
          
           ,
           or
           
             Subsisting
             Relations
          
           .
           The
           Concrete
           and
           the
           Abstract
           Terms
           in
           the
           
           Divine
           Persons
           being
           ,
           by
           reason
           of
           the
           peculiar
           condition
           of
           their
           Personality
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           the
           Absolute
           Transcendent
           Simplicity
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           only
           different
           ways
           of
           expressing
           the
           same
           Thing
           .
           And
           therefore
           whereas
           this
           Author
           says
           ,
           p.
           63.
           l.
           8.
           
           
             Does
             that
             which
             makes
          
           John
           
             a
             Person
             make
             him
             a
             Father
             ?
          
           I
           answer
           ,
           No
           ;
           but
           affirm
           also
           ,
           That
           ,
           that
           which
           makes
           the
           first
           Person
           in
           the
           Trinity
           a
           Person
           makes
           him
           a
           Father
           ,
           and
           convertibly
           ,
           that
           that
           which
           makes
           him
           a
           Father
           ,
           (
           and
           that
           only
           )
           makes
           him
           also
           a
           Person
           .
           And
           the
           Reason
           of
           the
           Difference
           here
           ,
           is
           not
           ,
           (
           as
           this
           Ignorant
           Man
           alleges
           )
           
             because
             every
             humane
             Person
             has
             an
             Absolute
             Nature
             belonging
             to
             him
             as
             the
             subject
             of
             the
             Relation
          
           ;
           for
           each
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           has
           an
           
             Absolute
             Nature
             distinctly
             belonging
             to
             him
          
           (
           though
           not
           a
           
             distinct
             Absolute
          
           Nature
           .
           )
           But
           the
           Difference
           lies
           in
           this
           .
           That
           an
           humane
           Person
           has
           not
           only
           an
           
             Absolute
             Nature
          
           to
           be
           the
           
             Remote
             subject
          
           of
           the
           Relation
           ,
           but
           also
           an
           Absolute
           Personality
           as
           the
           
             Immediate
             subject
          
           of
           the
           same
           ,
           by
           vertue
           whereof
           the
           Person
           of
           Iohn
           continues
           after
           the
           
             Relation
             of
             a
             Father
          
           ceases
           .
           But
           in
           the
           Trinity
           every
           Person
           and
           Personality
           is
           wholly
           Relative
           ,
           forasmuch
           as
           the
           very
           Subsistence
           of
           each
           of
           them
           is
           so
           .
           So
           that
           the
           Eternal
           Father
           is
           and
           subsists
           as
           a
           Father
           by
           having
           a
           Son
           ,
           and
           not
           
             by
             knowing
             himself
             to
             be
             a
             Father
          
           ;
           and
           by
           Communicating
           his
           Essence
           to
           Another
           ,
           not
           by
           an
           Act
           passed
           upon
           and
           wholly
           Terminated
           in
           his
           own
           Person
           .
           No
           ;
           this
           is
           postnate
           to
           the
           former
           ,
           as
           all
           other
           Personal
           Acts
           whatsoever
           ,
           are
           and
           must
           be
           .
           And
           therefore
           the
           Godhead
           or
           Divine
           Nature
           which
           is
           absolute
           ,
           is
           not
           (
           as
           this
           Man
           precariously
           pretends
           )
           originally
           distinguished
           by
           Three
           
             Self-Consciousnesses
             ,
             p.
          
           63.
           l.
           24.
           
           But
           
           by
           Three
           
             original
             Relative
             properties
          
           ,
           viz.
           the
           
             Innascibility
             and
             Paternity
          
           of
           the
           first
           Person
           ,
           which
           make
           one
           Personal
           Property
           ,
           and
           the
           Two
           distinct
           Originations
           of
           the
           other
           Two
           Persons
           ,
           whereby
           they
           are
           both
           mutually
           distinguished
           from
           ,
           and
           opposed
           to
           one
           Another
           ,
           as
           all
           Relatives
           are
           .
           But
           this
           Man's
           offering
           here
           at
           an
           Explication
           of
           these
           Divine
           Relations
           ,
           by
           that
           exploded
           Figment
           of
           a
           Man
           and
           
             his
             living
             Image
             ,
             p.
          
           63.
           l.
           21.
           is
           an
           unsufferable
           Profaneness
           as
           well
           as
           an
           arrant
           
             Petitio
             Principii
          
           .
           For
           will
           he
           pretend
           to
           explain
           a
           Thing
           in
           it self
           obscure
           by
           another
           that
           is
           more
           obscure
           ,
           and
           (
           which
           is
           worse
           )
           impossible
           besides
           ?
           Let
           him
           for
           the
           future
           learn
           ,
           that
           no
           Man
           who
           understands
           what
           arguing
           is
           ,
           ought
           to
           bring
           that
           as
           a
           medium
           ,
           either
           of
           Explication
           ,
           or
           Probation
           ,
           which
           he
           knows
           to
           be
           doubtful
           ,
           or
           has
           just
           cause
           to
           suspect
           that
           his
           Adversary
           may
           reject
           as
           Absurd
           and
           Unreasonable
           .
        
         
           But
           in
           the
           next
           place
           to
           shew
           ,
           whether
           Self-Consciousness
           be
           a
           Thing
           in
           the
           Nature
           of
           it
           perfectly
           Absolute
           and
           Irrelative
           ,
           and
           consequently
           unable
           to
           give
           such
           a
           Subsistence
           and
           Personality
           to
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           as
           shall
           be
           wholly
           Relative
           ,
           There
           needs
           only
           a
           Repetition
           of
           what
           is
           said
           to
           this
           purpose
           in
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           and
           which
           this
           Author
           has
           very
           discreetly
           said
           not
           so
           much
           as
           one
           word
           to
           ,
           viz.
           
           
             That
             Self-Consciousness
             is
             a
             Thing
             in
             the
             Nature
             of
             it
             Absolute
             and
             Irrelative
             ,
             as
             being
             that
             Act
             ,
             by
             which
             each
             Person
             intimately
             knows
             ,
             and
             is
             conscious
             to
             himself
             of
             his
             own
             Being
             ,
             Acts
             ,
             Motions
             ,
             and
             every
             Thing
             personally
             belonging
             to
             him
             ;
             so
             that
             as
             such
             ,
             it
             terminates
             within
             ,
             and
             looks
             no
             further
             than
             that
             one
             Person
             ,
             whom
             it
             is
             an
             entire
             survey
             and
             
             comprehension
             of
             .
             And
             as
             it
             is
             an
             Absolute
             and
             Irrelative
             Term
             ,
             so
             it
             may
             be
             conceived
             distinctly
             and
             fully
             ,
             without
             conceiving
             or
             implying
             the
             conception
             of
             any
             Thing
             or
             Person
             besides
             .
             And
             now
             ,
             what
             Relation
             does
             ,
             or
             can
             such
             an
             Act
             of
             Self-Consciousness
             imply
             in
             it
             ?
             It
             is
             indeed
             on
             the
             contrary
             a
             direct
             contradiction
             to
             all
             that
             is
             Relative
             .
             For
             it
             encloses
             the
             Person
             wholly
             within
             himself
             ;
             neither
             pointing
             nor
             looking
             further
             ,
             nor
             referring
             to
             any
             one
             else
             ,
             
               
                 Anim.
                 p.
              
               99.
               
            
          
           All
           which
           is
           so
           very
           plain
           and
           full
           ,
           that
           I
           defy
           this
           Author
           ,
           or
           any
           Man
           alive
           to
           prove
           ,
           either
           that
           this
           is
           not
           a
           True
           account
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           as
           to
           the
           Absolute
           and
           Irrelative
           Nature
           of
           it
           ,
           or
           if
           it
           be
           ,
           that
           it
           can
           give
           a
           Subsistence
           purely
           Relative
           to
           the
           Person
           which
           it
           shall
           belong
           to
           .
        
         
           But
           to
           make
           short
           work
           with
           this
           Man
           of
           words
           without
           Sence
           .
           There
           are
           in
           every
           Relation
           these
           Things
           to
           be
           considered
           .
           The
           subject
           of
           the
           Relation
           both
           Remote
           and
           Immediate
           ,
           the
           foundation
           of
           the
           Relation
           ,
           the
           Correlate
           or
           
             Term
             of
             the
             Relation
          
           ;
           and
           lastly
           ,
           the
           Relation
           it self
           .
           Accordingly
           to
           give
           an
           Instance
           of
           this
           in
           the
           Paternal
           Relation
           of
           the
           First
           Person
           of
           the
           Blessed
           Trinity
           ;
           The
           
             Remote
             subject
          
           of
           it
           is
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           the
           
             Immediate
             subject
          
           is
           the
           Person
           of
           the
           Father
           ,
           the
           foundation
           of
           it
           is
           that
           Eternal
           Act
           by
           which
           the
           Father
           communicates
           his
           Nature
           to
           the
           Son
           ,
           and
           the
           correlate
           or
           Term
           of
           the
           Relation
           is
           the
           Son
           ,
           and
           lastly
           ,
           the
           Relation
           it self
           is
           that
           mutual
           respect
           (
           resulting
           from
           the
           forementioned
           Act
           )
           which
           the
           Father
           and
           the
           Son
           reciprocally
           hear
           to
           one
           Another
           .
           And
           here
           ,
           I
           confess
           ,
           that
           in
           the
           Divine
           Relations
           there
           is
           a
           real
           Identity
           between
           the
           subject
           ,
           the
           foundation
           ,
           and
           the
           relation
           it self
           ,
           contrary
           to
           what
           it
           
           is
           in
           Created
           Persons
           ,
           in
           whom
           they
           are
           really
           distinguished
           .
           Upon
           the
           whole
           matter
           then
           ,
           let
           this
           Man
           in
           the
           present
           Instance
           of
           the
           Eternal
           Person
           of
           the
           Father
           shew
           ,
           that
           Self-Consciousness
           is
           either
           the
           subject
           ,
           the
           foundation
           ,
           the
           correlate
           or
           Term
           of
           the
           Relation
           ,
           or
           lastly
           ,
           the
           
             Relation
             it self
          
           :
           And
           then
           let
           him
           make
           it
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           a
           
             Relative
             Personality
          
           ,
           in
           that
           or
           in
           any
           other
           Person
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           ;
           And
           if
           he
           cannot
           ,
           I
           think
           a
           little
           less
           Confidence
           ,
           with
           a
           little
           more
           Knowledge
           ,
           would
           do
           well
           .
        
         
           But
           in
           the
           last
           place
           ,
           quitting
           all
           that
           he
           had
           so
           peremptorily
           contended
           for
           before
           ,
           He
           tells
           us
           in
           plain
           Terms
           ,
           p.
           64.
           l.
           5.
           
           
             That
             if
             each
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             have
             a
             Self-Consciousness
             of
             its
             own
             ,
             this
             distinguishes
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             and
             proves
             them
             to
             be
             really
             Distinct
             ;
             which
             is
             all
             that
             the
             Dean
             desires
             .
          
           Now
           what
           Mr.
           Dean
           desires
           (
           more
           than
           what
           Deans
           generally
           do
           )
           I
           cannot
           tell
           ,
           but
           what
           he
           has
           declared
           ,
           is
           this
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             Self-Consciousness
             makes
             each
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             to
             be
             one
             in
             himself
             ,
             and
             distinct
             from
             all
             others
             ;
             and
             is
             that
             wherein
             the
             said
             Vnity
             and
             Distinction
             properly
             and
             formally
             does
             consist
             .
          
           And
           now
           ,
           for
           Self-Consciousness
           to
           be
           the
           Cause
           and
           Reason
           of
           all
           this
           ,
           and
           for
           it
           only
           to
           prove
           this
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           in
           the
           Name
           of
           Sence
           and
           Logick
           are
           quite
           different
           things
           .
           And
           the
           first
           of
           them
           (
           as
           appears
           from
           the
           fore-alleaged
           passages
           )
           he
           has
           asserted
           hitherto
           ,
           and
           the
           latter
           he
           fallaciously
           sneaks
           into
           now
           .
           But
           to
           the
           same
           repeated
           assertion
           ,
           I
           must
           still
           give
           the
           same
           Answer
           ,
           viz.
           That
           Self-Consciousness
           can
           distinguish
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           only
           by
           a
           Secondary
           Distinction
           ,
           not
           by
           a
           Primary
           and
           Original
           ;
           since
           nothing
           can
           originally
           distinguish
           (
           as
           I
           have
           shewn
           )
           but
           that
           which
           also
           Constitutes
           :
           For
           still
           Philosophy
           
           will
           have
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Principle
           ,
           both
           Constitutive
           and
           
             Distinctive
             too
          
           .
           So
           that
           this
           is
           manifestly
           and
           fairly
           another
           delivering
           up
           and
           quitting
           of
           the
           Point
           ,
           which
           he
           had
           all
           along
           in
           his
           Vindication
           asserted
           and
           disputed
           for
           .
           For
           there
           he
           had
           asserted
           ,
           that
           
             Self-Consciousness
             gave
             Original
             Self-Vnity
             and
             Distinction
          
           to
           each
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           and
           here
           he
           declares
           himself
           content
           if
           we
           allow
           Self-Consciousness
           but
           to
           
             prove
             the
             same
          
           .
           Though
           we
           have
           told
           him
           ,
           that
           this
           is
           wholly
           another
           Case
           :
           and
           it
           has
           been
           inculcated
           over
           and
           over
           ;
           But
           (
           it
           seems
           )
           there
           is
           no
           forcing
           it
           into
           his
           Pate
           any
           more
           than
           pouring
           a
           Pottle
           into
           a
           Pint.
           And
           so
           I
           proceed
           to
           examine
           what
           he
           says
           to
           the
           Animadverter's
        
         
           
             Third
             Argument
          
           ,
           
           which
           proceeds
           thus
           .
           
             If
             Self-Consciousness
             be
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             in
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             then
             there
             is
             no
             Repugnancy
             in
             the
             Nature
             and
             Reason
             of
             the
             Thing
             it self
             ,
             but
             that
             there
             might
             be
             three
             thousand
             Persons
             in
             the
             Deity
             as
             well
             as
             Three
             .
          
           Which
           consequence
           appears
           from
           this
           ,
           That
           neither
           is
           there
           any
           Repugnancy
           that
           there
           might
           be
           so
           many
           Self-Consciousnesses
           ,
           or
           
             Self-Conscious
             Minds
          
           or
           Spirits
           for
           the
           Deity
           to
           be
           communicated
           to
           ,
           nor
           any
           repugnancy
           proved
           in
           the
           Nature
           of
           the
           Deity
           it self
           ,
           that
           it
           should
           be
           so
           communicated
           .
           This
           is
           the
           sum
           of
           the
           Argument
           ,
           and
           what
           is
           this
           Defender's
           Reply
           to
           it
           ?
           Why
           he
           first
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             had
             the
             Dean
             said
             ,
             That
             Self-Consciousness
             [
             made
             ]
             the
             Trinity
             ,
             this
             had
             been
             a
             Notable
             Argument
             ,
             p.
          
           64.
           l.
           14.
           
           And
           will
           he
           grant
           This
           ?
           Then
           I
           shall
           prove
           ,
           That
           he
           did
           say
           it
           ,
           and
           that
           as
           fully
           as
           words
           could
           express
           it
           in
           his
           
             Vindication
             ,
             p.
          
           68.
           l.
           4.
           
           Where
           he
           has
           this
           Passage
           ,
           
             As
             the
             Self-Consciousness
             of
             every
             Person
             to
             it self
             [
             makes
             ]
             them
             
             Three
             distinct
             Persons
             ,
             so
             the
             mutual
             Consciousness
             of
             all
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             makes
             them
             all
             but
             one
             Infinite
             God.
          
           Now
           I
           ask
           this
           Self-Contradictor
           first
           ,
           whether
           any
           words
           can
           be
           more
           plain
           and
           expressive
           than
           these
           ?
           And
           in
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           whether
           they
           are
           not
           
             his
             own
          
           ?
           If
           he
           doubts
           it
           ,
           let
           him
           turn
           to
           the
           place
           alleged
           .
           And
           if
           they
           are
           his
           own
           ,
           then
           I
           hope
           ,
           That
           ,
           
             that
             which
             [
             makes
             ]
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             Three
             distinct
             Persons
             [
             makes
             ]
             the
             Trinity
             also
          
           :
           Unless
           the
           
             Three
             distinct
             Persons
          
           are
           one
           Thing
           ,
           and
           the
           Trinity
           Another
           .
           So
           that
           this
           Argument
           effectually
           concludes
           against
           this
           Shameless
           Man
           ,
           even
           by
           his
           own
           Concession
           .
           But
           he
           adds
           in
           the
           next
           place
           of
           the
           same
           page
           ,
           
             That
             he
             hopes
             however
             ,
             that
             Self-Consciousness
             may
             distinguish
             the
             Three
             Persons
             ,
             p.
          
           64.
           l.
           16.
           
           To
           which
           it
           has
           been
           answered
           again
           and
           again
           ,
           that
           it
           can
           distinguish
           them
           only
           secondarily
           ,
           and
           consequentially
           not
           primarily
           and
           originally
           .
           But
           I
           am
           weary
           of
           these
           Repetitions
           ,
           though
           he
           is
           not
           ashamed
           to
           outdo
           Battus
           himself
           in
           Tautology
           .
           And
           therefore
           whereas
           he
           says
           further
           ,
           
             That
             Self-Consciousness
             proves
             the
             Distinction
             ,
             though
             it
             does
             not
             limit
             the
             Number
             of
             the
             Persons
             ,
             p.
          
           64.
           l.
           23.
           
           I
           deny
           ,
           that
           it
           can
           originally
           distinguish
           them
           without
           limiting
           the
           Number
           of
           them
           also
           .
           For
           ,
           as
           I
           have
           proved
           ,
           nothing
           can
           originally
           
             distinguish
             the
             Persons
          
           but
           that
           which
           
             makes
             them
             Persons
          
           :
           And
           that
           which
           makes
           them
           Persons
           ,
           by
           the
           very
           same
           ,
           makes
           them
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           ;
           it
           being
           as
           essential
           to
           them
           to
           be
           Three
           ,
           as
           to
           be
           Persons
           .
           And
           therefore
           to
           that
           Question
           of
           his
           ,
           
             Does
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             make
             or
             limit
             the
             Number
             of
             Persons
             ?
             l.
          
           33.
           ibid.
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           in
           Persons
           wholly
           Relative
           ,
           as
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           are
           ,
           it
           does
           and
           must
           do
           so
           .
           For
           the
           further
           clearing
           of
           which
           ,
           it
           
           must
           be
           observed
           ,
           That
           the
           Animadverter
           in
           the
           Present
           Argument
           considered
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           as
           wholly
           abstracted
           from
           all
           Personality
           belonging
           to
           it
           ,
           and
           so
           in
           it self
           (
           as
           upon
           such
           an
           Abstraction
           it
           must
           needs
           be
           )
           only
           communicable
           and
           Determinable
           ;
           and
           consequently
           such
           ,
           as
           cannot
           be
           supposed
           to
           communicate
           or
           determine
           it self
           ;
           but
           to
           receive
           this
           Communication
           and
           Determination
           from
           the
           Personalities
           ,
           considered
           as
           actually
           joined
           with
           it
           .
           The
           number
           of
           which
           Personalities
           must
           be
           taken
           from
           such
           a
           Peculiarity
           of
           their
           condition
           ,
           as
           shall
           make
           one
           certain
           Number
           of
           them
           necessary
           and
           no
           other
           ;
           And
           that
           wherein
           this
           peculiarity
           of
           condition
           does
           consist
           ,
           is
           the
           
             Relative
             opposition
          
           of
           the
           said
           Persons
           to
           one
           another
           ;
           by
           vertue
           whereof
           they
           are
           necessarily
           Three
           and
           no
           more
           .
           For
           as
           there
           are
           Two
           and
           but
           Two
           such
           Oppositions
           in
           this
           Divine
           Oeconomy
           ,
           viz.
           one
           between
           Generation
           and
           Filiation
           ,
           and
           the
           other
           between
           Spiration
           and
           Procession
           ,
           accordingly
           there
           are
           Three
           and
           
             but
             Three
          
           Personalities
           founded
           upon
           the
           said
           Oppositions
           :
           as
           is
           clearly
           shewn
           in
           the
           eight
           Chapter
           of
           the
           
             Anim.
             p.
          
           244.
           
           But
           on
           the
           other
           side
           ,
           since
           there
           is
           nothing
           in
           the
           Nature
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           to
           determine
           it
           to
           any
           certain
           Number
           of
           Self-Consciousnesses
           ,
           it
           must
           follow
           that
           neither
           can
           any
           certain
           Number
           of
           Personalities
           be
           derived
           from
           thence
           .
           In
           short
           ,
           if
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           or
           Essence
           thus
           Abstractedly
           taken
           on
           the
           one
           hand
           ,
           cannot
           be
           supposed
           to
           communicate
           or
           determine
           it self
           ,
           and
           the
           Personalities
           on
           the
           other
           ,
           which
           alone
           should
           and
           can
           determine
           it
           ,
           are
           of
           that
           Condition
           ,
           as
           not
           to
           imply
           any
           certain
           Number
           in
           themselves
           ,
           but
           are
           Indifferent
           to
           any
           that
           can
           be
           assigned
           ,
           then
           it
           is
           impossible
           for
           the
           said
           Personalities
           
           to
           determine
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           to
           Three
           Personal
           Subsistences
           and
           no
           more
           .
           And
           this
           I
           account
           a
           full
           and
           sufficient
           proof
           ,
           that
           the
           fixed
           
             Ternary
             Number
          
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           can
           never
           be
           stated
           upon
           Self-Consciousness
           ;
           but
           (
           so
           far
           as
           the
           Influence
           of
           that
           reaches
           )
           may
           be
           multiplyed
           into
           any
           Number
           whatsoever
           .
           But
           says
           our
           Author
           ,
           
             That
             which
             naturally
             distinguishes
             Three
             Persons
             from
             each
             other
             ,
             would
             distinguish
             Three
             Thousand
             if
             there
             were
             so
             many
             ,
             but
             does
             not
             prove
             that
             there
             may
             be
             so
             many
             ,
             p.
          
           65.
           l.
           11.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           that
           the
           Distinction
           all
           along
           insisted
           upon
           hitherto
           ,
           is
           not
           such
           an
           One
           as
           supposes
           or
           follows
           ,
           but
           such
           an
           one
           as
           Constitutes
           or
           makes
           the
           Person
           ;
           and
           therefore
           it
           is
           Ridiculous
           to
           argue
           ,
           
             That
             supposing
             there
             were
             so
             many
             Persons
             ,
          
           they
           might
           all
           be
           distinguished
           by
           so
           many
           Self-Consciousnesses
           :
           For
           that
           is
           not
           the
           Point
           here
           ,
           but
           whether
           there
           be
           any
           Thing
           in
           the
           
             nature
             of
             Self-Consciousness
          
           ,
           rendring
           it
           uncapable
           of
           such
           a
           multiplication
           or
           no
           ;
           and
           if
           there
           be
           not
           ,
           then
           it
           is
           certain
           ,
           that
           supposing
           there
           might
           be
           so
           many
           Self-Consciousnesses
           ,
           there
           
             might
             and
             would
             be
          
           also
           so
           many
           Persons
           :
           For
           as
           much
           as
           that
           which
           originally
           and
           
             principally
             distinguishes
          
           any
           thing
           must
           of
           necessity
           constitute
           it
           too
           .
           But
           he
           goes
           on
           and
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             though
             there
             may
             be
             no
             Repugnancy
             to
             such
             a
             multiplication
             on
             the
             part
             of
             Self-Consciousness
             ,
             yet
             on
             the
             Part
             of
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             there
             may
             ,
             and
             therefore
             that
             the
             Argument
             does
             not
             conclude
             ,
             l.
          
           15.
           ibid.
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           that
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           as
           this
           Author
           considers
           it
           
             actually
             determined
          
           by
           its
           respective
           Personalities
           ,
           must
           needs
           have
           a
           Repugnancy
           to
           any
           other
           ,
           or
           greater
           multiplication
           of
           the
           same
           ;
           But
           as
           the
           Animadverter
           here
           considers
           it
           entirely
           abstracted
           from
           all
           Personal
           Determination
           ,
           
           I
           affirm
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           impossible
           to
           prove
           a
           Repugnancy
           in
           it
           so
           considered
           ,
           to
           subsist
           in
           3000.
           
           
             Self-Conscious
             Spirits
          
           any
           more
           than
           in
           Three
           :
           And
           therefore
           I
           would
           have
           this
           Author
           take
           notice
           ,
           That
           the
           Animadverter
           was
           not
           concerned
           to
           conclude
           ,
           
             That
             absolutely
             there
             might
             be
             so
             many
             Persons
             in
             the
             Godhead
          
           ;
           but
           ,
           That
           so
           far
           as
           this
           Man's
           Hypothesis
           reached
           ,
           and
           for
           ought
           that
           could
           be
           determined
           from
           thence
           about
           the
           Number
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           this
           might
           be
           so
           ;
           and
           withal
           that
           nothing
           yet
           appeared
           on
           the
           Part
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           so
           Abstracted
           to
           prove
           ,
           that
           it
           could
           not
           be
           so
           .
           And
           as
           this
           was
           the
           utmost
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           undertook
           by
           this
           Argument
           ,
           so
           it
           was
           sufficient
           for
           him
           to
           prove
           thereby
           ,
           the
           Absurdity
           of
           this
           Author
           's
           
             New
             Hypothesis
          
           compared
           with
           the
           old
           received
           one
           of
           the
           Church
           ;
           which
           makes
           it
           utterly
           impossible
           that
           there
           should
           be
           any
           more
           than
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           in
           the
           Godhead
           :
           and
           that
           from
           the
           peculiar
           Condition
           of
           the
           Persons
           themselves
           necessarily
           determining
           them
           to
           the
           fixed
           number
           of
           three
           and
           no
           more
           ;
           which
           this
           Man's
           Hypothesis
           of
           Three
           Personal
           Self-Consciousnesses
           from
           the
           very
           Nature
           of
           the
           Thing
           (
           as
           we
           have
           shewn
           )
           can
           never
           do
           .
           And
           this
           was
           the
           sum
           of
           the
           Animadverter's
           Argument
           ,
           which
           this
           Man
           ,
           with
           such
           a
           Magisterial
           Ignorance
           ,
           pronounces
           a
           meer
           
             Non
             sequitur
          
           :
           if
           we
           may
           take
           his
           word
           for
           a
           sequitur
           or
           
             non
             sequitur
          
           ,
           who
           has
           more
           Logick
           a
           great
           deal
           ,
           to
           distinguish
           
             good
             money
          
           from
           bad
           ,
           than
           a
           true
           Consequence
           from
           a
           false
           .
           And
           so
           we
           are
           come
           at
           length
           to
           see
           upon
           what
           Terms
           the
           
             Animadverter's
             Fourth
             Argument
             stands
             with
          
           this
           Defender
           .
        
         
           Fourth
           Argument
           .
           
           
             If
             Three
             distinct
             Self-Consciousnesses
             
             formally
             Constitute
             Three
             distinct
             Personalities
             ,
             then
             Three
             distinct
             Self-Complacencies
             will
             constitute
             Three
             distinct
             Personalities
             too
             .
             But
             our
             Author
             ,
             I
             suppose
             will
             not
             allow
             of
             the
             latter
             ,
             and
             therefore
             neither
             ought
             he
             to
             assert
             the
             former
             .
          
           This
           is
           the
           Animadverter's
           Fourth
           Argument
           upon
           the
           head
           
             of
             Self-Consciousness
          
           ,
           with
           reference
           to
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ;
           and
           he
           first
           declared
           ,
           That
           he
           produced
           and
           looked
           upon
           it
           only
           as
           an
           
             Argument
             ad
             Hominem
          
           :
           There
           being
           as
           much
           Reason
           to
           state
           the
           formal
           constitution
           of
           a
           Person
           upon
           one
           ,
           as
           upon
           the
           other
           ;
           though
           in
           Truth
           upon
           Neither
           .
           For
           all
           that
           could
           or
           can
           be
           alleged
           for
           Self-Consciousness
           upon
           this
           Account
           ,
           is
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           Essential
           to
           each
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           and
           inseparable
           from
           them
           ;
           And
           so
           much
           I
           affirm
           ,
           is
           allegeable
           
             for
             Self-Complacency
          
           .
           Besides
           ,
           that
           if
           this
           Author
           pleads
           no
           more
           for
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           than
           that
           it
           barely
           distinguishes
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           from
           one
           Another
           (
           as
           in
           this
           whole
           Defence
           (
           by
           way
           of
           Subterfuge
           )
           he
           pretends
           to
           no
           more
           ,
           and
           that
           also
           without
           proving
           it
           their
           Principal
           Distinction
           )
           I
           challenge
           him
           to
           prove
           ,
           that
           Self-Complacency
           does
           not
           distinguish
           the
           said
           Persons
           from
           one
           Another
           as
           much
           as
           Self-Consciousness
           does
           or
           can
           do
           .
           To
           which
           we
           may
           add
           ,
           that
           Self-Complacency
           is
           the
           nobler
           Act
           of
           the
           Two
           ,
           and
           a
           step
           beyond
           the
           former
           ;
           and
           for
           that
           Reason
           the
           fittest
           to
           give
           the
           perfectest
           state
           of
           Being
           which
           is
           Personality
           ;
           if
           Personality
           could
           depend
           upon
           ,
           or
           be
           derived
           from
           any
           personal
           Act
           ;
           as
           the
           Animadverter
           has
           all
           along
           contended
           that
           it
           cannot
           .
        
         
           But
           ,
           says
           our
           Author
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           proceeds
           all
           along
           upon
           a
           Mistake
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             by
             Self-Consciousness
             he
             understands
             the
             Acts
             of
             Self-Consciousness
             ,
             p.
          
           66.
           the
           end
           ,
           
           whereas
           our
           Author
           understands
           only
           the
           
             Principle
             of
             it
          
           .
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           (
           as
           I
           have
           done
           several
           times
           before
           )
           ;
           First
           ,
           That
           by
           Self-Consciousness
           (
           which
           this
           very
           Man
           over
           and
           over
           expresses
           by
           Self-Feeling
           or
           Sensation
           )
           nothing
           can
           properly
           be
           signified
           but
           an
           Act
           ;
           and
           that
           we
           may
           as
           well
           say
           ,
           That
           
             Seeing
             ,
             Hearing
             ,
             Tasting
          
           and
           Smelling
           signifie
           the
           Principle
           of
           these
           Respective
           Acts
           ,
           and
           not
           the
           Acts
           themselves
           ,
           as
           that
           this
           
             Self-conscious
             Feeling
          
           and
           Sensation
           do
           so
           .
           And
           this
           I
           shall
           immoveably
           insist
           upon
           ,
           as
           the
           genuine
           proper
           Signification
           of
           the
           Term
           ,
           without
           the
           least
           Regard
           had
           to
           this
           Man
           's
           Meaning
           ;
           which
           in
           no
           Disputation
           ought
           to
           supersede
           or
           take
           place
           of
           the
           Proper
           ,
           universally
           Received
           Sence
           of
           his
           Words
           .
           For
           his
           Meaning
           is
           to
           himself
           ,
           his
           Words
           to
           the
           World.
           Nevertheless
           since
           (
           like
           one
           beaten
           off
           from
           his
           hold
           )
           he
           flies
           from
           the
           
             Act
             to
             the
             Principle
          
           ,
           I
           do
           here
           ,
           in
           the
           
             second
             Place
          
           ,
           deny
           also
           ,
           That
           the
           
             Principle
             of
             Self-Consciousness
          
           does
           or
           can
           
             constitute
             the
             Person
          
           ,
           or
           give
           Personal
           Vnity
           or
           Distinction
           to
           it
           ,
           (
           which
           I
           reckon
           to
           be
           all
           but
           the
           same
           Thing
           :
           )
           Forasmuch
           as
           the
           first
           and
           Original
           Principle
           of
           all
           Acts
           is
           the
           Nature
           and
           Essence
           of
           the
           Thing
           to
           which
           the
           said
           Acts
           belong
           .
           But
           then
           the
           bare
           Essence
           or
           Nature
           of
           a
           thing
           ,
           whether
           Create
           or
           Vncreate
           can
           never
           of
           it self
           make
           or
           constitute
           that
           Thing
           a
           Person
           ,
           but
           the
           Determination
           of
           the
           said
           Nature
           by
           its
           proper
           and
           complete
           Subsistence
           ,
           must
           do
           that
           .
           Accordingly
           in
           the
           Subject
           here
           before
           us
           ,
           The
           
             Principle
             of
             Self-Consciousness
          
           is
           no
           other
           than
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           as
           it
           is
           an
           Infinite
           Omniscient
           Mind
           ;
           which
           absolutely
           considered
           ,
           both
           as
           to
           its
           Being
           ,
           and
           Actings
           being
           the
           same
           in
           all
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           ,
           can
           never
           
           constitute
           them
           Persons
           nor
           originally
           distinguish
           them
           .
           And
           if
           there
           be
           any
           Distinction
           in
           this
           Infinite
           Omniscient
           Mind
           ,
           either
           as
           to
           the
           Manner
           of
           its
           Subsisting
           or
           Acting
           (
           for
           in
           that
           must
           lie
           all
           the
           Distinction
           that
           it
           is
           capable
           of
           )
           it
           must
           be
           from
           the
           
             Personal
             Properties
          
           determining
           and
           distinguishing
           both
           :
           and
           consequently
           since
           this
           Omniscient
           Principle
           and
           its
           Actings
           receive
           all
           their
           Distinction
           antecedently
           from
           the
           said
           Personal
           Properties
           or
           Personalities
           ,
           it
           is
           impossible
           that
           these
           Properties
           or
           Personalities
           should
           receive
           their
           Distinction
           from
           them
           .
           In
           short
           ,
           the
           bare
           
             Principle
             of
             Self-Consciousness
          
           is
           the
           
             Divine
             Intellect
          
           ,
           or
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           as
           Omniscient
           ,
           which
           of
           it self
           neither
           
             is
             the
             Person
          
           ,
           nor
           
             constitutes
             the
             Person
          
           ;
           and
           the
           Actual
           Exercise
           of
           this
           Principle
           belongs
           to
           the
           Person
           himself
           ,
           who
           alone
           can
           be
           properly
           said
           to
           Act
           ,
           and
           therefore
           must
           be
           a
           Person
           antecedently
           to
           his
           Acting
           ,
           (
           all
           
             Personal
             Acts
          
           proceeding
           from
           a
           Suppositum
           :
           )
           from
           both
           which
           it
           follows
           ,
           That
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           neither
           in
           the
           
             Actual
             Exercise
          
           ,
           nor
           yet
           in
           the
           
             Principle
             thereof
          
           ,
           does
           or
           can
           constitute
           the
           
             Divine
             Persons
          
           ,
           or
           be
           the
           proper
           
             Formal
             Reason
          
           of
           their
           Personal
           
             Being
             ,
             Vnity
          
           ,
           and
           Distinction
           .
           And
           whereas
           he
           tells
           us
           again
           ,
           
             That
             every
             Act
             of
             Self-Consciousness
             proves
             a
             distinct
             Person
             ,
          
           pag.
           66.
           lin
           .
           6
           ,
           7.
           
           This
           is
           an
           old
           Story
           ,
           and
           so
           often
           repeated
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           almost
           come
           to
           the
           
           Cuckow
           's
           Note
           :
           but
           he
           has
           been
           frequently
           told
           in
           Answer
           to
           it
           ,
           and
           must
           be
           so
           told
           again
           ;
           That
           the
           Question
           is
           not
           ,
           
             What
             proves
             a
             Person
             distinct
             ,
             but
             what
             makes
             it
             so
          
           ;
           and
           that
           ,
           not
           by
           any
           sort
           of
           Distinction
           ,
           but
           only
           by
           a
           
             primary
             and
             Original
          
           .
           And
           this
           is
           that
           ,
           which
           I
           shall
           abide
           by
           ,
           and
           am
           resolved
           to
           hold
           him
           to
           ;
           notwithstanding
           
           all
           his
           Wrigglings
           ,
           and
           Turnings
           to
           get
           rid
           of
           it
           .
        
         
           But
           it
           is
           now
           high
           time
           to
           remark
           upon
           some
           more
           of
           his
           Absurd
           ,
           Untheological
           ,
           and
           indeed
           Scandalous
           Assertions
           .
           Which
           are
           these
           Three
           ,
           as
           we
           find
           them
           ,
           p.
           67.
           l.
           10.
           viz.
           That
           there
           are
           no
           
             Modes
             in
             the
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ;
           nor
           secondly
           any
           
             Affections
             in
             it
          
           ;
           nor
           thirdly
           ,
           that
           it
           admits
           of
           any
           Priority
           ,
           so
           much
           as
           in
           our
           
             conceptions
             of
             it
          
           .
        
         
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
        
         
           1.
           
           That
           if
           there
           are
           no
           
             Modes
             in
             the
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           there
           are
           no
           Persons
           in
           it
           neither
           :
           For
           a
           Person
           is
           nothing
           else
           but
           the
           Godhead
           determined
           by
           a
           peculiar
           ,
           Incommunicable
           Mode
           of
           Subsistence
           .
           To
           the
        
         
           Second
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           these
           prime
           and
           transcendental
           Affections
           of
           Being
           ,
           
             viz.
             Unity
             ,
             Verity
          
           ,
           and
           Bonity
           ,
           do
           and
           must
           of
           necessity
           belong
           to
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           if
           we
           own
           it
           for
           a
           Real
           Being
           ;
           as
           I
           hope
           this
           Man
           does
           ;
           though
           I
           am
           not
           sure
           of
           it
           .
           And
           then
        
         
           Thirdly
           ,
           If
           no
           
             Priority
             of
             conception
          
           is
           to
           be
           allowed
           in
           our
           Discourses
           about
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           (
           as
           being
           uncapable
           of
           any
           )
           we
           can
           never
           discourse
           of
           it
           ▪
           as
           of
           a
           Being
           ,
           which
           has
           Attributes
           belonging
           to
           it
           ,
           or
           Immanent
           Acts
           flowing
           from
           it
           ,
           and
           resting
           in
           it
           :
           For
           there
           is
           no
           conceiving
           of
           the
           former
           but
           
             per
             modum
             Subjecti
             &
             Adjuncti
          
           ,
           nor
           of
           the
           latter
           but
           
             per
             modum
             Principii
             &
             Actionis
          
           ,
           in
           both
           of
           which
           there
           is
           necessarily
           implyed
           a
           Priority
           and
           
             Posteriority
             of
             conception
          
           .
           And
           I
           shall
           say
           no
           more
           of
           this
           Man
           here
           ,
           but
           that
           in
           these
           Assertions
           he
           opposes
           himself
           to
           all
           the
           Orthodox
           Divines
           in
           Christendom
           .
        
         
           But
           that
           is
           the
           less
           to
           be
           wondered
           at
           ,
           if
           we
           consider
           also
           the
           Profaneness
           of
           some
           of
           his
           expressions
           
           here
           .
           For
           the
           Animadverter
           having
           urged
           ,
           
             That
             Self-Complacency
             might
             be
             as
             well
             alleged
             for
             the
             Reason
             of
             the
             Divine
             Personalities
             as
             Self-Consciousness
          
           ;
           This
           Man
           Blasphemously
           subjoins
           ,
           p.
           65.
           l.
           29.
           
           
             Yes
             ,
             and
             he
             might
             as
             well
             have
             added
          
           Self-displeasure
           ,
           and
           Self-condemnation
           ,
           
             and
             as
             many
             more
             such
          
           Selfs
           
             as
             he
             could
             think
             of
          
           .
           Now
           ,
           had
           the
           discourse
           here
           been
           of
           Men
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           of
           weak
           sinful
           Mortals
           ,
           he
           might
           well
           enough
           have
           mentioned
           such
           kind
           of
           Selfs
           ,
           as
           Self-displeasure
           ,
           and
           
             Self-Condemnation
             and
             the
             like
          
           ,
           provided
           that
           the
           omitted
           not
           the
           Prime
           Self
           of
           all
           ,
           and
           most
           peculiarly
           his
           own
           ,
           which
           is
           Self-contradiction
           .
           But
           when
           the
           discourse
           here
           is
           wholly
           of
           the
           
             Three
             Sacred
             Persons
             of
             the
             Trinity
             ,
          
           each
           and
           every
           one
           of
           which
           is
           
             God
             blessed
             for
             ever
          
           ,
           for
           him
           to
           affirm
           Self-Condemnation
           every
           whit
           as
           applicable
           to
           them
           as
           Self-Complacency
           ,
           when
           Self-Condemnation
           on
           the
           one
           hand
           must
           suppose
           Sin
           or
           Folly
           as
           the
           ground
           of
           it
           ,
           and
           Self-Complacency
           on
           the
           other
           is
           as
           essential
           to
           ,
           and
           inseparable
           from
           all
           and
           each
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           as
           any
           other
           Divine
           Perfection
           can
           be
           ,
           this
           (
           let
           me
           tell
           him
           )
           is
           downright
           Blasphemy
           .
           And
           therefore
           in
           requital
           of
           that
           scurrilous
           Character
           of
           an
           
             Ingenious
             Blunderer
          
           ,
           (
           which
           he
           has
           so
           insolently
           reproached
           the
           Animadverter
           with
           ,
           )
           I
           must
           and
           do
           here
           return
           upon
           him
           the
           just
           Charge
           of
           an
           
             Impious
             Blasphemer
          
           ,
           and
           that
           upon
           more
           accounts
           than
           this
           one
           ;
           telling
           him
           withal
           ,
           that
           had
           he
           lived
           in
           the
           former
           Times
           of
           our
           Church
           ,
           his
           Gown
           would
           have
           been
           stripped
           off
           his
           back
           for
           his
           detestable
           Blasphemies
           and
           Heresies
           ,
           and
           some
           other
           place
           found
           out
           for
           him
           to
           perch
           in
           than
           the
           top
           of
           St.
           
           Paul's
           ,
           where
           at
           present
           he
           is
           placed
           ,
           like
           a
           Church
           Weather-Cock
           ,
           (
           as
           he
           is
           )
           notable
           for
           nothing
           so
           much
           ,
           as
           
             standing
             high
          
           and
           
             turning
             
             round
          
           .
           And
           now
           if
           he
           likes
           not
           this
           kind
           of
           Treatment
           ,
           let
           him
           thank
           his
           own
           Virulence
           for
           it
           ,
           in
           passing
           such
           base
           Reflections
           upon
           one
           (
           among
           many
           more
           )
           who
           ,
           he
           might
           be
           sure
           ,
           would
           repay
           him
           ,
           and
           certainly
           will
           ,
           though
           he
           has
           not
           yet
           cleared
           the
           Debt
        
         
           And
           thus
           having
           shewn
           that
           the
           Animadverter's
           Arguments
           against
           Self-Consciousness
           are
           not
           to
           be
           shook
           by
           any
           of
           this
           Author
           's
           Pittiful
           Cavils
           ,
           we
           will
           now
           pass
           to
           the
           Examination
           of
           what
           he
           opposes
           to
           the
           Arguments
           brought
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           against
           his
           
             Mu●●●l
             Consciousness
          
           also
           :
           Of
           which
           the
        
         
           First
           is
           this
           .
           
           
             No
             Act
             of
             knowledge
             can
             be
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             an
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             in
             the
             Persons
             of
             the
             blessed
             Trinity
             .
             But
             an
             Act
             of
             mutual
             Consciousness
             is
             but
             an
             Act
             of
             Knowledge
             ,
          
           &c.
           
           And
           what
           answer
           does
           he
           give
           to
           this
           ?
           Why
           the
           old
           one
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             he
             no
             where
             asserts
             ,
             That
             mutual
             Consciousness
             is
             the
          
           formal
           Reason
           
             of
             this
             Vnity
             ,
             but
             only
             that
             the
             Three
             Persons
             who
             are
             thus
             mutually
             conscious
             ●o
             each
             other
             ,
             must
             be
             essentially
             One
             ,
             p.
          
           68.
           l.
           5.
           
           To
           this
           he
           has
           been
           still
           answered
           ,
           That
           though
           he
           uses
           not
           the
           Term
           ,
           yet
           he
           asserts
           the
           Thing
           .
           And
           whether
           he
           does
           not
           so
           here
           ,
           let
           the
           Reader
           judge
           by
           that
           passage
           in
           this
           very
           
             Defence
             ,
             p.
          
           66.
           l.
           23.
           
           
             As
             Self-Consciousness
          
           (
           say●
           he
           )
           makes
           
             a
             Person
             one
             with
             itself
             ,
             so
             a
             Natural
             〈◊〉
             Consciousness
          
           makes
           
             Three
             Persons
             as
             Naturally
             one
             as
             it
             ●s
             possible
             for
             Three
             to
             be
             one
             .
          
           And
           how
           far
           it
           does
           that
           ,
           he
           〈◊〉
           us
           in
           his
           
             Vindication
             ,
             p.
          
           68.
           viz.
           
             That
             the
             mutual
             Consciousness
             of
             all
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           makes
           
             them
             all
             but
             one
             Infinite
             God.
          
           And
           this
           I
           hope
           is
           something
           more
           than
           only
           to
           assert
           ,
           
             That
             Three
             Persons
             mutually
             conscious
             to
             each
             other
             ,
             must
             be
             essentially
             one
          
           (
           which
           none
           denies
           ,
           provided
           that
           by
           Persons
           he
           means
           not
           
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
          
           )
           for
           the
           
           words
           cited
           expresly
           say
           ,
           
             That
             this
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           makes
           
             all
             the
             Three
             Persons
             to
             be
             essentially
             one
             God
             :
          
           And
           whatsoever
           [
           makes
           ]
           them
           so
           ,
           is
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           their
           being
           so
           .
           And
           therefore
           this
           Man
           would
           do
           well
           to
           take
           notice
           for
           the
           future
           ,
           That
           whensoever
           he
           asserts
           the
           Definition
           of
           a
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           ,
           or
           of
           any
           Thing
           else
           ,
           he
           does
           by
           the
           very
           same
           assertion
           ,
           assert
           the
           Definitum
           too
           ;
           whether
           he
           owns
           it
           or
           no.
           But
           because
           he
           is
           here
           making
           use
           of
           his
           old
           Subterfuge
           again
           (
           as
           I
           think
           he
           will
           never
           have
           done
           with
           it
           )
           by
           pretending
           ,
           That
           when
           he
           argues
           from
           Self-Consciousness
           and
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           he
           means
           not
           
             the
             Act
          
           but
           
             the
             Principle
          
           of
           each
           ;
           whether
           that
           forlorn
           pretence
           is
           to
           be
           allowed
           of
           ,
           the
           Reader
           is
           left
           to
           judge
           yet
           further
           ,
           from
           the
           following
           Considerations
           .
           As
        
         
           First
           ,
           From
           the
           Account
           which
           this
           Author
           himself
           gives
           of
           the
           Terms
           Self-Consciousness
           and
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           in
           the
           Book
           wherein
           he
           first
           made
           use
           of
           them
           ,
           and
           built
           his
           whole
           Hypothesis
           upon
           them
           ,
           viz.
           his
           
             Vindication
             ,
             &c.
          
           
           From
           every
           page
           of
           which
           ,
           where
           the
           said
           words
           are
           mentioned
           ,
           it
           may
           be
           made
           out
           as
           clear
           as
           the
           Light
           ,
           that
           he
           neither
           understands
           ,
           nor
           uses
           them
           in
           any
           other
           sence
           ,
           but
           as
           they
           import
           the
           respective
           Acts
           of
           each
           of
           them
           .
           As
           first
           p.
           48.
           l.
           the
           last
           but
           one
           ,
           where
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Self-Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             can
             be
             nothing
             else
             but
             Self-Consciousness
             ,
          
           he
           explains
           the
           same
           
             by
             its
             being
             conscious
             to
             its
             own
             Thoughts
             ,
             Reasonings
             ,
             Passions
             ,
             which
             no
             other
             finite
             Spirit
             is
             conscious
             to
             ,
             but
             it self
             .
          
           Which
           expressions
           neither
           do
           ,
           nor
           can
           signify
           any
           thing
           else
           but
           the
           Acts
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           .
           And
           again
           ,
           p.
           49.
           l.
           2.
           
           This
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             makes
             a
             finite
             Spirit
             numerically
             one
             ,
             that
             every
             Spirit
             
             feels
             its
             own
             thoughts
             and
             passions
             ,
             but
             is
             not
             conscious
             to
             the
             thoughts
             and
             passions
             of
             another
             Spirit
             .
          
           And
           again
           ,
           p.
           49.
           l.
           7.
           
           
             If
             three-created
             Spirits
             were
             so
             united
             as
             to
             be
             conscious
             to
             each
             others
             thoughts
             and
             passions
             ,
             I
             cannot
             see
             any
             Reason
             why
             we
             might
             not
             say
             ,
             that
             three
             such
             Persons
             were
             Numerically
             one
             ,
          
           &c.
           
           Now
           what
           can
           any
           mortal
           Man
           make
           of
           all
           this
           but
           
             Actual
             Consciousness
          
           ?
           And
           what
           does
           his
           Metaphor
           of
           feeling
           mean
           ,
           but
           something
           which
           is
           as
           much
           an
           Act
           of
           the
           Mind
           ,
           as
           that
           ,
           in
           the
           
             proper
             sence
          
           of
           it
           ,
           is
           of
           the
           Body
           ?
           So
           p.
           50.
           l.
           11.
           
           
             We
             know
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             the
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             reaches
             as
             far
             as
             its
             Self-Consciousness
             does
             ,
             for
             that
             is
          
           one
           
             Spirit
             which
             knows
             and
             feels
             it self
             and
             its
             own
             thoughts
             and
             motions
             ,
          
           &c.
           
           In
           like
           manner
           ,
           for
           the
           Allusion
           ,
           he
           quotes
           out
           of
           St.
           
             Austin
             ,
             l.
          
           15.
           
             ibid.
             Which
          
           (
           he
           says
           )
           
             represents
             this
             much
             better
             by
             that
             Consciousness
             which
             is
             between
             those
             distinct
             faculties
             in
             us
             ,
             of
             Memory
             ,
             Vnderstanding
             ,
             and
             Will.
          
           And
           what
           is
           that
           ?
           Why
           the
           very
           Acts
           of
           these
           faculties
           ,
           which
           (
           as
           he
           says
           )
           know
           and
           feel
           whatsoever
           is
           in
           each
           other
           ,
           
             viz.
             We
             remember
             what
             we
             understand
             and
             will
             ,
          
           likewise
           ,
           
             We
             understand
             what
             we
             remember
             and
             will
          
           ;
           and
           lastly
           ,
           
             We
             will
             ,
             what
             we
             remember
             and
             understand
             .
          
           All
           which
           ,
           I
           suppose
           ,
           are
           Acts
           of
           those
           respective
           faculties
           ,
           and
           not
           the
           faculties
           themselves
           .
           And
           yet
           this
           he
           translates
           to
           the
           
             Trinity
             ,
             l.
          
           23.
           
             ibid.
             If
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             we
             can
             suppose
             three
             Infinite
             Minds
             and
             Persons
          
           thus
           
             conscious
             of
             whatsoever
             is
             in
             each
             other
             ,
          
           &c.
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           by
           
             Acts
             of
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           as
           the
           forementioned
           faculties
           know
           and
           feel
           what
           is
           in
           each
           other
           :
           (
           for
           otherwise
           that
           Particle
           [
           thus
           ]
           is
           insignificant
           ,
           and
           means
           nothing
           at
           all
           .
           )
           And
           he
           speaks
           it
           out
           fully
           and
           plainly
           ,
           p.
           52.
           l.
           2.
           in
           these
           words
           ,
           
             This
             Intimate
             Vnion
             and
             Inbeing
             ,
             when
             we
             speak
             
             of
             an
             essential
             Vnion
             of
             pure
             and
             infinite
             Minds
             ,
             is
             a
             mutual
             Consciousness
             .
          
           And
           what
           is
           that
           ?
           Why
           ,
           it
           follows
           ,
           
             It
             is
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             as
             I
             may
             so
             speak
             ,
             an
             Inward
             Sensation
             of
             each
             other
             ,
             to
             know
             and
             feel
             each
             other
             as
             they
             know
             and
             feel
             themselves
             .
          
           And
           yet
           more
           plainly
           (
           if
           possible
           )
           
             Father
             ,
             Son
             and
             Holy
             Ghost
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             are
             one
             by
             an
             Internal
             Consciousness
             ,
             p.
          
           56.
           l.
           5.
           
           And
           then
           he
           explains
           the
           same
           in
           this
           manner
           .
           
             If
             I
             may
             so
             speak
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             because
             we
             want
             proper
             words
             to
             express
             it
             ,
             they
          
           feel
           
             each
             other
             in
             themselves
          
           ,
           know
           
             the
             same
             Things
             by
             feeling
             each
             others
             Knowledge
             ,
             and
             will
             and
          
           love
           
             alike
             by
             feeling
             what
             each
             other
             loves
             and
             wills
             ,
             just
             as
             every
             Man
             feels
             his
             own
             thoughts
             ,
             knowledge
             ,
             will
             ,
             and
             passions
             .
          
        
         
           It
           were
           endless
           to
           transcribe
           all
           the
           Passages
           in
           his
           Vindic.
           which
           are
           to
           the
           same
           Purpose
           ,
           and
           the
           Reader
           may
           find
           five
           hundred
           more
           ,
           if
           he
           has
           a
           mind
           to
           it
           .
           But
           because
           a
           Person
           so
           eminent
           for
           contradicting
           and
           forgetting
           himself
           ,
           may
           perhaps
           have
           forgot
           what
           he
           had
           said
           in
           his
           Vindication
           ,
           let
           us
           see
           what
           he
           says
           in
           this
           very
           Defence
           ,
           where
           he
           asserts
           the
           same
           Thing
           in
           the
           same
           words
           ,
           with
           reference
           to
           finite
           Spirits
           ,
           p.
           37.
           at
           the
           end
           .
           
             If
             that
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             be
             one
             distinct
             separate
             Mind
             which
             is
             conscious
             only
             to
             it self
             ,
             which
             feels
             all
             that
             is
             in
             it self
             ,
             and
             nothing
             else
             ;
             and
             those
             be
             〈◊〉
             distinct
             separate
             Mind●
             ,
             each
             of
             which
             is
             thus
             conscious
             to
             it self
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           And
           with
           respect
           to
           the
           Unity
           in
           Trinity
           ,
           p.
           32.
           
           He
           expresly
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Dean
             places
             the
             Vnity
             of
             the
             Three
             Persons
             in
             mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
          
           and
           then
           tells
           us
           what
           that
           is
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             they
             have
             a
             conscious
             Sensation
             of
             each
             other
             in
             themselves
             ,
             as
             they
             have
             of
             themselves
             .
          
           And
           what
           ,
           I
           ask
           ,
           is
           
             having
             a
             conscious
             Sensation
          
           ,
           but
           
             actual
             Consciousness
          
           ?
           And
           again
           ,
           
             Can
             they
             be
             one
             before
             they
             are
             mutually
             conscious
             ?
             and
             before
             they
             
             know
             themselves
             to
             be
             one
             ,
             and
             that
             even
             in
             the
             order
             of
             conceiving
             it
             ?
             p.
          
           74.
           l.
           16
           ,
           17
           ,
           18.
           
           And
           now
           what
           is
           all
           this
           to
           the
           Principle
           of
           Consciousness
           ?
           I
           have
           found
           it
           a
           Tedious
           task
           to
           transcribe
           so
           much
           of
           his
           stuff
           ,
           only
           to
           make
           a
           confident
           shifting
           Caviller
           see
           his
           own
           words
           ,
           while
           he
           will
           not
           own
           them
           .
           But
           by
           what
           has
           been
           quoted
           ,
           it
           appears
           irrefragably
           ,
           That
           by
           Self-Consciousness
           and
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           and
           that
           both
           with
           respect
           to
           Spirits
           finite
           and
           infinite
           ,
           this
           Author
           could
           understand
           nothing
           but
           the
           Acts
           of
           them
           ,
           if
           these
           Terms
           [
           
             is
             conscious
             ,
             to
             be
             conscious
             ,
             sensation
             ,
             knowing
             ,
             feeling
          
           ]
           do
           properly
           import
           Acts.
           And
           I
           defy
           the
           whole
           World
           ,
           and
           this
           Author
           himself
           ,
           to
           make
           any
           other
           Rational
           sense
           of
           them
           .
           Upon
           the
           whole
           matter
           therefore
           ,
           I
           desire
           the
           Judicious
           Reader
           to
           consider
           with
           me
           these
           following
           Particulars
           .
        
         
           
             1.
             
             That
             this
             Author
             ,
             throughout
             his
             whole
             Vindication
             ,
             (
             wherein
             he
             first
             laid
             down
             and
             verited
             his
             new
             Hypothesis
             of
             Self-Consciousness
             and
             
               mutual
               Consciousness
            
             ,
             and
             Three
             
               Infinite
               Minds
            
             ,
             )
             never
             so
             much
             as
             once
             mentions
             [
             
               The
               Principle
            
             ]
             of
             either
             of
             those
             Acts
             ,
             even
             where
             he
             yet
             most
             professedly
             undertakes
             to
             explain
             the
             said
             Terms
             ;
             in
             excuse
             of
             which
             it
             will
             be
             in
             vain
             for
             him
             to
             take
             shelter
             in
             [
             
               so
               speaks
            
             ,
             and
             
               so
               says
            
             ]
             and
             to
             pretend
             ,
             that
             
               we
               want
               words
               to
               express
            
             the
             meaning
             of
             these
             Notions
             ;
             for
             surely
             the
             word
             [
             Principle
             ]
             was
             as
             obvious
             and
             easy
             to
             be
             thought
             on
             ,
             when
             he
             wrote
             his
             Vindication
             ,
             as
             it
             could
             be
             since
             ,
             in
             the
             writing
             this
             Defence
             of
             it
             .
          
           
             2.
             
             That
             as
             he
             made
             no
             mention
             of
             it
             in
             that
             former
             Book
             ,
             so
             neither
             does
             he
             mention
             it
             in
             this
             Defence
             ;
             where
             ,
             in
             like
             manner
             ,
             he
             
               delivers
               and
               explains
               
               his
               Doctrine
            
             about
             the
             said
             ▪
             Terms
             and
             Notions
             ,
             but
             only
             when
             he
             finds
             himself
             pressed
             by
             his
             Adversary
             ;
             and
             then
             he
             flies
             to
             it
             as
             a
             shift
             ,
             started
             on
             purpose
             ,
             that
             he
             may
             seem
             to
             say
             something
             to
             an
             Argument
             ,
             which
             he
             cannot
             answer
             .
          
           
             3.
             
             That
             ,
             when
             he
             mentions
             this
             [
             Principle
             ]
             of
             Consciousness
             upon
             this
             occasion
             ,
             he
             never
             expresses
             
               what
               it
               is
            
             ,
             or
             what
             
               he
               means
               by
               it
            
             ;
             when
             yet
             he
             lays
             all
             the
             stress
             he
             can
             upon
             it
             ,
             to
             keep
             off
             a
             baffle
             ;
             and
             when
             withal
             it
             is
             far
             from
             being
             so
             clear
             and
             certain
             ,
             but
             that
             it
             may
             be
             stated
             more
             ways
             than
             one
             .
          
           
             Fourthly
             and
             lastly
             ,
             That
             if
             instead
             of
             Self-Consciousness
             and
             
               mutual
               Consciousness
            
             the
             Term
             [
             
               Principle
               of
               Self-Consciousness
            
             and
             
               mutual
               Consciousness
            
             ]
             were
             substituted
             throughout
             the
             Writings
             of
             this
             Author
             ,
             it
             would
             so
             utterly
             pervert
             them
             ,
             that
             it
             would
             be
             impossible
             to
             make
             so
             much
             as
             common
             sense
             of
             most
             of
             those
             Passages
             wherein
             it
             should
             occur
             .
          
        
         
           All
           which
           particulars
           I
           desire
           the
           Learned
           Reader
           to
           lay
           together
           ,
           and
           ,
           when
           he
           has
           throughly
           weighed
           them
           ,
           to
           believe
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           ,
           that
           by
           Self-Consciousness
           and
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           this
           Author
           understood
           only
           the
           [
           Principle
           ]
           of
           these
           Acts
           ,
           but
           not
           the
           Acts
           themselves
           .
           And
           thus
           much
           for
           what
           this
           Man
           could
           in
           reason
           be
           presumed
           to
           mean
           by
           these
           Terms
           .
           But
           then
           in
           the
        
         
           Second
           place
           .
           The
           Reader
           is
           desired
           to
           take
           notice
           also
           ,
           That
           the
           word
           Consciousness
           (
           as
           determined
           by
           the
           constant
           and
           universal
           use
           of
           it
           )
           will
           not
           bear
           this
           signification
           .
           And
           accordingly
           ,
           I
           do
           challenge
           this
           confident
           Man
           ,
           to
           produce
           me
           so
           much
           as
           one
           English
           Writer
           (
           before
           this
           New
           Philosophy
           came
           to
           be
           treated
           of
           in
           our
           own
           Tongue
           )
           who
           ever
           used
           the
           
           word
           Consciousness
           (
           of
           whatsoever
           sort
           it
           was
           )
           to
           signify
           any
           Thing
           but
           the
           bare
           Act
           of
           the
           said
           Consciousness
           .
           And
           whereas
           ,
           to
           support
           his
           Arbitrary
           distinction
           he
           would
           pretend
           a
           parallel
           Case
           ,
           between
           the
           Term
           [
           Consciousness
           ]
           and
           the
           Term
           [
           Reason
           ]
           and
           thereupon
           conclude
           ,
           that
           because
           [
           Reason
           ]
           is
           sometimes
           used
           to
           signify
           the
           
             Rational
             Principle
          
           or
           Power
           ,
           and
           sometimes
           also
           the
           Act
           of
           Reasoning
           ,
           therefore
           [
           Consciousness
           may
           be
           so
           used
           too
           ,
           p.
           67.
           l.
           27.
           
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           there
           is
           no
           Parity
           in
           the
           Case
           ;
           For
           as
           much
           as
           there
           has
           been
           frequent
           and
           common
           use
           (
           which
           ought
           to
           fix
           the
           sence
           of
           words
           )
           for
           such
           a
           double
           signification
           of
           the
           word
           [
           Reason
           ]
           ,
           but
           none
           at
           all
           for
           two
           significations
           of
           the
           word
           [
           Consciousness
           ]
           .
           And
           therefore
           let
           me
           tell
           him
           further
           ,
           that
           since
           [
           Consciousness
           ]
           always
           imports
           the
           Act
           ,
           it
           cannot
           answer
           as
           a
           Parallel
           to
           the
           Term
           [
           Reason
           ]
           ,
           as
           Reason
           is
           indifferent
           to
           signify
           either
           the
           Act
           or
           Principle
           ,
           but
           as
           it
           is
           limited
           to
           the
           Act
           ,
           and
           so
           signifies
           only
           Ratiocination
           .
           And
           accordingly
           as
           Ratiocination
           can
           never
           signify
           the
           Principle
           by
           which
           we
           Reason
           ,
           so
           neither
           can
           Consciousness
           signify
           the
           Principle
           by
           which
           we
           are
           conscious
           to
           our selves
           of
           any
           Thing
           .
           So
           that
           his
           allegation
           of
           the
           [
           Principle
           ]
           either
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           as
           the
           Reason
           of
           Personal
           Unity
           and
           distinction
           ,
           or
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           as
           the
           Reason
           of
           the
           essential
           Unity
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           which
           he
           had
           expresly
           before
           stated
           upon
           the
           respective
           Acts
           of
           each
           ,
           is
           nothing
           else
           but
           a
           Ridiculous
           shift
           ,
           and
           the
           affixing
           a
           sence
           to
           a
           word
           which
           it
           never
           had
           before
           ,
           and
           which
           this
           Man
           's
           puny
           Authority
           ●s
           far
           from
           being
           sufficient
           to
           give
           it
           now
           .
           I
           have
           now
           evinced
           ,
           and
           that
           I
           hope
           to
           the
           full
           
           satisfaction
           of
           the
           Judicious
           Reader
           ,
           that
           this
           Author
           neither
           did
           nor
           could
           ,
           by
           the
           Terms
           Self-Consciousness
           and
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           understand
           the
           Principles
           of
           these
           Acts
           ,
           but
           only
           the
           Acts
           themselves
           ;
           till
           he
           was
           forced
           to
           use
           the
           word
           Principle
           ,
           to
           elude
           (
           if
           he
           could
           )
           his
           Adversarie's
           Argument
           .
           Nor
           ,
           in
           the
           next
           place
           ;
           That
           the
           words
           themselves
           can
           (
           according
           to
           their
           constantly
           received
           sence
           )
           bear
           any
           such
           signification
           :
           After
           which
           ,
           That
           I
           may
           leave
           him
           no
           further
           subterfuge
           ,
           I
           will
           now
           argue
           the
           same
           from
           the
           reason
           of
           the
           Thing
           it self
           ;
           and
           to
           that
           end
           ,
           (
           supposing
           for
           the
           present
           )
           that
           he
           might
           ,
           and
           did
           all
           along
           ,
           mean
           the
           Principle
           and
           not
           the
           Act
           ,
           I
           will
           prove
           ,
           that
           neither
           can
           the
           
             Principle
             of
             mutual
             Consciousness
             be
             the
             formal
             Reason
             of
             the
             Essential
             Vnity
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
          
           ;
           nor
           (
           in
           other
           words
           )
           That
           ,
           [
           wherein
           ]
           the
           Unity
           
             of
             their
             Nature
             does
             consist
          
           ,
           or
           
             [
             whereby
             ]
             they
             are
             Naturally
             and
             Essentially
             one
             God
          
           ;
           Both
           which
           this
           Author
           has
           expresly
           and
           
             in
             Terminis
          
           ,
           more
           than
           once
           asserted
           ;
           though
           his
           skill
           reached
           not
           to
           the
           Philosophical
           Term
           made
           use
           of
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           ;
           who
           yet
           for
           his
           own
           part
           can
           indifferently
           make
           use
           of
           all
           
             these
             Three
             Expressions
          
           ,
           as
           equally
           for
           his
           purpose
           .
        
         
           And
           here
           I
           must
           premise
           some
           things
           ,
           which
           (
           though
           they
           have
           been
           sufficiently
           shewn
           already
           ,
           yet
           in
           dealing
           with
           such
           an
           Everlasting
           Tautologist
           )
           must
           be
           repeated
           again
           ,
           viz.
           
        
         
           First
           ,
           That
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           a
           Thing
           ,
           and
           the
           Thing
           whereof
           it
           is
           the
           formal
           Reason
           ,
           do
           so
           essentially
           cohere
           ,
           and
           coexist
           in
           Nature
           ,
           and
           so
           imply
           one
           Another
           ,
           that
           there
           is
           no
           conceiving
           of
           one
           ,
           without
           the
           conception
           of
           the
           other
           .
           So
           that
           in
           the
           natural
           
           way
           of
           our
           conceiving
           of
           any
           Two
           objects
           ,
           where
           either
           of
           them
           may
           be
           conceived
           of
           ,
           without
           the
           other
           ,
           there
           neither
           of
           those
           Two
           can
           be
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           the
           other
           .
        
         
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           the
           Essential
           Unity
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           is
           not
           a
           Specifical
           ,
           but
           a
           Numerical
           Unity
           of
           Nature
           ;
           and
           consequently
           ,
           that
           the
           
             community
             of
             one
             end
             the
             ●ame
          
           Individual
           〈◊〉
           to
           the
           said
           Persons
           ,
           is
           that
           which
           renders
           them
           naturally
           and
           essentially
           
             one
             God.
          
           
        
         
           Which
           two
           considerations
           being
           thus
           laid
           down
           ,
           I
           deny
           the
           
             Principle
             of
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           to
           be
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           the
           Unity
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           in
           the
           same
           Individual
           Essence
           or
           Nature
           :
           and
           that
           for
           these
           following
           Reasons
           .
        
         
           1.
           
           If
           the
           Divine
           Essence
           as
           it
           subsists
           in
           ,
           and
           is
           common
           to
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           must
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           Natural
           order
           of
           conceiving
           Things
           ,
           be
           conceived
           of
           ,
           as
           
             one
             in
             it self
          
           ,
           before
           it
           can
           be
           conceived
           of
           ,
           as
           the
           
             Principle
             of
             any
             Act
          
           ,
           (
           and
           particularly
           that
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           )
           then
           its
           being
           the
           
             Principle
             of
             that
             or
             any
             other
             Act
          
           in
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           cannot
           be
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
             of
             Vnity
             of
             Essence
          
           in
           the
           said
           Persons
           .
           But
           the
           former
           is
           true
           ,
           and
           therefore
           the
           latter
           must
           be
           so
           too
           .
           The
           consquence
           is
           evident
           from
           this
           .
           That
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           a
           Thing
           cannot
           be
           conceived
           of
           as
           Posterior
           to
           that
           of
           which
           it
           is
           the
           formal
           Reason
           .
           And
           the
           Truth
           of
           the
           Assumption
           is
           as
           clear
           :
           because
           Vnity
           in
           order
           of
           Nature
           is
           the
           
             first
             affection
          
           or
           Attribute
           of
           the
           Divine
           Essence
           ,
           (
           whether
           as
           considered
           in
           it self
           ,
           or
           as
           subsisting
           in
           the
           Three
           Persons
           ,
           )
           and
           therefore
           must
           be
           conceived
           of
           antecedently
           
           to
           any
           other
           
             particular
             Perfection
          
           or
           Attribute
           belonging
           to
           the
           same
           ,
           and
           consequently
           may
           be
           conceived
           of
           ,
           without
           it
           too
           :
           which
           makes
           it
           impossible
           for
           any
           such
           Perfection
           or
           Attribute
           to
           be
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           this
           Unity
           .
           Accordingly
           ,
           since
           there
           is
           the
           same
           order
           of
           Priority
           and
           Posteriority
           between
           such
           of
           the
           Divine
           Attributes
           as
           immediately
           affect
           and
           relate
           to
           the
           Divine
           Essence
           or
           Being
           ,
           and
           such
           as
           immediately
           import
           and
           relate
           to
           some
           
             Divine
             Act
          
           ,
           which
           there
           is
           between
           Being
           and
           Action
           themselves
           ;
           and
           since
           withal
           ,
           Vnity
           is
           the
           first
           and
           principal
           of
           the
           
             former
             sort
          
           ,
           and
           the
           
             Divine
             Intellect
          
           (
           which
           is
           the
           proper
           immediate
           Principle
           of
           all
           Acts
           of
           Consciousness
           in
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           )
           is
           only
           an
           Attribute
           or
           Perfection
           of
           the
           
             second
             sort
          
           ,
           it
           is
           impossible
           that
           the
           said
           Principle
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           should
           be
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           the
           Essential
           Unity
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           or
           that
           wherein
           the
           said
           Unity
           of
           Essence
           
             properly
             consists
          
           .
        
         
           2.
           
           The
           
             Formal
             Reason
          
           ,
           that
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           are
           essentially
           one
           God
           ,
           is
           the
           Community
           of
           One
           and
           the
           same
           Individual
           Divine
           Nature
           to
           the
           said
           Three
           Persons
           .
           But
           a
           Principle
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           is
           not
           
             a
             community
             of
             the
             same
             Individual
             Nature
          
           to
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           ▪
           And
           therefore
           such
           a
           Principle
           is
           not
           the
           formal
           Reason
           that
           the
           said
           Three
           Persons
           are
           essentially
           one
           God.
           The
           Major
           is
           proved
           thus
           .
           Because
           we
           cannot
           conceive
           such
           
             a
             community
             of
             the
             same
             Individual
             Divine
             Nature
             to
             the
             Three
             Persons
             ,
          
           without
           conceiving
           a
           
             Numerical
             Vnity
             of
             the
             said
             Nature
             in
             the
             said
             Persons
             ,
          
           nor
           
             vice
             versa
          
           ,
           can
           we
           conceive
           the
           latter
           without
           the
           former
           .
           The
           Minor
           is
           proved
           thus
           .
           No
           
             particular
             perfection
          
           
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           is
           properly
           and
           formally
           a
           Community
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           considered
           under
           
             all
             its
             perfections
          
           ;
           But
           the
           community
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           to
           the
           three
           Persons
           ,
           is
           a
           community
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           
             so
             considered
             ▪
          
           And
           a
           Principle
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           is
           but
           a
           
             Particular
             Perfection
          
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           viz.
           the
           
             Divine
             Intellect
          
           ;
           which
           is
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           as
           formally
           determined
           to
           one
           particular
           sort
           of
           Acts
           and
           Objects
           ;
           and
           therefore
           this
           Principle
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           is
           not
           formally
           the
           
             Community
             of
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             to
             all
             the
             Three
             Persons
             .
          
        
         
           3.
           
           If
           the
           Principle
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           in
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           must
           be
           multiplied
           according
           to
           the
           Number
           of
           the
           said
           Persons
           ,
           then
           it
           is
           impossible
           that
           this
           Principle
           should
           give
           a
           Numerical
           Unity
           of
           Essence
           to
           those
           Persons
           .
           But
           according
           to
           this
           Author's
           Hypothesis
           ,
           the
           Principle
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           is
           and
           must
           be
           multiplied
           according
           to
           the
           Number
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ;
           and
           therefore
           the
           said
           Principle
           can
           never
           be
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           a
           Numerical
           Essential
           Unity
           in
           them
           .
           The
           consequence
           is
           evident
           ,
           For
           three
           Numerically
           distinct
           Principles
           can
           never
           (
           as
           such
           )
           formally
           give
           Numerical
           Unity
           to
           any
           Thing
           ;
           and
           much
           less
           to
           the
           most
           transcendently
           simple
           and
           uncompounded
           of
           all
           Beings
           ;
           as
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           in
           the
           three
           Persons
           confessedly
           is
           .
           And
           then
           ,
           as
           for
           the
           Assumption
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             according
             to
             this
             Author's
             Hypothesis
             ;
             the
             Principle
             of
             mutual
             Consciousness
             must
             be
             multiplied
             ,
             according
             to
             the
             Number
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
          
           this
           also
           is
           as
           evident
           ;
           Because
           he
           asserts
           the
           
             three
             Divine
             Persons
             to
             be
             three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
          
           which
           are
           Three
           
             distinct
             Essences
          
           :
           And
           since
           they
           are
           so
           ,
           I
           affirm
           ,
           that
           the
           Principle
           of
           Action
           in
           every
           Mind
           or
           
           Essence
           ,
           is
           and
           must
           be
           as
           distinct
           ,
           as
           the
           Mind
           or
           Essence
           which
           it
           belongs
           to
           ,
           and
           which
           it
           is
           comprehended
           in
           .
           And
           therefore
           since
           these
           three
           Numerically
           
             distinct
             Minds
          
           must
           have
           each
           of
           them
           a
           Numerically
           
             distinct
             Principle
          
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           it
           is
           impossible
           ,
           that
           these
           three
           distinct
           Principles
           should
           either
           have
           a
           
             Numerical
             Vnity
          
           themselves
           ,
           or
           give
           a
           
             Numerical
             Vnity
          
           of
           Essence
           to
           the
           said
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ,
           or
           to
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           which
           this
           Author
           holds
           to
           be
           Three
           such
           Minds
           .
        
         
           4.
           
           If
           a
           Principle
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           may
           make
           Three
           Infinite
           Minds
           essentially
           one
           Infinite
           Mind
           ,
           then
           it
           may
           also
           make
           Three
           Infinite
           Intelligent
           Persons
           essentially
           
             one
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           :
           But
           this
           latter
           is
           impossible
           ,
           and
           therefore
           the
           former
           must
           needs
           be
           so
           too
           .
           Nevertheless
           ,
           the
           consequence
           is
           evident
           ,
           because
           ,
           according
           to
           this
           Author
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ]
           are
           Terms
           perfectly
           
             equipollent
             ,
             p.
          
           32
           l.
           23.
           and
           consequently
           ,
           whatsoever
           is
           affirmed
           or
           denied
           of
           the
           one
           ,
           must
           be
           equally
           affirmed
           or
           denied
           of
           the
           other
           ;
           so
           that
           if
           it
           be
           truly
           affirmed
           ,
           that
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ,
           may
           by
           a
           Principle
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           become
           essentially
           one
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ,
           it
           may
           be
           as
           truly
           affirmed
           ,
           that
           three
           Infinite
           Intelligent
           Persons
           may
           become
           
             one
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ;
           since
           there
           is
           a
           Perfect
           equipollence
           in
           these
           Two
           Predications
           .
           As
           for
           the
           Assumption
           ,
           
             That
             it
             is
             impossible
             for
             Three
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
             to
             be
             one
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
             ,
          
           This
           is
           so
           Self-evident
           ,
           that
           ,
           I
           suppose
           ,
           neither
           my
           Reader
           not
           my
           Adversary
           ,
           unless
           a
           Sabellian
           ,
           will
           expect
           any
           further
           proof
           of
           it
           .
        
         
           These
           are
           my
           Reasons
           ,
           upon
           which
           I
           conclude
           ,
           that
           
           this
           new
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           of
           a
           
             Principle
             of
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           cannot
           formally
           give
           a
           Numerical
           Unity
           of
           Essence
           to
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           :
           And
           I
           doubt
           not
           ,
           but
           this
           Defender
           ,
           who
           is
           such
           an
           utter
           stranger
           to
           all
           Metaphysical
           Knowledge
           ,
           will
           call
           these
           Arguments
           as
           he
           does
           others
           in
           p.
           2.
           l.
           20.
           of
           this
           Defence
           ,
           
             Thin
             ,
             airy
             Weapons
          
           (
           though
           by
           his
           favour
           ,
           they
           may
           be
           never
           the
           less
           piercing
           for
           that
           )
           but
           I
           would
           have
           him
           know
           ,
           That
           Arguments
           drawn
           from
           ,
           and
           founded
           upon
           the
           general
           Reason
           and
           notions
           of
           Things
           ,
           are
           as
           strong
           and
           conclusive
           ,
           as
           any
           that
           are
           taken
           from
           any
           particular
           material
           objects
           incurring
           into
           the
           sense
           .
           And
           as
           for
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           in
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           (
           the
           only
           subject
           now
           before
           us
           )
           since
           it
           is
           a
           Being
           absolutely
           and
           entirely
           simple
           ,
           and
           (
           as
           the
           Schools
           call
           it
           )
           
             Simplicissimè
             simplex
          
           ,
           I
           affirm
           ,
           that
           there
           is
           no
           ground
           of
           Reason
           to
           discourse
           of
           it
           Philosophically
           upon
           ,
           but
           the
           Natural
           order
           and
           distinction
           of
           our
           conceptions
           of
           it
           ,
           founded
           upon
           the
           several
           
             Modes
             ,
             Acts
          
           ,
           and
           Objects
           belonging
           to
           it
           ;
           And
           this
           Man
           who
           explodes
           all
           prius
           and
           posterius
           ,
           in
           the
           conceptions
           which
           our
           Reason
           forms
           of
           the
           Deity
           ,
           is
           extremely
           Ridiculous
           ,
           and
           yet
           withal
           affirms
           
             Three
             absolute
             distinct
             beings
          
           (
           
             as
             three
             Minds
          
           are
           )
           in
           one
           Numerical
           Absolute
           ,
           and
           most
           simple
           being
           ,
           is
           (
           if
           possible
           )
           infinitely
           more
           so
           .
           And
           therefore
           ,
           without
           adding
           any
           thing
           further
           ,
           I
           leave
           the
           Reader
           to
           make
           himself
           merry
           with
           that
           silly
           swaggering
           Conclusion
           ,
           which
           he
           closes
           his
           wretched
           ,
           trifling
           ,
           dodging
           answer
           to
           the
           Animadverter's
           Argument
           with
           .
           Thus
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             All
             his
             Arguments
             vanish
             like
             smoak
             ,
             rise
             in
             a
             dark
             Cloud
             ,
             but
             immediately
             disperse
             and
             are
             seen
             no
             more
             till
             they
             return
             as
             such
             vapours
             use
             to
             do
             ,
             in
             Thunder
             and
             lightning
             ,
             or
             some
             
             Threatning
             storm
             ,
          
           p.
           87.
           at
           the
           end
           .
           But
           was
           there
           ever
           such
           a
           Rhodomontade
           in
           words
           ,
           so
           Big
           with
           Nothing
           ,
           and
           without
           one
           grain
           of
           sense
           at
           the
           Bottom
           of
           them
           ?
           For
           is
           this
           the
           way
           to
           expose
           an
           Adversarie's
           Argument
           to
           contempt
           ;
           first
           to
           represent
           it
           as
           
             vanishing
             into
             smoak
          
           and
           vapour
           ,
           and
           afterwards
           
             returning
             in
             storm
          
           and
           thunder
           ?
           But
           it
           shews
           ,
           that
           his
           Rhetorick
           keeps
           pace
           with
           his
           Logick
           ,
           and
           that
           whether
           he
           would
           describe
           ,
           or
           prove
           a
           Thing
           ,
           it
           is
           much
           at
           the
           same
           rate
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           the
           Reader
           may
           take
           this
           for
           an
           Observation
           ,
           that
           will
           never
           fail
           him
           ,
           viz.
           That
           this
           Author
           is
           never
           so
           high
           upon
           the
           Huff
           ,
           and
           Rant
           ,
           as
           when
           he
           is
           lowest
           (
           nay
           and
           knows
           himself
           lowest
           )
           in
           Point
           of
           Reason
           .
           And
           so
           I
           pass
           to
           the
           Vindication
           of
           the
        
         
           
           Second
           Argument
           ,
           Which
           is
           this
           .
           
             If
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             in
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             be
             the
             Cause
             ,
             Reason
             ,
             or
             Principle
             of
             mutual
             Consciousness
             in
             the
             said
             Persons
             ,
             then
             their
             mutual
             Consciousness
             is
             not
             the
             cause
             or
             principle
             of
             the
             Vnity
             of
             their
             Nature
             ,
             but
             the
             former
             is
             true
             ,
             and
             therefore
             the
             latter
             is
             so
             too
             .
          
           This
           is
           the
           Argument
           ,
           and
           a
           plainer
           and
           clearer
           there
           cannot
           well
           be
           .
           To
           which
           our
           Author
           answers
           thus
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             may
             be
             thus
             essentially
             one
             by
             mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             or
             mutual
             Consciousness
             may
             be
             essential
             to
             this
             Vnity
             ,
             though
             they
             could
             not
             be
             thus
             actually
             conscious
             to
             each
             other
             ,
             unless
             they
             were
             thus
             united
             ,
             as
             to
             have
             and
             to
             feel
             each
             other
             in
             themselves
             ,
          
           Def.
           p.
           68.
           l.
           22.
           
           Which
           Enigmatical
           ,
           obscure
           ,
           and
           confused
           stuff
           ,
           if
           the
           Reader
           understands
           ,
           it
           is
           well
           ;
           for
           I
           profess
           that
           I
           
             do
             not
             .
             But
             so
             far
          
           as
           the
           Term
           [
           Essential
           ]
           made
           use
           of
           here
           ,
           may
           seem
           to
           make
           any
           Thing
           for
           his
           Purpose
           ,
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           is
           Essential
           to
           the
           Unity
           of
           
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           in
           the
           Three
           Persons
           ,
           not
           as
           that
           ,
           wherein
           this
           Unity
           
             does
             consist
          
           ,
           but
           as
           that
           which
           is
           
             essentially
             consequent
          
           upon
           it
           ,
           and
           inseparable
           from
           it
           .
           So
           that
           there
           is
           an
           Homonymy
           in
           the
           Term
           [
           Essential
           ]
           as
           either
           importing
           that
           
             Essential
             Principle
          
           ,
           wherein
           the
           Nature
           or
           Essence
           of
           a
           Thing
           is
           placed
           ,
           or
           some
           thing
           
             necessarily
             resulting
          
           from
           it
           ;
           in
           which
           latter
           sense
           alone
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           is
           essential
           to
           the
           Unity
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           .
           And
           whereas
           he
           says
           ,
           
             That
             if
             by
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             in
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             the
             Animadverter
             means
             the
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             ,
             That
             ,
             he
             says
             ,
             is
             indeed
             a
             Necessary
             foundation
             of
             this
             mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             but
             not
             the
             immediate
             Cause
             of
             it
             ;
             For
             that
             ,
             the
             Fathers
             ,
          
           he
           pretends
           ,
           
             were
             sensible
             ,
             that
             this
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             could
             not
             of
             it self
             make
             this
             Essential
             Vnity
             ;
             and
             therefore
             added
             the
          
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           (
           which
           he
           affirms
           to
           be
           that
           very
           mutual
           Consciousness
           here
           maintained
           by
           him
           )
           
             to
             perfect
             it
             ,
             p.
          
           68.
           l.
           27.
           
           In
           which
           words
           there
           are
           several
           very
           vile
           Heterodoxyes
           .
           For
           first
           ,
           I
           affirm
           ,
           That
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           adequately
           ,
           perfectly
           ,
           and
           sufficiently
           makes
           the
           Vnity
           and
           Identity
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           in
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           :
           and
           that
           (
           as
           I
           have
           already
           shewn
           )
           not
           meerly
           from
           the
           force
           of
           the
           word
           it self
           ,
           but
           from
           the
           peculiar
           condition
           of
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           which
           it
           was
           applyed
           to
           ;
           which
           being
           Infinite
           could
           not
           possibly
           be
           otherwise
           than
           
             numerically
             one
          
           and
           the
           same
           ;
           and
           consequently
           that
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           or
           agreement
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           in
           such
           an
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           could
           be
           no
           other
           than
           a
           
             Numerical
             Vnity
             and
             Identity
          
           of
           Nature
           belonging
           to
           them
           upon
           that
           account
           .
           And
           therefore
           I
           deny
           ,
           That
           the
           Fathers
           ever
           reckoned
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           insufficient
           of
           it self
           to
           make
           this
           Unity
           ,
           and
           challenge
           him
           to
           prove
           they
           did
           .
           And
           I
           deny
           further
           ,
           that
           they
           ever
           alleged
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           as
           an
           
           addition
           to
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           to
           perfect
           this
           Unity
           ,
           but
           as
           an
           Explication
           and
           Illustration
           of
           it
           :
           and
           I
           add
           moreover
           ,
           That
           the
           Fathers
           never
           accounted
           this
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           either
           to
           be
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           or
           to
           consist
           in
           it
           :
           but
           to
           be
           the
           mutual
           Inexistence
           ,
           or
           Indwelling
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           in
           each
           other
           ,
           founded
           upon
           ,
           and
           resulting
           from
           their
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ;
           
             mutual
             Inexistence
          
           being
           no
           more
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           than
           bare
           Existence
           can
           be
           said
           to
           be
           Knowledge
           :
           and
           lastly
           ,
           I
           affirm
           ,
           that
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ascribed
           to
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           (
           to
           which
           this
           Author
           may
           add
           his
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           too
           ,
           if
           he
           pleases
           )
           is
           not
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           it self
           ,
           but
           a
           consequent
           ,
           or
           effect
           of
           it
           ;
           for
           as
           much
           as
           they
           are
           not
           therefore
           
             in
             one
             another
          
           because
           they
           mutually
           
             know
             one
             another
          
           ,
           but
           they
           thus
           know
           one
           another
           ,
           because
           by
           the
           essential
           Identity
           of
           their
           Nature
           ,
           they
           mutually
           are
           and
           exist
           in
           one
           Another
           .
           All
           which
           having
           been
           so
           fully
           proved
           in
           the
           seventh
           Chapter
           of
           
             Animadv
             .
             p.
          
           201
           ,
           202
           ,
           203
           ,
           204
           ,
           205
           ,
           206.
           and
           the
           ninth
           Chapter
           ,
           p.
           295.
           6
           ,
           7
           ,
           8
           ,
           9.
           and
           300
           ,
           301.
           to
           allege
           it
           again
           ,
           is
           in
           effect
           but
           
             dictum
             dicere
          
           ,
           which
           though
           it
           is
           the
           constant
           practice
           ,
           or
           rather
           Trade
           of
           this
           Author
           ,
           is
           the
           scorn
           of
           the
           Animadverter
           .
           But
           to
           go
           on
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           having
           said
           (
           as
           is
           here
           alleged
           )
           
             That
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             is
             the
             Cause
             and
             Principle
             of
             mutual
             Consciousness
             (
             which
             being
             an
             Essential
             Property
             equally
             belonging
             to
             all
             Three
             Persons
             ,
             must
             issue
             and
             result
             from
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             ,
             and
             so
             can
             have
             no
             Antecedent
             Causal
             Influx
             upon
             the
             same
             Nature
             ,
          
           Our
           Author
           ,
           in
           answer
           to
           this
           ,
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             mutual
             Consciousness
             belongs
             not
             immediately
             to
             Nature
             but
             to
             Persons
             ,
             p.
          
           69.
           l.
           20.
           
           And
           I
           dare
           say
           ,
           he
           tells
           us
           the
           best
           he
           knows
           .
           But
           in
           reply
           to
           it
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           again
           ,
           That
           it
           belongs
           immediately
           
           to
           both
           ,
           but
           upon
           a
           different
           account
           ,
           viz.
           to
           Nature
           ,
           as
           the
           immediately
           producing
           Principle
           of
           the
           Act
           ;
           and
           to
           the
           Person
           as
           to
           the
           immediate
           proper
           subject
           of
           Denomination
           from
           the
           Act.
           But
           he
           adds
           ,
           
             That
             he
             for
             his
             part
             will
             not
             Philosophies
             upon
             Antecedent
             causal
             Influxes
             in
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             ,
          
           p.
           69.
           l.
           24.
           
           Nor
           does
           any
           one
           else
           ,
           in
           the
           strict
           ,
           proper
           ,
           and
           Philosophical
           sense
           of
           these
           Terms
           ,
           pretend
           to
           do
           so
           ,
           but
           only
           by
           accommodating
           them
           to
           help
           us
           with
           the
           better
           Method
           and
           Distinction
           to
           conceive
           and
           discourse
           of
           so
           high
           a
           Subject
           ,
           as
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           is
           .
           And
           therefore
           it
           was
           not
           for
           nothing
           ,
           That
           he
           passed
           over
           the
           Nine
           preliminary
           Considerations
           ,
           at
           the
           beginning
           of
           the
           fourth
           Chapter
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           without
           so
           much
           as
           touching
           upon
           them
           :
           For
           they
           would
           have
           corrected
           his
           Ignorance
           ,
           and
           taught
           him
           how
           these
           words
           are
           to
           be
           understood
           and
           used
           about
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           and
           Persons
           .
           But
           his
           Modesty
           adds
           ,
           
             That
             it
             contents
             him
             to
             know
             ,
             what
             is
             Essential
             ,
             not
             Absolutely
             to
             the
             Vnity
             of
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             ,
             but
             to
             the
             Vnity
             in
             Trinity
             ,
             p.
          
           69.
           l.
           29.
           
           And
           will
           this
           Man
           say
           ,
           
             That
             any
             Thing
             can
             be
             essential
             to
             the
             Vnity
             of
             the
             one
             ,
          
           which
           is
           not
           as
           essential
           to
           the
           
             Vnity
             of
             the
             other
          
           ?
           For
           though
           we
           frequently
           use
           the
           word
           
             Vnion
             of
             Persons
          
           ,
           yet
           strictly
           speaking
           ,
           it
           is
           improper
           :
           since
           it
           is
           not
           
             an
             Vnion
          
           (
           which
           is
           but
           another
           word
           for
           Vnition
           )
           but
           an
           
             Vnity
             of
             Persons
             in
             Nature
          
           ,
           or
           
             an
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             in
             the
             Persons
             ,
          
           which
           is
           the
           proper
           expression
           ;
           and
           therefore
           we
           neither
           say
           
             an
             Vnion
             in
             Trinity
          
           ,
           nor
           
             a
             Trinity
             in
             Vnion
          
           ,
           but
           always
           apply
           the
           word
           Vnity
           to
           both
           .
           But
           our
           Author
           closes
           this
           Paragraph
           with
           these
           words
           ,
           p.
           69.
           at
           the
           end
           .
           
             That
             if
             mutual
             Consciousness
             be
             essential
             to
             this
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             ,
             so
             that
             the
             Three
             
             Persons
             are
             thus
             united
             ,
             and
             cannot
             be
             one
             without
             it
             ,
             he
             will
             contend
             no
             further
             .
          
           And
           so
           far
           I
           think
           he
           does
           discreetly
           ;
           but
           too
           late
           .
           For
           whether
           he
           will
           contend
           further
           or
           no
           ,
           his
           Adversary
           both
           does
           and
           will
           ;
           for
           as
           much
           as
           this
           Author
           has
           asserted
           a
           great
           deal
           more
           than
           what
           this
           Concession
           amounts
           to
           ,
           and
           if
           he
           does
           not
           prove
           all
           that
           he
           has
           asserted
           ,
           he
           is
           a
           baffled
           Person
           .
           For
           he
           has
           positively
           asserted
           (
           as
           we
           have
           shewn
           from
           his
           own
           words
           )
           that
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           makes
           
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             to
             be
             Naturally
             one
             ,
             p.
          
           66.
           
           Def.
           26.
           
             and
             to
             be
             essentially
             one
             God
             ,
             Vind.
             p.
          
           68.
           l.
           6.
           
           And
           this
           ,
           by
           his
           favour
           ,
           is
           quite
           another
           thing
           ,
           from
           only
           asserting
           ,
           
             that
             mutual
             Consciousness
             is
             essential
             to
             that
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
             which
             is
             in
             the
             Three
             Persons
             .
          
           For
           that
           it
           may
           be
           ,
           as
           it
           is
           an
           
             essential
             consequent
          
           of
           the
           said
           Unity
           of
           Nature
           ,
           and
           no
           more
           ;
           As
           also
           from
           asserting
           (
           as
           he
           here
           does
           ,
           p.
           69.
           l.
           the
           last
           )
           
             That
             the
             three
             Divine
             Persons
             cannot
             be
             one
             without
             it
             .
          
           For
           surely
           that
           which
           is
           only
           a
           
             Conditio
             sine
             quâ
             non
          
           ,
           and
           
             without
             which
          
           the
           said
           Divine
           Persons
           cannot
           be
           
             one
             in
             Nature
          
           ,
           and
           that
           which
           
             formally
             makes
          
           them
           so
           ,
           or
           wherein
           
             their
             Vnity
             does
             consist
          
           ,
           are
           wholly
           different
           Things
           .
           And
           therefore
           since
           it
           is
           manifest
           ,
           that
           this
           Man
           has
           no
           Logick
           ,
           I
           heartily
           wish
           that
           he
           had
           some
           shame
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           ,
           he
           is
           for
           shewing
           (
           as
           well
           as
           he
           can
           )
           how
           the
           Animadverter
           mistakes
           the
           whole
           matter
           in
           these
           words
           ,
           quoted
           from
           him
           ,
           
             Anim.
             p.
          
           108.
           l.
           14.
           
           
             The
             Divine
             Nature
             or
             Essence
             being
             one
             and
             the
             same
             in
             all
             the
             Three
             Persons
             ,
             there
             is
             upon
             this
             account
             one
             and
             the
             same
             knowledge
             in
             them
             also
             ;
             And
             they
             are
             not
             one
             in
             Nature
             ,
             by
             vertue
             of
             their
             
               mutual
               Consciousness
            
             ,
             but
             they
             are
             therefore
             mutually
             conscious
             ,
             because
             the
             Perfect
             Unity
             and
             Identity
             of
             
             their
             Nature
             makes
             them
             so
             .
          
           Thus
           the
           Animadverter
           :
           and
           where
           is
           now
           the
           mistake
           ?
           why
           our
           Author
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             Three
             Persons
             who
             have
             the
             same
             Nature
             may
             know
             the
             same
             Things
             without
             feeling
             one
             another's
             thoughts
             and
             knowledge
             in
             themselves
             ,
             p.
          
           70.
           l.
           22.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           first
           ,
           That
           the
           foundation
           of
           this
           reply
           is
           ,
           That
           there
           is
           such
           a
           thing
           as
           Feeling
           in
           God
           distinct
           from
           knowledge
           ;
           which
           is
           the
           height
           of
           nonsence
           and
           Absurdity
           ;
           as
           shall
           be
           declared
           before
           we
           pass
           from
           this
           head
           of
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           .
           Secondly
           I
           utterly
           deny
           ,
           
             That
             Persons
             who
             have
             the
             same
             Divine
             Nature
             can
             know
             the
             same
             Things
             ,
          
           I
           mean
           
             all
             the
             same
             Things
          
           (
           for
           that
           only
           here
           can
           be
           insisted
           upon
           )
           
             without
             knowing
             each
             other's
             thoughts
             and
             knowledge
             in
             themselves
             :
          
           For
           as
           much
           as
           whatsoever
           each
           of
           these
           Divine
           Persons
           knows
           ,
           he
           does
           and
           must
           know
           by
           an
           Infinite
           Act
           of
           Knowledge
           ,
           comprehending
           both
           himself
           and
           the
           other
           Two
           Persons
           ;
           and
           all
           that
           is
           Knowable
           in
           the
           World
           besides
           ;
           and
           how
           each
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           can
           know
           all
           this
           without
           
             mutually
             knowing
          
           one
           another
           ,
           I
           desire
           this
           Man
           to
           shew
           .
           But
           he
           argues
           further
           ,
           
             That
             if
             by
             one
             and
             the
             same
             knowledge
             the
             Animadverter
             means
             that
             the
             knowledge
             of
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             in
             the
             Three
             Persons
             is
             but
             one
             Individual
             Act
             ,
             as
             the
             knowledge
             of
             one
             single
             Person
             is
             ,
             this
             destroys
             the
             Distinction
             of
             Persons
             :
             which
             cannot
             be
             distinct
             without
             distinct
             personal
             Acts
             ,
             as
             mutual
             knowledge
             is
             ;
             and
             destroys
             mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             for
             there
             is
             no
             place
             for
             mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             or
             mutual
             Knowledge
             ,
             where
             there
             is
             but
             one
             single
             Act
             of
             Knowledge
             ,
             p.
          
           70.
           l.
           24.
           
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           I
           observe
           these
           Two
           Notable
           Instances
           of
           his
           Great
           Ignorance
           .
           First
           ,
           His
           supposing
           and
           taking
           for
           granted
           the
           very
           Thing
           in
           dispute
           between
           him
           
           and
           his
           Adversary
           ,
           viz.
           That
           the
           Distinction
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           depends
           upon
           certain
           Distinct
           Acts
           of
           Knowledge
           ,
           as
           the
           cause
           or
           antecedent
           Reason
           of
           that
           Distinction
           ;
           whereas
           his
           Adversary
           on
           the
           contrary
           affirms
           all
           Distinction
           of
           Divine
           Knowledge
           (
           as
           well
           as
           all
           Diversification
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           it self
           )
           to
           be
           from
           the
           Distinction
           ,
           or
           
             distinct
             Subsistence
          
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           as
           the
           Prime
           and
           original
           Reason
           of
           it
           .
           And
           whereas
           this
           Author
           says
           again
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             cannot
             be
             distinct
             without
             Distinct
             Personal
             Acts
             ,
             as
             mutual
             knowledge
             is
             ,
          
           it
           is
           true
           ,
           That
           they
           cannot
           be
           without
           them
           ,
           as
           Inseparably
           
             consequent
             upon
          
           their
           Personal
           Distinction
           ,
           but
           not
           as
           
             constituent
             of
             it
          
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           The
           other
           Instance
           of
           his
           Ignorance
           here
           ,
           is
           his
           affirming
           ,
           
             that
             there
             can
             be
             no
             place
             for
             mutual
             Consciousness
             or
             Knowledge
             ,
             where
             there
             is
             but
             one
             single
             or
             Individual
             Act
             of
             Knowledge
             .
          
           Which
           I
           utterly
           deny
           as
           false
           ;
           and
           in
           order
           to
           the
           proving
           it
           so
           .
           I
           do
           here
           observe
           ,
           That
           there
           is
           but
           one
           single
           Act
           of
           Knowledge
           in
           all
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           ;
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           single
           as
           to
           the
           Substance
           of
           the
           Act
           ,
           though
           diversified
           by
           the
           several
           modifications
           which
           it
           receives
           from
           the
           Persons
           whom
           it
           proceeds
           from
           ;
           and
           from
           the
           several
           respects
           it
           bears
           to
           the
           several
           objects
           ,
           it
           terminates
           upon
           .
           Which
           different
           modifications
           and
           respects
           do
           by
           no
           means
           infer
           diverse
           or
           distinct
           Acts
           of
           Knowledge
           ,
           but
           only
           variously
           modify
           ,
           determine
           ,
           and
           distinguish
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Act.
           Accordingly
           ,
           in
           the
           present
           Case
           ,
           I
           do
           here
           affirm
           to
           this
           Author
           ,
           That
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           is
           nothing
           else
           but
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Act
           of
           Divine
           Knowledge
           ,
           differently
           modified
           ,
           as
           it
           proceeds
           severally
           ,
           and
           after
           a
           different
           manner
           from
           Father
           ,
           Son
           ,
           and
           Holy
           Ghost
           ,
           
           as
           the
           Persons
           knowing
           ,
           and
           jointly
           terminated
           in
           them
           all
           as
           the
           
             objects
             known
          
           ;
           as
           on
           the
           other
           side
           Self-Consciousness
           is
           no
           more
           than
           this
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Act
           of
           Knowledge
           ,
           as
           it
           issues
           only
           from
           one
           of
           the
           Persons
           ,
           and
           terminates
           upon
           the
           same
           too
           .
           Though
           I
           confess
           ,
           if
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           were
           
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             ,
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           could
           not
           be
           
             one
             Act
          
           only
           ,
           but
           must
           be
           Three
           .
           This
           I
           hold
           concerning
           the
           Divine
           Knowledge
           ,
           and
           the
           respective
           distinctions
           of
           it
           ,
           and
           I
           leave
           this
           Author
           to
           try
           his
           best
           skill
           in
           Divinity
           and
           Philosophy
           to
           confute
           it
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           he
           gives
           us
           one
           Absurdity
           more
           out
           of
           his
           inexhaustible
           stock
           ,
           viz.
           That
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           ascribed
           by
           the
           Fathers
           to
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           
             is
             that
             very
          
           mutual
           Consciousness
           
             which
             the
             Dean
             means
          
           .
           For
           these
           are
           his
           words
           ,
           p.
           7.
           and
           the
           seven
           first
           lines
           :
           so
           that
           according
           to
           him
           an
           Act
           of
           Volition
           ,
           and
           an
           Act
           of
           Consciousness
           or
           Knowledge
           ,
           are
           formally
           and
           properly
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Act.
           In
           the
           last
           place
           ,
           as
           to
           his
           affirming
           ,
           
             That
             Three
             distinct
             Subsistences
             of
             the
             same
             Individual
             nature
             ,
             are
             by
             mutual
             Consciousness
             essentially
             one
             ,
             p.
          
           71.
           l.
           9.
           
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           if
           he
           means
           hereby
           ,
           That
           they
           are
           by
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
             made
          
           essentially
           one
           ,
           as
           by
           the
           Cause
           or
           Antecedent
           Reason
           of
           that
           Unity
           ,
           I
           deny
           it
           ;
           But
           if
           he
           means
           ,
           That
           they
           are
           thereby
           proved
           essentially
           one
           ,
           as
           by
           an
           essential
           consequent
           of
           the
           said
           Unity
           ,
           I
           grant
           it
           .
           But
           this
           will
           do
           him
           but
           little
           service
           .
           For
           his
           Hypothesis
           requires
           more
           .
           And
           so
           leaving
           this
           second
           Argument
           in
           its
           
             full
             force
          
           against
           him
           .
           I
           proced
           to
           the
        
         
           Third
           Argument
           ,
           
           which
           is
           this
           .
           
             To
             affirm
             mutual
             Consciousness
             to
             be
             the
             cause
             of
             the
             Union
             of
             
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             in
             the
             same
             Nature
             ,
             is
             to
             confound
             the
             Union
             and
             Communion
             of
             the
             said
             Persons
             together
             :
             which
             confusion
             ought
             by
             no
             means
             to
             be
             allowed
             .
          
           To
           which
           he
           answers
           ,
           
             That
             to
             affirm
             ,
             that
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             essentially
             one
             by
             mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             is
             not
             to
             affirm
             ,
             that
             mutual
             Consciousness
             is
             the
             cause
             of
             their
             Vnion
             ,
             p.
          
           71.
           l.
           18.
           
           But
           on
           the
           contrary
           ,
           I
           affirm
           ,
           That
           if
           [
           for
           one
           Thing
           
             to
             be
             so
          
           or
           
             so
             ,
             by
             another
          
           ]
           does
           and
           must
           signify
           causally
           :
           then
           to
           say
           ,
           
             That
             Things
             or
             Persons
             are
             one
          
           by
           mutual
           Consciousness
           ,
           
             and
             yet
             that
             mutual
             Consciousness
             is
             not
             the
          
           cause
           or
           antecedent
           Reason
           
             of
             their
             being
             one
          
           ,
           is
           a
           direct
           contradiction
           in
           the
           Terms
           .
           And
           it
           is
           hard
           to
           imagine
           ,
           how
           a
           Man
           in
           his
           Sences
           can
           think
           otherwise
           .
           In
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           he
           passes
           impertinently
           from
           the
           Union
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           to
           their
           mutual
           Indwelling
           in
           each
           other
           (
           which
           are
           very
           different
           Things
           )
           affirming
           withal
           ,
           That
           his
           
             mutual
             Indwelling
          
           is
           their
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ;
           though
           this
           has
           been
           ,
           and
           still
           is
           ,
           peremptorily
           denied
           him
           ,
           and
           the
           Reader
           ,
           for
           the
           Confutation
           of
           it
           ,
           referred
           to
           the
           Two
           forecited
           Chapters
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           ;
           which
           this
           Author
           neither
           does
           nor
           can
           say
           one
           word
           in
           answer
           to
           .
           Well
           ;
           but
           how
           does
           he
           prove
           
             The
             mutual
             Inexistence
          
           ,
           or
           Indwelling
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           to
           be
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ?
           Why
           ;
           because
           (
           forsooth
           )
           
             they
             are
             in
             one
             another
             as
             Minds
             ,
             not
             as
             Bodies
             ,
             p.
          
           71.
           l.
           30.
           
           But
           here
           ,
           besides
           that
           we
           deny
           his
           very
           supposition
           ,
           viz.
           That
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             Three
             Minds
             ,
          
           we
           deny
           also
           ,
           That
           Three
           distinct
           Minds
           can
           be
           made
           Identically
           one
           in
           Nature
           by
           any
           Consciousness
           or
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           whatsoever
           ;
           and
           in
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           (
           who
           are
           neither
           Minds
           nor
           Bodies
           )
           it
           is
           the
           Vnity
           and
           
           Identity
           of
           their
           Essence
           ,
           by
           which
           alone
           they
           are
           mutually
           in
           one
           another
           ,
           as
           the
           sole
           proper
           Reason
           of
           their
           being
           so
           .
           For
           there
           neither
           is
           nor
           can
           be
           such
           a
           Thing
           as
           a
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           of
           distinct
           Minds
           ,
           Essences
           ,
           or
           Natures
           in
           one
           another
           .
           But
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             in
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             Vnion
             and
             Communion
             are
             one
             and
             the
             same
             Thing
             ,
             p.
          
           72.
           l.
           15.
           
           But
           if
           he
           means
           that
           they
           are
           formally
           ,
           and
           in
           all
           respects
           the
           same
           ,
           I
           deny
           it
           ;
           affirming
           withal
           ,
           that
           they
           are
           as
           much
           distinguished
           as
           the
           very
           Divine
           Essence
           and
           Personalities
           themselves
           are
           ;
           and
           consequently
           ,
           that
           the
           Union
           of
           the
           Persons
           consists
           in
           their
           Identification
           in
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Essence
           or
           Nature
           ,
           and
           their
           Communion
           consists
           in
           those
           mutual
           Acts
           towards
           each
           other
           ,
           respectively
           issuing
           from
           and
           belonging
           to
           them
           by
           vertue
           of
           their
           Personal
           Properties
           .
           But
           
             the
             Animadverter
          
           (
           he
           tells
           us
           )
           
             falsly
             represents
             both
             the
             Communion
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             with
             each
             other
             ,
             and
             their
             mutual
             Consciousness
             too
             ,
             in
             these
             words
             cited
             from
             him
             ,
             p.
          
           72.
           l.
           27.
           viz.
           
           
             That
             all
             Acts
             of
             several
             Persons
             upon
             each
             other
             (
             as
             all
             that
             are
             mutual
             must
             be
             )
             are
             properly
             Acts
             of
             Communion
             ,
             by
             which
             the
             said
             Persons
             have
             an
             Intercourse
             among
             themselves
             ,
             as
             acting
             interchangeably
             upon
             one
             another
             .
          
           To
           which
           words
           of
           the
           Animadverter
           this
           Author
           replies
           first
           ,
           
             That
             this
             may
             be
             true
             in
             Persons
          
           separate
           ,
           
             but
             that
             Persons
             only
          
           distinct
           
             and
             not
          
           separate
           ,
           
             do
             not
             Act
             upon
             one
             Another
             ;
             for
             that
             such
             acting
             must
          
           (
           as
           he
           says
           )
           
             signify
             an
             External
             Impression
             made
             by
             one
             Person
             upon
             another
             ,
             p.
          
           72.
           at
           the
           end
           ,
           and
           p.
           73.
           at
           the
           beginning
           :
           But
           will
           this
           Man
           here
           abide
           by
           this
           false
           and
           prophane
           assertion
           ?
           For
           do
           not
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           mutually
           know
           and
           mutually
           love
           one
           another
           ?
           and
           do
           not
           these
           Acts
           of
           Knowledge
           
           and
           Love
           both
           mutually
           proceed
           from
           them
           ,
           and
           mutually
           terminate
           in
           them
           too
           ?
           Or
           will
           he
           say
           that
           those
           Acts
           pass
           mutually
           between
           them
           by
           an
           
             External
             Impression
          
           upon
           each
           other
           ?
           Or
           lastly
           ,
           That
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           are
           any
           more
           than
           only
           distinct
           ?
           Certainly
           such
           Propositions
           as
           this
           Audacious
           man
           vents
           ,
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           was
           never
           accustomed
           to
           hear
           or
           endure
           before
           .
           But
           in
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           after
           he
           had
           said
           that
           the
           Animadverter's
           Assertion
           might
           hold
           true
           in
           
             Persons
             separate
          
           ,
           but
           not
           in
           
             Persons
             only
             distinct
          
           ,
           which
           we
           have
           confuted
           ;
           He
           says
           also
           ,
           p.
           72.
           at
           the
           end
           ,
           That
           it
           holds
           true
           of
           all
           other
           mutual
           Acts
           ,
           excepting
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ;
           which
           is
           a
           fulsome
           and
           ridiculous
           
             begging
             of
             the
             Question
          
           by
           presuming
           an
           Exception
           where
           he
           should
           first
           prove
           it
           ,
           and
           is
           as
           arrant
           a
           
             Petitio
             Principii
          
           as
           ever
           appeared
           in
           Argumentation
           .
           And
           I
           challenge
           him
           to
           prove
           how
           the
           Exception
           holds
           in
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           more
           than
           in
           
             mutual
             Complacency
          
           ;
           though
           indeed
           in
           neither
           .
           But
           he
           is
           now
           for
           calling
           the
           Animadverter
           to
           an
           account
           for
           that
           unwary
           and
           improper
           expression
           (
           as
           he
           represents
           it
           )
           
             That
             all
             Acts
             of
             several
             Persons
             upon
             one
             another
             are
             Acts
             of
             Communion
             ,
             which
          
           (
           says
           he
           in
           the
           Gravel-lane
           Dialect
           )
           
             makes
             Boys
             in
             a
             state
             of
             Communion
             with
             each
             other
             at
             boxing
             ;
             and
             a
             match
             at
             scolding
          
           (
           for
           it
           seems
           he
           cannot
           yet
           rid
           his
           head
           of
           Billingsgate
           )
           
             another
             state
             of
             Communion
          
           .
           To
           which
           my
           answer
           in
           the
           first
           place
           is
           ,
           That
           I
           am
           sorry
           to
           find
           his
           
             ill
             breeding
          
           got
           so
           far
           into
           his
           Religion
           ,
           as
           to
           dare
           to
           mingle
           such
           sacred
           matters
           with
           such
           dirty
           and
           prophane
           Comparisons
           .
           In
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           I
           would
           have
           him
           know
           ,
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           abides
           by
           what
           he
           has
           said
           ,
           and
           accordingly
           would
           have
           this
           Man
           learn
           ,
           that
           
           words
           in
           discourse
           ,
           though
           never
           so
           general
           and
           indefinite
           ,
           are
           yet
           to
           be
           limited
           and
           determined
           in
           their
           sence
           by
           the
           subject
           professedly
           treated
           of
           .
           And
           this
           in
           the
           present
           Case
           was
           such
           an
           Act
           only
           as
           supposed
           Persons
           in
           a
           state
           of
           Agreement
           ,
           and
           proceeded
           from
           them
           ,
           and
           passed
           between
           them
           ,
           considered
           only
           
             as
             such
          
           .
           And
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           further
           ,
           That
           though
           the
           common
           use
           of
           the
           World
           has
           restrained
           the
           sence
           of
           the
           word
           Communion
           and
           Communication
           ,
           
             ad
             benigniorem
             partem
          
           ,
           yet
           the
           literal
           sence
           of
           it
           imports
           no
           more
           than
           a
           bare
           Interchange
           of
           Acts
           or
           Offices
           ,
           whether
           Friendly
           or
           hostile
           ;
           and
           there
           may
           be
           as
           real
           and
           as
           proper
           a
           Communication
           of
           ill
           Turns
           as
           of
           good
           ;
           and
           sometimes
           of
           
             ill
             for
             good
          
           ,
           as
           this
           Author
           very
           well
           knows
           .
           But
           as
           for
           those
           words
           which
           he
           concludes
           this
           his
           Criticism
           with
           ,
           
             That
             had
             the
             Dea●
             been
             pleased
             to
             have
             returned
             mutual
             Acts
             ,
             he
             and
             the
             Animadverter
             might
             have
             been
             long
             since
             in
             a
             very
             strict
             Communion
             with
             each
             other
             ,
             p.
          
           73.
           l.
           16.
           
           I
           shall
           only
           return
           him
           this
           one
           short
           word
           ,
           That
           though
           all
           this
           may
           be
           perfect
           Riddle
           to
           the
           Reader
           ,
           yet
           I
           understand
           him
           very
           well
           ,
           and
           could
           easily
           give
           him
           such
           an
           answer
           ,
           as
           should
           make
           him
           
             understand
             himself
          
           too
           .
        
         
           But
           to
           let
           the
           Reader
           see
           that
           he
           is
           a
           foul
           a
           Disputant
           as
           he
           can
           be
           a
           Speaker
           (
           and
           a
           fouler
           upon
           both
           accounts
           the
           World
           never
           had
           )
           with
           a
           Frontless
           Impudence
           he
           declares
           here
           ,
           p.
           73.
           l.
           23.
           
           
             That
             the
             Animadverter
             grants
             all
             that
             he
             says
             ,
             about
             the
             Notion
             of
             a
             Trinity
             in
             Vnity
             :
          
           And
           in
           Particular
           ,
           
             That
             every
             Individual
             Person
             has
             a
             Self-Consciousness
             of
             its
             own
             ,
             and
             every
             such
             Self-Conscious
             Person
             is
             thereby
             one
             with
             it self
             ,
             and
             distinguished
             from
             all
             other
             Persons
             ,
          
           In
           answer
           to
           
           which
           shameless
           Unconscionable
           Falshood
           ,
           I
           do
           here
           ,
           in
           the
           Face
           of
           the
           World
           ,
           challenge
           the
           Author
           of
           it
           to
           prove
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Animadverter
          
           grants
           any
           one
           thing
           that
           is
           peculiar
           to
           his
           Hypothesis
           ;
           and
           particularly
           to
           shew
           that
           place
           in
           the
           whole
           Book
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           in
           which
           the
           Animadverter
           owns
           ,
           
             That
             a
             Self-Conscious
             Person
             ,
             is
             by
             virtue
             of
             it's
             Self-Consciousness
             one
             with
             it self
             ,
             and
             primarily
          
           distinguished
           
             from
             all
             other
             Persons
          
           ,
           (
           which
           is
           the
           only
           distinction
           here
           spoken
           of
           .
           )
           I
           say
           ,
           I
           do
           again
           and
           again
           challenge
           this
           Man
           to
           prove
           this
           ;
           and
           promise
           withal
           ,
           That
           if
           he
           can
           do
           it
           ,
           I
           will
           forfeit
           to
           him
           
             more
             than
             ever
             he
             was
             born
          
           to
           ;
           and
           if
           he
           cannot
           ,
           I
           humbly
           appeal
           to
           the
           most
           rigid
           ,
           if
           but
           Impartial
           ,
           Reader
           ,
           whether
           I
           have
           not
           all
           the
           cause
           in
           the
           World
           to
           proclaim
           him
           to
           all
           Mankind
           ,
           for
           a
           downright
           Lyar
           ,
           Slanderer
           ,
           and
           Falsificator
           .
           And
           as
           hard
           as
           these
           words
           may
           sound
           ,
           less
           than
           this
           ,
           upon
           such
           an
           occasion
           ,
           I
           neither
           can
           nor
           will
           say
           .
           But
           we
           will
           see
           what
           other
           holes
           he
           can
           pick
           in
           the
           Animadverter's
           Coat
           .
           And
           here
           he
           first
           taxes
           him
           ,
           p.
           74.
           l.
           1
           ,
           2.
           for
           the
           Improper
           use
           of
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Vnion
             of
             Nature
          
           ]
           telling
           him
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Dean
          
           (
           forsooth
           )
           
             would
             have
             said
             Vnity
             of
             Nature
          
           (
           as
           the
           same
           Dean
           not
           only
           
             would
             have
             said
          
           ,
           but
           
             has
             said
             ,
             That
             a
             Beast
             is
             a
             Person
             ,
          
           with
           several
           other
           such
           choice
           Proprieties
           ,
           as
           Chrysome
           instead
           of
           Chrisme
           ,
           and
           Paraphrases
           instead
           of
           Periphrasis
           ,
           and
           above
           an
           hundred
           
             Solecisms
             to
          
           boot
           .
           )
           But
           I
           must
           here
           declare
           to
           this
           great
           Master
           of
           proper
           speaking
           ,
           forsooth
           ,
           (
           as
           appears
           from
           the
           whole
           Tenth
           Chapter
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           )
           That
           had
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           in
           the
           place
           cited
           by
           him
           ,
           used
           the
           Term
           [
           Vnion
           ]
           instead
           of
           [
           Vnity
           ]
           (
           which
           upon
           this
           subject
           are
           often
           promiscuously
           made
           use
           of
           )
           surely
           this
           
           Man
           had
           been
           the
           most
           unfit
           Person
           in
           the
           World
           to
           reflect
           upon
           him
           for
           it
           ;
           who
           has
           stated
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           in
           the
           Three
           Persons
           so
           ,
           as
           to
           leave
           no
           
             numerical
             real
             Vnity
          
           in
           it
           at
           all
           ,
           but
           only
           an
           Vnion
           instead
           thereof
           .
           For
           three
           Distinct
           Infinite
           Minds
           (
           asserted
           by
           this
           Author
           )
           being
           Three
           distinct
           Natures
           or
           Essences
           ,
           neither
           have
           nor
           can
           have
           any
           such
           Vnity
           in
           them
           ;
           but
           being
           United
           only
           by
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           are
           capable
           of
           no
           more
           than
           a
           Conjunction
           or
           Vnion
           thereby
           ;
           and
           that
           a
           very
           slender
           one
           too
           ,
           and
           far
           from
           that
           
             Essential
             Vnity
          
           which
           belongs
           to
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           .
           But
           after
           all
           ,
           I
           would
           have
           His
           Critical
           Ignorance
           know
           ,
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           by
           [
           the
           
             Vnion
             of
             Nature
          
           ]
           here
           mentioned
           ,
           understands
           (
           as
           he
           may
           very
           well
           and
           properly
           do
           )
           no
           other
           than
           [
           an
           
             Vnion
             in
             respect
             of
             Nature
          
           ]
           ;
           so
           that
           it
           is
           really
           an
           
             Vnion
             of
             Persons
          
           Connoting
           the
           Nature
           ,
           as
           the
           Term
           ,
           which
           they
           are
           United
           in
           :
           And
           accordingly
           the
           Animadverter
           in
           defiance
           of
           this
           Man
           's
           long
           silly
           Parenthesis
           (
           which
           ,
           it
           had
           been
           more
           for
           his
           Credit
           to
           have
           spared
           than
           put
           in
           )
           still
           owns
           ,
           and
           abides
           by
           the
           Expression
           .
           But
           our
           Critick
           has
           not
           done
           yet
           .
           But
           whereas
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           speaking
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           had
           used
           these
           words
           ,
           
             Their
             Essence
             and
             Personality
          
           ,
           he
           here
           
             cries
             out
          
           (
           like
           one
           Big
           ,
           and
           
             bringing
             forth
          
           nothing
           )
           
             What
             ?
             but
             one
             Personality
             as
             well
             as
             but
             one
             Essence
             in
             Three
             ,
             p.
          
           74.
           l.
           11.
           
           But
           may
           it
           please
           your
           Ignorance
           ,
           good
           Sir
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           here
           spoke
           of
           Personality
           ,
           not
           with
           any
           respect
           to
           number
           of
           Particulars
           ,
           but
           to
           the
           
             common
             Nature
          
           and
           notion
           of
           the
           Thing
           ,
           and
           consequently
           might
           ,
           without
           the
           least
           impropriety
           ,
           use
           the
           Term
           Personality
           ,
           without
           any
           Epithete
           of
           Plurality
           .
           For
           suppose
           ,
           
           that
           in
           a
           discourse
           of
           the
           general
           Nature
           of
           Celestial
           Bodies
           ,
           one
           should
           speak
           of
           the
           Sun
           and
           of
           the
           
             motion
             of
             the
             Heavens
          
           together
           ;
           would
           this
           Philosopher
           of
           Goatham
           presently
           cry
           out
           ,
           
             What
             but
          
           one
           motion
           
             of
             the
             Heavens
             as
             well
             as
             but
          
           one
           Sun
           ?
           And
           to
           give
           an
           Instance
           in
           Divine
           matters
           ,
           when
           the
           Prophet
           Ezek.
           36.26
           .
           tells
           the
           
             Israelites
             ,
             that
             God
             would
             give
             them
             [
             a
             new
             heart
             ]
          
           ;
           would
           this
           wise
           Man
           ,
           of
           the
           forenamed
           Society
           ,
           cry
           out
           here
           ,
           What
           ?
           but
           
             One
             new
             heart
          
           amongst
           so
           many
           thousand
           Men
           ?
           For
           certain
           it
           is
           ,
           that
           strictly
           speaking
           ,
           the
           heart
           here
           mentioned
           (
           which
           could
           be
           nothing
           else
           but
           a
           pious
           and
           gracious
           disposition
           of
           Mind
           ,
           inclining
           them
           to
           obey
           God
           )
           was
           to
           be
           multiplied
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           number
           of
           Individuals
           ,
           which
           it
           was
           to
           be
           given
           to
           .
           But
           such
           as
           understand
           the
           force
           of
           words
           ,
           and
           the
           way
           of
           using
           them
           ,
           know
           that
           there
           is
           a
           kind
           of
           
             Grammatica
             Philosophica
          
           ,
           by
           which
           we
           may
           judge
           when
           a
           single
           word
           ought
           to
           signify
           singularly
           ,
           and
           when
           indefinitely
           and
           including
           all
           the
           Particulars
           that
           it
           may
           be
           applied
           to
           .
           But
           this
           ,
           I
           confess
           ,
           is
           Gibberish
           and
           a
           Riddle
           (
           as
           all
           sense
           and
           learning
           is
           )
           to
           one
           who
           has
           neither
           Grammar
           nor
           Philosophy
           .
           And
           so
           having
           answered
           his
           impertinent
           Cavils
           ,
           I
           come
           to
           give
           an
           answer
           to
           his
           equally
           impertinent
           Questions
           ,
           with
           such
           great
           huff
           proposed
           by
           him
           ,
           p.
           74.
           l.
           17.
           
           As
           first
           ,
           
             Can
             they
          
           ,
           viz.
           
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             be
             one
             before
             they
             are
             mutually
             conscious
             ,
             even
             in
             the
             order
             of
             conceiving
             it
             ?
          
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           in
           order
           of
           conception
           they
           not
           only
           may
           ,
           but
           necessarily
           must
           ;
           and
           that
           as
           necessarily
           ,
           as
           it
           is
           impossible
           to
           conceive
           of
           ●●owledge
           without
           conceiving
           of
           Entity
           or
           Being
           as
           
             the
             ●bject
             of
             it
          
           ,
           and
           for
           that
           cause
           (
           in
           the
           Natural
           order
           of
           ●●●ceiving
           ,
           or
           apprehending
           Things
           )
           
             before
             it
          
           .
           The
           second
           
           Question
           is
           ,
           
             Can
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             be
          
           one
           
             before
             they
             are
             in
             one
             another
             ?
          
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           in
           Priority
           of
           Time
           they
           cannot
           ;
           but
           that
           in
           order
           of
           Nature
           they
           may
           and
           must
           be
           so
           conceived
           :
           For
           to
           be
           in
           
             one
             Another
          
           is
           but
           a
           subsequent
           circumstance
           of
           Being
           ,
           and
           consequently
           must
           presuppose
           the
           
             Being
             it self
          
           ,
           whereof
           it
           is
           the
           Circumstance
           ,
           as
           
             in
             Nature
          
           preceding
           it
           .
           His
           third
           Question
           is
           ,
           
             Can
             there
             be
             any
             other
             mutual
             in-being
             of
             Minds
             but
             by
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             ?
          
           I
           Answer
           ,
           First
           ,
           That
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           are
           not
           minds
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           there
           is
           no
           such
           Thing
           as
           a
           
             mutual
             in-being
             of
             Minds
          
           in
           one
           another
           :
           And
           thirdly
           and
           lastly
           ,
           That
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           are
           not
           properly
           and
           originally
           in
           one
           another
           by
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           but
           by
           an
           
             Indentity
             of
             Essence
          
           ,
           Nature
           ,
           or
           Substance
           ,
           common
           to
           all
           Three
           .
        
         
           But
           I
           shall
           now
           apply
           my self
           particularly
           to
           answer
           his
           noisome
           extravagant
           Ignorance
           ,
           in
           reproaching
           (
           even
           to
           the
           degree
           of
           Insultation
           )
           all
           use
           or
           admission
           of
           Priority
           and
           Posteriority
           of
           Conception
           in
           apprehending
           or
           discoursing
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           .
           And
           in
           order
           to
           this
           ,
           I
           shall
           lay
           before
           the
           Reader
           some
           of
           his
           expressions
           concerning
           it
           ;
           as
           p.
           73.
           l.
           20.
           
           
             After
             all
             this
             huffing
             and
             swaggering
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             This
             notable
             dispute
             issues
             in
             a
             meer
             Metaphysical
             subtilty
             about
             the
             natural
             order
             of
             our
             conceptions
             of
             Things
             .
          
           But
           ,
           by
           his
           favour
           ,
           they
           are
           not
           meer
           conceptions
           and
           no
           more
           ;
           but
           conceptions
           founded
           in
           the
           Nature
           and
           Reason
           of
           the
           Thing
           which
           they
           are
           imployed
           about
           ,
           as
           it
           exerts
           different
           Acts
           ,
           respects
           different
           objects
           ,
           and
           sustains
           different
           Relations
           and
           Considerations
           thereupon
           .
           But
           he
           goes
           on
           .
           
             What
             confounded
             work
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             does
             this
             make
             with
             the
             pure
             simple
             uncompounded
             Eternal
             Nature
             
             of
             God
             ,
             so
             to
             prove
             a
             Priority
             or
             Posteriority
             of
             Being
             ,
             or
             Causality
             in
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             from
             the
             order
             of
             our
             Conceptions
             ?
             p.
          
           74.
           l.
           22.
           
           But
           can
           this
           Man
           make
           it
           appear
           ,
           That
           any
           Philosopher
           and
           Divine
           does
           this
           ?
           No
           ;
           they
           do
           not
           pretend
           
             to
             prove
             a
             Priority
             or
             Posteriority
             of
             Being
             ,
             or
             Causality
             in
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             from
             the
             order
             of
             our
             Conceptions
             ,
          
           for
           they
           professedly
           disavow
           it
           ;
           But
           they
           say
           and
           affirm
           ,
           that
           there
           can
           be
           no
           discoursing
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           by
           any
           Humane
           Reason
           ,
           but
           by
           such
           an
           order
           of
           Priority
           and
           Posteriority
           in
           our
           Conceptions
           of
           it
           .
           This
           ,
           Sir
           ,
           is
           their
           affirmation
           ,
           and
           the
           other
           is
           your
           Lye.
           For
           neither
           do
           Philosophers
           nor
           Divines
           ascribe
           these
           Things
           to
           God
           formally
           ,
           but
           only
           Virtually
           and
           
             Eminently
             ,
             viz.
          
           That
           God
           as
           a
           pure
           simple
           Act
           or
           Being
           ,
           performs
           all
           those
           Acts
           immediately
           by
           one
           simple
           efficiency
           or
           exertion
           of
           himself
           ,
           Which
           a
           finite
           Being
           cannot
           do
           but
           by
           several
           Acts
           ,
           Powers
           ,
           Faculties
           ,
           and
           (
           sometimes
           )
           Parts
           enabling
           it
           to
           operate
           and
           produce
           Things
           .
           No
           Man
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           ascribes
           these
           things
           to
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           in
           the
           strict
           and
           Philosophical
           sense
           of
           the
           Terms
           ,
           but
           by
           way
           of
           Analogy
           to
           what
           reason
           observes
           in
           the
           Creature
           ,
           and
           that
           also
           founded
           upon
           God's
           own
           condescension
           to
           describe
           and
           represent
           himself
           to
           us
           in
           this
           manner
           .
           And
           what
           the
           Animadverter
           says
           in
           the
           fifth
           Preliminary
           of
           his
           fourth
           Chapter
           ,
           is
           sufficient
           to
           blow
           off
           all
           these
           senseless
           Cavils
           ,
           viz.
           
           
             That
             when
             the
             Terms
             ,
             Cause
             ,
             
               formal
               Reason
               ,
               Constituent
               ,
               or
               Productive
               Principle
            
             and
             the
             like
             ,
             are
             used
             about
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             and
             Persons
             ,
             they
             are
             not
             to
             be
             understood
             as
             applicable
             to
             them
             in
             the
             strict
             and
             proper
             signification
             of
             the
             said
             Terms
             ,
             but
             only
             by
             way
             of
             Analogy
             ;
             as
             really
             
             meaning
             no
             more
             than
             a
             causal
             or
             necessary
             Dependance
             of
             one
             Notion
             ,
             or
             
               Conceptus
               objectivus
            
             upon
             Another
             ;
             so
             that
             it
             is
             impossible
             for
             the
             Mind
             to
             conceive
             distinctly
             of
             the
             one
             ,
             but
             as
             depending
             upon
             ,
             or
             proceeding
             from
             the
             other
             .
          
           In
           answer
           to
           all
           which
           ,
           I
           defy
           this
           Man
           to
           speak
           Three
           words
           of
           sence
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           .
           And
           whereas
           he
           Ignorantly
           says
           ,
           
             That
             all
             such
             Conceptions
             are
             false
             ,
             p.
          
           74.
           l.
           33.
           
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           on
           the
           contrary
           ,
           That
           where
           nothing
           is
           affirmed
           ,
           or
           denied
           (
           as
           in
           bare
           conceptions
           nothing
           is
           )
           there
           can
           be
           no
           Falshood
           .
           It
           is
           a
           common
           Rule
           and
           Maxim
           in
           Philosophy
           ,
           and
           not
           to
           be
           over
           born
           by
           this
           weak
           man's
           little
           Objections
           ,
           That
           
             Abstrahentium
             non
             est
             mendacium
          
           .
           For
           to
           consider
           one
           thing
           without
           another
           ,
           (
           though
           it
           neither
           is
           nor
           can
           be
           without
           the
           other
           )
           is
           no
           Falshood
           .
           And
           the
           chief
           thing
           by
           which
           we
           form
           several
           distinct
           Conceptions
           of
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           ,
           is
           this
           Abstraction
           ;
           by
           which
           the
           Mind
           first
           considers
           one
           
             Conceptus
             Objectivus
          
           without
           the
           other
           ,
           and
           then
           considers
           ,
           and
           compares
           both
           together
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           respect
           they
           may
           have
           to
           each
           other
           ,
           and
           the
           Natural
           Order
           which
           that
           places
           them
           in
           .
           But
           I
           shall
           try
           what
           Metal
           that
           Confidence
           is
           made
           of
           ,
           which
           thus
           explodes
           all
           Priority
           and
           Posteriority
           in
           our
           Conceptions
           of
           God
           by
           these
           following
           Questions
           .
           As
           ,
           first
           ,
           I
           demand
           of
           this
           man
           ,
           Whether
           he
           does
           not
           own
           a
           Necessity
           of
           our
           forming
           several
           Inadequate
           Conceptions
           of
           God
           ,
           and
           that
           we
           have
           no
           other
           way
           of
           conceiving
           of
           him
           ?
           This
           ,
           I
           am
           sure
           ,
           he
           has
           asserted
           several
           times
           ,
           and
           if
           he
           had
           not
           ,
           the
           whole
           World
           does
           :
           and
           therefore
           in
           the
           next
           place
           I
           ask
           him
           ,
           Whether
           many
           of
           these
           
             Inadequate
             Conceptions
          
           do
           not
           imply
           a
           necessary
           and
           essential
           dependance
           
           of
           one
           upon
           the
           other
           ?
           and
           if
           so
           ,
           Whether
           it
           be
           possible
           for
           the
           
             Mind
             of
             Man
          
           to
           form
           a
           Conception
           of
           one
           thing
           depending
           upon
           another
           but
           
             seoundùm
             Prius
             &
             Posterius
          
           ?
           Again
           ,
           I
           demand
           of
           him
           ,
           Whether
           we
           can
           consider
           God
           as
           an
           
             Intelligent
             Being
          
           and
           Agent
           ,
           endued
           with
           
             Vnderstanding
             ,
             Will
          
           ,
           and
           Power
           ,
           (
           as
           he
           in
           Scripture
           represents
           himself
           ,
           and
           as
           we
           must
           conceive
           of
           him
           ,
           if
           we
           conceive
           and
           discourse
           of
           him
           at
           all
           )
           without
           conceiving
           of
           him
           as
           willing
           a
           thing
           before
           he
           does
           it
           ,
           and
           as
           understanding
           it
           before
           he
           wills
           it
           ?
           And
           again
           ,
           I
           demand
           of
           him
           ,
           Whether
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
          
           and
           Persons
           consider'd
           all
           together
           are
           not
           one
           pure
           ,
           simple
           ,
           uncompounded
           Act
           or
           Being
           ?
           I
           am
           sure
           all
           Orthodox
           Divines
           affirm
           it
           .
           And
           yet
           ,
           I
           demand
           of
           this
           man
           ,
           Whether
           he
           or
           any
           one
           alive
           can
           conceive
           of
           the
           Father
           as
           begetting
           ,
           and
           of
           the
           Son
           as
           begotten
           ,
           and
           of
           the
           
             Holy
             Ghost
          
           as
           proceeding
           from
           both
           ,
           without
           a
           Priority
           and
           Posteriority
           in
           the
           conceptions
           we
           form
           of
           them
           ?
           And
           lastly
           ,
           to
           instance
           in
           his
           own
           whimsical
           Notion
           of
           Self-consciousness
           and
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           I
           challenge
           him
           to
           prove
           it
           possible
           for
           the
           Mind
           of
           Man
           to
           conceive
           how
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           can
           be
           
             mutually
             conscious
          
           to
           one-another
           ,
           but
           subsequently
           to
           each
           Person
           's
           being
           first
           
             conscious
             to
             himself
          
           ;
           forasmuch
           as
           their
           several
           Self-consciousnesses
           are
           properly
           the
           Object
           of
           their
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           and
           so
           in
           order
           of
           Nature
           cannot
           but
           be
           before
           it
           .
           Nay
           ,
           and
           to
           go
           further
           ,
           Does
           not
           this
           very
           man
           ,
           in
           stating
           his
           Self-consciousness
           and
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           distinguish
           between
           the
           Act
           and
           the
           Principle
           ?
           Which
           ,
           tho'
           it
           be
           but
           a
           meer
           Shift
           ,
           (
           as
           has
           been
           shewn
           )
           is
           yet
           a
           good
           Argument
           against
           himself
           :
           For
           can
           any
           one
           conceive
           of
           a
           Principle
           ,
           but
           as
           Prior
           to
           the
           Act
           ?
           In
           
           fine
           ,
           I
           challenge
           this
           equally
           Insolent
           and
           Heterodox
           man
           ,
           to
           satisfie
           the
           World
           about
           him
           ,
           by
           a
           clear
           and
           positive
           Answer
           to
           these
           two
           Questions
           ,
           1
           st
           ,
           Whether
           all
           
             Divines
             ,
             Schoolmen
          
           ,
           and
           Philosophers
           (
           excepting
           perhaps
           such
           as
           
             Conradus
             Vorstius
          
           ,
           and
           Crellius
           ,
           in
           their
           Books
           
             de
             Attributis
             Dei
          
           )
           do
           not
           in
           treating
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           unanimously
           acknowledge
           and
           affirm
           ,
           That
           God
           is
           a
           
             Pure
             ,
             Simple
             ,
             Vncompounded
          
           Act
           ,
           Essence
           ,
           or
           Being
           ?
           And
           ,
           2
           dly
           ,
           Whether
           ,
           notwithstanding
           this
           acknowledgment
           and
           affirmation
           ,
           they
           do
           not
           universally
           treat
           of
           God
           in
           Terms
           necessarily
           importing
           and
           requiring
           a
           Priority
           and
           Posteriority
           of
           Conception
           ?
           But
           why
           do
           I
           dispute
           against
           such
           sottish
           Paradoxes
           ,
           which
           all
           the
           Schools
           in
           Christendome
           would
           hiss
           ,
           or
           rather
           spit
           at
           the
           Author
           of
           them
           for
           ?
           But
           this
           poor
           ambitious
           
             Animalculum
             Gloriae
          
           has
           been
           always
           affecting
           to
           signalize
           his
           little
           Self
           by
           the
           Character
           of
           holding
           what
           the
           whole
           World
           besides
           denies
           ,
           and
           of
           denying
           what
           it
           holds
           .
        
         
           And
           now
           ,
           in
           the
           close
           of
           this
           Argument
           ,
           p.
           75.
           l.
           20.
           we
           have
           him
           again
           flying
           off
           from
           his
           first
           Hypothesis
           ;
           in
           which
           he
           had
           with
           so
           much
           earnestness
           affirmed
           Self-consciousness
           to
           be
           that
           which
           made
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           originally
           distinct
           both
           from
           one-another
           and
           all
           other
           things
           besides
           ,
           and
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           to
           be
           that
           which
           made
           them
           naturally
           and
           essentially
           one
           .
           I
           say
           ,
           we
           have
           him
           quite
           falling
           down
           from
           their
           making
           ,
           to
           their
           bare
           
             supposing
             ,
             inferring
          
           ,
           and
           
             proving
             them
          
           to
           be
           so
           .
           Which
           (
           as
           the
           whole
           World
           must
           needs
           fee
           )
           is
           wholly
           another
           thing
           ,
           and
           absolutely
           quits
           and
           gives
           up
           the
           first
           assertion
           ;
           but
           that
           by
           his
           good
           leave
           ,
           shall
           not
           serve
           his
           Turn
           :
           For
           (
           as
           he
           has
           been
           several
           times
           told
           )
           he
           shall
           be
           still
           
           held
           to
           it
           ,
           and
           justly
           accounted
           a
           baffled
           Person
           ,
           if
           he
           does
           not
           make
           it
           good
           .
           For
           in
           all
           Philosophy
           ,
           and
           even
           in
           common
           sense
           ,
           making
           is
           one
           thing
           ,
           and
           proving
           is
           another
           .
           And
           therefore
           ,
           whereas
           he
           says
           in
           the
           last
           place
           ,
           
             viz.
             p.
          
           75.
           lin
           .
           30.
           
           
             That
             to
             dispute
             about
             the
             Cause
             of
             Self-consciousness
             and
             mutual
             Consciousness
             ,
             is
             to
             dispute
             about
             the
             naked
             Essences
             or
             Essential
             Properties
             of
             Things
             ,
             which
             the
             Dean
             rejected
             from
             the
             Beginning
             ,
             as
             without
             the
             compass
             of
             Human
             Knowledge
             .
          
           There
           are
           in
           these
           words
           several
           things
           to
           be
           remark'd
           upon
           .
           As
           ,
           first
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           the
           Dispute
           here
           is
           not
           directly
           about
           the
           
             Cause
             of
             Self-consciousness
          
           or
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           :
           but
           whether
           Self-consciousness
           it self
           be
           the
           Cause
           or
           formal
           Reason
           of
           Personality
           ,
           Personal
           Unity
           and
           Distinction
           ?
           and
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           be
           the
           formal
           Cause
           or
           Reason
           of
           the
           Essential
           Unity
           and
           Identity
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           in
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Nature
           ?
           And
           in
           the
           next
           place
           supposing
           that
           the
           Dispute
           here
           were
           about
           the
           
             Cause
             of
             Self-consciousness
          
           and
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           yet
           I
           deny
           ,
           that
           to
           dispute
           of
           them
           under
           the
           Notion
           of
           a
           Cause
           or
           an
           Effect
           ,
           is
           to
           
             dispute
             about
             the
             naked
             Essences
          
           or
           
             Essential
             Properties
          
           of
           Things
           .
           Forasmuch
           as
           we
           may
           consider
           and
           dispute
           about
           the
           Essences
           and
           Properties
           of
           Things
           ,
           without
           any
           consideration
           of
           their
           Causality
           at
           all
           :
           and
           on
           the
           other
           side
           we
           may
           know
           a
           thing
           to
           be
           actually
           a
           Cause
           ,
           and
           dispute
           of
           it
           as
           such
           ,
           tho'
           we
           cannot
           tell
           what
           the
           Essence
           of
           the
           said
           thing
           is
           .
           We
           do
           not
           indeed
           know
           (
           that
           is
           ,
           by
           an
           immediate
           inspection
           of
           the
           Things
           themselves
           )
           what
           the
           Essences
           or
           Forms
           of
           Things
           are
           :
           but
           we
           know
           that
           in
           every
           Thing
           the
           Essence
           or
           Form
           of
           it
           is
           the
           Cause
           or
           Principle
           of
           all
           the
           Acts
           
           proceeding
           from
           it
           and
           belonging
           to
           it
           ,
           and
           consequently
           that
           no
           Act
           so
           proceeding
           from
           the
           said
           Thing
           can
           be
           the
           Essence
           or
           Form
           of
           it
           ,
           But
           3
           dly
           ,
           and
           lastly
           ,
           in
           reply
           to
           his
           saying
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Dean
             from
             the
             beginning
             rejected
             all
             Disputes
             about
             the
             Essences
             and
             Essential
             Properties
             of
             Things
             ,
             as
             without
             the
             compass
             of
             Human
             Knowledge
             .
          
           I
           do
           here
           referr
           the
           Reader
           to
           the
           9th
           ▪
           and
           10th
           Pages
           of
           the
           First
           Chapter
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           to
           see
           there
           how
           horribly
           he
           contradicts
           himself
           upon
           this
           Subject
           .
           For
           there
           it
           is
           proved
           against
           him
           ,
           out
           of
           page
           7.
           of
           his
           
             Vindic.
             lin
          
           .
           20.
           
           
             That
             he
             says
             that
             the
          
           Essences
           
             of
             Things
             ,
             cannot
             be
             known
             ,
             but
             only
             their
          
           Properties
           
             and
             Qualities
          
           .
           Which
           surely
           inferrs
           ,
           that
           then
           their
           Properties
           
             may
             be
             known
          
           .
           And
           again
           ,
           
             That
             as
             for
             the
          
           Essential
           Properties
           ,
           
             Operations
             ,
             and
             Powers
             of
             Matter
             ,
             sence
             ,
             experience
             and
             observation
             will
             tell
             us
             what
             they
             are
             .
             Vindicat.
             p.
          
           8.
           line
           15.
           
           Which
           Passages
           I
           would
           have
           him
           reconcile
           to
           what
           he
           has
           said
           here
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             the
          
           Essential
           Properties
           
             of
             Things
             are
             without
             the
             compass
             of
             Human
             Knowledge
          
           ;
           which
           how
           they
           can
           be
           ,
           and
           yet
           Sence
           ,
           Experience
           ,
           and
           Observation
           be
           able
           to
           give
           us
           such
           an
           account
           of
           them
           ,
           
             as
             to
             tell
             us
             what
             they
             are
             ,
          
           I
           must
           confess
           I
           cannot
           comprehend
           .
           And
           whereas
           again
           he
           excludes
           here
           the
           
             Essences
             of
             Things
          
           (
           which
           I
           averr
           to
           be
           only
           another
           word
           for
           the
           Natures
           of
           them
           )
           from
           the
           
             compass
             of
             Human
             Knowledge
          
           ;
           does
           not
           this
           very
           man
           ,
           in
           this
           his
           Defence
           ,
           p.
           7.
           lin
           .
           11.
           tell
           us
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Nature
             of
             a
             Spirit
             consists
             in
             Internal
             Vital
             Sensation
             ?
          
           And
           now
           ,
           after
           that
           he
           has
           given
           us
           this
           account
           of
           the
           Nature
           of
           a
           Spirit
           ,
           and
           told
           us
           wherein
           it
           does
           consist
           ,
           will
           he
           tell
           us
           ,
           That
           he
           looks
           upon
           the
           Natures
           of
           
             Things
             as
             out
             of
             the
             compass
             of
             Human
             Knowledge
             ?
          
           
           I
           shall
           say
           no
           more
           of
           him
           at
           present
           ,
           but
           humbly
           beg
           the
           Reader
           seriously
           to
           reflect
           upon
           the
           Temper
           and
           Confidence
           of
           this
           man.
           And
           so
           I
           dismiss
           him
           for
           an
           everlasting
           shameless
           Self-contradictor
           as
           he
           is
           ;
           and
           pass
           to
           the
           examination
           of
           what
           he
           brings
           against
           the
           Animadverter's
        
         
           
           Fourth
           and
           
             Last
             Argument
          
           ,
           which
           proceeds
           equally
           against
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           and
           Self-consciousness
           too
           ,
           and
           is
           founded
           upon
           that
           Rule
           of
           Philosophy
           ;
           
             That
             Entities
             or
             Beings
             ought
             not
             to
             be
             multiply'd
             nor
             new
             Notions
             to
             be
             admitted
             ,
             where
             the
             old
             received
             ones
             are
             sufficient
             ,
             and
             that
             therefore
             the
             Terms
             and
             Notions
             of
             mutual
             Consciousness
             and
             Self-consciousness
             in
             the
             present
             Subject
             ought
             to
             be
             rejected
             ,
             not
             only
             as
             New
             and
             Suspicious
             ,
             but
             as
             wholly
             needless
             and
             superfluous
             :
             forasmuch
             as
             nothing
             can
             be
             signified
             by
             them
             ,
             which
             is
             not
             fully
             and
             clearly
             signified
             by
             that
             one
             plain
             word
             and
             known
             attribute
             ,
             the
             Divine
             Omniscience
             .
          
           To
           which
           the
           Defender
           replies
           in
           this
           fleering
           Expostulation
           ,
           p.
           76.
           lin
           .
           4.
           
           
             Pray
             what
             hurt
             have
             these
             seemingly
             innocent
             words
             done
             ?
          
           I
           answer
           ,
           Too
           much
           a
           great
           deal
           (
           if
           we
           may
           believe
           his
           own
           words
           )
           to
           suffer
           them
           to
           pass
           for
           so
           much
           as
           
             seemingly
             innocent
          
           .
           For
           ,
           p.
           8.
           lin
           .
           19.
           of
           this
           Defence
           ,
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           That
           
             these
             were
             the
             words
             which
             directly
             led
             him
             to
             the
             Assertion
          
           of
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ;
           which
           is
           direct
           Tritheism
           :
           and
           not
           only
           so
           ,
           but
           forced
           him
           also
           to
           the
           trouble
           of
           a
           long
           senceless
           Apology
           to
           perswade
           the
           World
           ,
           that
           by
           Minds
           he
           did
           not
           mean
           Minds
           :
           as
           we
           shall
           more
           particularly
           shew
           in
           the
           discussion
           of
           his
           Answers
           to
           the
           
           Animadverter's
           Arguments
           upon
           that
           Subject
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           he
           answers
           further
           ,
           
             That
             admitting
             that
             all
             that
             is
             imported
             by
             Self-consciousness
             and
             mutual
             Consciousness
             
             may
             be
             fully
             signified
             by
             the
             Divine
             Omniscience
             ,
             yet
             why
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             may
             not
             that
             one
             comprehensive
             Attribute
             very
             properly
             receive
             different
             Names
             ,
             according
             to
             its
             different
             Objects
             ,
             as
             the
             several
             Arts
             and
             Sciences
             do
             ?
          
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           his
           Ignorance
           ,
           That
           neither
           do
           
             several
             Arts
             nor
             Sciences
          
           ,
           nor
           yet
           several
           kinds
           of
           Action
           ,
           receive
           their
           denomination
           from
           any
           of
           their
           
             particular
             Objects
          
           ,
           but
           only
           from
           their
           
             adequate
             and
             general
             Object
             formally
             consider'd
             ,
          
           that
           is
           ,
           as
           apprehensible
           after
           such
           a
           certain
           way
           .
           As
           for
           instance
           ;
           Natural
           Philosophy
           is
           so
           denominated
           ,
           not
           from
           this
           or
           that
           Natural
           Body
           ,
           but
           from
           
             Natural
             Body
          
           generally
           and
           universally
           consider'd
           ;
           and
           that
           only
           in
           order
           to
           the
           Knowledge
           of
           the
           Nature
           ,
           Properties
           ,
           and
           Affections
           thereof
           .
           And
           so
           likewise
           in
           
             Natural
             Acts
          
           ,
           such
           as
           those
           of
           Seeing
           and
           Hearing
           ,
           and
           the
           like
           ;
           every
           particular
           different
           colour
           which
           is
           seen
           does
           not
           give
           a
           diverse
           denomination
           to
           the
           Act
           that
           perceives
           it
           ,
           since
           it
           affects
           it
           only
           after
           the
           same
           general
           way
           ;
           nor
           does
           every
           different
           Sound
           or
           Tune
           diversly
           denominate
           each
           particular
           Act
           of
           Hearing
           ,
           which
           takes
           them
           in
           ;
           but
           they
           have
           all
           one
           general
           denomination
           from
           one
           adequate
           Object
           so
           consider'd
           as
           before
           express'd
           ;
           which
           to
           
             Seeing
             is
             omn●
             visibile
             ,
             quatenus
             visibile
          
           ;
           and
           to
           
             Hearing
             ,
             omne
             audibile
             ,
             quatenus
             audibile
             .
          
           And
           in
           like
           manner
           the
           adequate
           Object
           of
           Omniscience
           is
           
             omne
             scibile
             ,
             quatenus
             scibile
          
           ;
           and
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           as
           this
           Omniscience
           terminates
           upon
           them
           ,
           are
           as
           properly
           and
           truly
           Three
           particular
           Objects
           of
           it
           ,
           as
           any
           Three
           created
           Finite
           Beings
           may
           be
           .
           And
           it
           would
           make
           very
           odd
           work
           (
           in
           good
           earnest
           )
           to
           distinguish
           the
           
             Divine
             Omniscience
          
           by
           as
           many
           different
           Names
           as
           it
           has
           particular
           different
           
           Objects
           ,
           (
           which
           yet
           this
           man
           here
           most
           absurdly
           contends
           for
           )
           ;
           for
           according
           to
           this
           his
           Assertion
           ,
           Omniscience
           ,
           as
           it
           terminates
           upon
           an
           Angel
           ,
           must
           have
           one
           Name
           ,
           as
           upon
           a
           Man
           another
           ,
           and
           as
           upon
           a
           Beast
           or
           a
           Fowl
           ,
           another
           .
           And
           as
           God
           is
           said
           ,
           upon
           the
           Account
           of
           his
           Omniscience
           ,
           
             to
             know
             and
             number
             the
             Stars
             ,
             and
             to
             call
             them
             all
             by
             their
             Names
             ,
             Psal.
          
           147.4
           .
           his
           Omniscience
           being
           terminated
           distinctly
           upon
           every
           one
           of
           them
           ,
           must
           by
           consequence
           have
           as
           many
           different
           denominations
           as
           there
           are
           Stars
           in
           the
           Firmament
           .
           And
           therefore
           let
           this
           ignorant
           man
           know
           for
           the
           future
           ,
           that
           the
           Divine
           Knowledge
           is
           denominated
           only
           from
           its
           adequate
           Object
           ,
           which
           comprehends
           all
           that
           is
           knowable
           ,
           and
           that
           only
           under
           this
           consideration
           ,
           as
           knowable
           :
           And
           if
           he
           can
           prove
           [
           Self
           ]
           and
           [
           Others
           ]
           (
           as
           he
           speaks
           )
           not
           to
           come
           within
           the
           compass
           of
           that
           Object
           ,
           then
           we
           will
           allow
           ,
           that
           the
           Knowledge
           distinctly
           terminated
           upon
           [
           Self
           ]
           and
           [
           Others
           ]
           ought
           to
           receive
           from
           thence
           different
           denominations
           .
           But
           till
           then
           ,
           he
           and
           his
           Party
           may
           (
           to
           my
           knowledge
           )
           find
           much
           fitter
           Objects
           to
           apply
           their
           Self-consciousness
           and
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           to
           ,
           than
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           .
        
         
           But
           as
           if
           he
           had
           not
           sufficiently
           disturb'd
           the
           Church
           with
           his
           Heretical
           Novelties
           already
           ,
           he
           is
           now
           for
           starting
           another
           as
           great
           as
           any
           of
           the
           rest
           .
           For
           the
           World
           (
           it
           seems
           )
           has
           been
           hitherto
           under
           a
           Mistake
           ,
           which
           he
           will
           now
           graciously
           correct
           by
           informing
           us
           ,
           That
           there
           is
           in
           Almighty
           God
           a
           certain
           Thing
           specifically
           different
           from
           his
           Divine
           Knowledge
           ,
           call'd
           
             Intellectual
             Sensation
             ,
             p.
          
           77.
           lin
           .
           22.
           
           
             And
             that
             he
             ,
             who
             does
             not
             know
             the
             difference
             between
             these
             ,
             is
             as
             unfit
             
             to
             meddle
             in
             this
             Controversie
             as
             a
             blind
             man
             to
             dispute
             of
             Colours
             .
          
           And
           accordingly
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             though
             Self-consciousness
             and
             mutual
             Consciousness
             may
             in
             some
             respect
             be
             call'd
             Knowledge
             ,
             yet
             in
             truth
             they
             are
             of
             a
             quite
             different
             kind
             from
             it
             .
             For
             that
             Self-consciousness
             is
             that
          
           Intellectual
           Sensation
           
             by
             which
             each
             Person
             feels
             his
             own
             Thoughts
             ,
             Knowledge
             ,
             Volitions
             ,
          
           &c.
           
             and
             that
             the
             mutual
             Consciousness
             of
             the
             Three
             Persons
             is
             not
             their
             Knowledge
             of
             each
             other
             ,
             but
             their
             mutual
             Sensation
             and
             feeling
             each
             other
             in
             themselves
             .
          
           So
           that
           this
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           Man
           has
           here
           given
           us
           a
           piece
           of
           New
           Philosophy
           and
           Divinity
           ,
           which
           the
           World
           knew
           nothing
           of
           before
           .
           But
           a
           Notion
           so
           odd
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           New
           ,
           must
           not
           pass
           without
           Examination
           ;
           and
           in
           order
           to
           that
           ,
           I
           shall
           advance
           this
           Proposition
           in
           direct
           contradiction
           to
           the
           Defender
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             there
             is
             no
             such
             Thing
             in
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             as
          
           Spiritual
           Sensation
           
             distinct
             from
             spiritual
             Knowledge
             or
             Intellection
             .
          
           And
           in
           opposition
           to
           the
           contrary
           assertion
           ,
           I
           offer
           these
           following
           considerations
           .
        
         
           
             1.
             
             The
             Universal
             Authority
             of
             all
             Philosophers
             and
             Divines
             ,
             both
             Schoolmen
             and
             others
             ,
             who
             have
             treated
             Scholastically
             of
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             and
             Attributes
             ,
             Unanimously
             acknowledging
             and
             asserting
             ,
             That
             there
             are
             no
             other
             Immanent
             Acts
             in
             God
             but
             Acts
             of
             Intellection
             and
             Volition
             (
             which
             are
             absolutely
             necessary
             to
             the
             conceiving
             of
             God
             ,
             as
             of
             an
             Intelligent
             Being
             )
             and
             consequently
             ,
             that
             there
             is
             no
             such
             Thing
             as
             an
             Act
             of
             Sensation
             in
             God
             distinct
             from
             These
             .
          
           
             2.
             
             That
             God
             is
             entirely
             and
             adequately
             comprehensible
             by
             himself
             these
             two
             ways
             :
             1.
             
             By
             a
             Representation
             of
             the
             entire
             Idea
             of
             all
             his
             own
             Divine
             Perfections
             to
             himself
             ,
             which
             is
             done
             by
             Intellection
             .
             And
             ,
             2.
             
             By
             way
             of
             Love
             of
             and
             complacency
             in
             these
             his
             
             Infinite
             Perfections
             thus
             represented
             to
             him
             ,
             which
             is
             done
             by
             Volition
             ;
             and
             consequently
             there
             can
             be
             no
             such
             Third
             way
             Necessary
             to
             comprehend
             himself
             by
             ,
             as
             this
             Author
             here
             calls
             
               Spiritual
               Sensation
            
             .
             3.
             
             That
             if
             there
             be
             such
             an
             Act
             in
             the
             Divine
             nature
             as
             Sensation
             distinct
             from
             Intellection
             and
             Volition
             ,
             then
             there
             is
             such
             a
             Thing
             also
             in
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             as
             a
             Vis
             ,
             or
             
               Potentia
               Sensitiva
            
             ,
             different
             and
             distinct
             from
             the
             
               Vis
               Intellectiva
            
             ,
             and
             Volitiva
             ,
             in
             the
             same
             .
             For
             since
             in
             the
             Case
             of
             mutual
             and
             Self-Consciousness
             this
             Author
             has
             asserted
             in
             the
             said
             Nature
             ,
             a
             Power
             or
             Principle
             of
             Consciousness
             distinct
             from
             the
             Acts
             thereof
             ,
             and
             has
             affirmed
             likewise
             Consciousness
             and
             Self-sensation
             to
             be
             the
             same
             Thing
             ,
             he
             must
             for
             the
             same
             Reason
             necessarily
             assign
             also
             a
             Principle
             or
             
               Power
               of
               Sensation
            
             distinct
             from
             the
             Acts
             of
             Sensation
             :
             That
             is
             to
             say
             ,
             a
             certain
             new
             thing
             called
             a
             
               Spiritual
               Sensitive
            
             Power
             in
             God
             ,
             which
             is
             neither
             Intellective
             ,
             nor
             Volitive
             ,
             and
             yet
             absolutely
             necessary
             for
             the
             said
             Acts
             of
             
               Spiritual
               Sensation
            
             to
             issue
             from
             .
             But
             now
             for
             any
             one
             to
             assert
             the
             Addition
             of
             such
             a
             New
             Power
             to
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             ,
             is
             a
             thing
             in
             it self
             so
             uncouth
             and
             unphilosophical
             ,
             and
             contrary
             to
             the
             common
             sence
             of
             all
             the
             learned
             Men
             in
             the
             World
             ,
             that
             there
             needs
             not
             one
             word
             to
             be
             argued
             against
             it
             .
             And
             as
             for
             this
             Author
             ,
             I
             desire
             him
             to
             reconcile
             this
             new
             power
             in
             God
             with
             that
             zealous
             Harangue
             ,
             
               p.
               p.
            
             74
             ,
             75.
             made
             by
             him
             for
             the
             Actuality
             and
             simplicity
             of
             the
             Deity
             ,
             even
             to
             the
             Explosion
             of
             all
             Priority
             and
             Posteriority
             of
             our
             conceptions
             about
             it
             .
             But
             4
             ly
             ,
             If
             there
             be
             such
             a
             Thing
             as
             Sensation
             ,
             and
             a
             
               Vis
               sensitiva
            
             in
             God
             ,
             distinct
             from
             the
             
               Vis
               Intellectiva
            
             ,
             and
             Volitiva
             ;
             let
             this
             Man
             assign
             a
             solid
             Reason
             ,
             if
             he
             can
             ,
             why
             there
             are
             not
             
               four
               Persons
            
             in
             the
             Godhead
             .
             For
             
             (
             since
             ,
             as
             the
             Schools
             affirm
             ,
             
               Totus
               Deus
               foecundus
               est
            
             ,
             there
             being
             no
             Act
             in
             God
             but
             what
             is
             productive
             of
             some
             thing
             )
             what
             should
             hinder
             ,
             but
             that
             as
             the
             Father
             communicates
             the
             Divine
             Essence
             ,
             
               per
               Intellectum
            
             ,
             and
             so
             begets
             a
             Son
             ,
             and
             both
             Father
             and
             Son
             communicate
             their
             Divine
             Essence
             ,
             
               per
               voluntatem
            
             ,
             and
             so
             breath
             forth
             the
             Holy
             Ghost
             ;
             so
             all
             Three
             should
             produce
             a
             fourth
             Person
             in
             the
             Godhead
             ,
             by
             communicating
             their
             Divine
             Essence
             by
             this
             way
             of
             
               Internal
               Sensation
            
             ?
             I
             will
             not
             ,
             I
             declare
             ,
             presume
             to
             assert
             any
             Thing
             in
             such
             a
             Case
             ,
             but
             shall
             leave
             it
             to
             the
             Learned
             and
             Judicious
             to
             judge
             of
             the
             whole
             matter
             .
             But
             I
             am
             sure
             it
             must
             pre●s
             hard
             upon
             this
             New
             Invention
             .
          
        
         
           And
           now
           after
           all
           ,
           that
           we
           have
           here
           argued
           upon
           this
           point
           ,
           I
           demand
           of
           this
           Man
           ,
           upon
           what
           ground
           he
           asserts
           in
           God
           such
           a
           Thing
           as
           
             Spiritual
             Sensation
             distinct
             in
             kind
             from
             Divine
             Knowledge
             ?
          
           (
           for
           it
           is
           his
           way
           to
           advance
           the
           most
           Heterodox
           Propositions
           ,
           without
           the
           least
           offer
           of
           a
           proof
           of
           them
           )
           why
           ;
           I
           defy
           all
           Mankind
           to
           find
           out
           any
           other
           ground
           of
           this
           assertion
           ,
           besides
           the
           Thing
           it self
           asserted
           by
           him
           ,
           viz.
           That
           each
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           intimately
           
             feels
             himself
          
           to
           be
           what
           he
           is
           ,
           and
           not
           another
           ;
           and
           that
           feeling
           and
           knowing
           are
           quite
           different
           Things
           .
           This
           is
           all
           that
           he
           says
           ,
           or
           pretends
           to
           say
           .
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           ,
           I
           demand
           of
           him
           ,
           whether
           he
           derives
           the
           Necessity
           of
           this
           Expression
           of
           Feeling
           ,
           as
           contra-distinct
           in
           God
           to
           Knowing
           ,
           (
           this
           being
           the
           sole
           ground
           of
           his
           assertion
           )
           from
           Scripture
           or
           Reason
           ,
           or
           the
           proper
           signification
           of
           the
           
             word
             it self
          
           requireing
           it
           ?
           If
           from
           Scripture
           ,
           let
           it
           be
           produced
           ,
           and
           we
           submit
           .
           If
           from
           Reason
           ,
           let
           some
           Argument
           from
           the
           Nature
           of
           the
           Thing
           be
           produced
           ,
           proving
           that
           there
           is
           some
           
           Apprehensive
           Act
           in
           God
           of
           a
           quite
           different
           kind
           from
           Knowledge
           :
           but
           no
           such
           Argument
           ever
           yet
           appeared
           .
           And
           much
           less
           ,
           in
           the
           Third
           and
           last
           place
           ,
           can
           the
           genuine
           signification
           of
           the
           word
           feeling
           infer
           this
           .
           For
           does
           the
           word
           feeling
           ,
           in
           the
           proper
           use
           of
           it
           ,
           signify
           any
           thing
           Spiritual
           ?
           or
           can
           it
           be
           properly
           applied
           to
           God
           ,
           if
           it
           does
           not
           ?
           No
           ;
           it
           is
           certain
           ,
           that
           it
           properly
           signifies
           no
           such
           Thing
           ,
           but
           on
           the
           contrary
           only
           a
           Corporeal
           Act
           requiring
           a
           Corporeal
           subject
           to
           lodge
           it
           in
           .
           So
           that
           (
           as
           has
           been
           observed
           before
           )
           
             Spiritual
             feeling
          
           is
           an
           arrant
           contradiction
           in
           Adjecto
           .
           And
           therefore
           the
           Truth
           is
           ,
           Feeling
           can
           be
           no
           otherwise
           applied
           to
           Spiritual
           Beings
           ,
           and
           especially
           to
           God
           himself
           than
           by
           a
           Trope
           and
           Metaphor
           ;
           and
           as
           
             seeing
             ,
             hearing
          
           and
           smelling
           ,
           are
           applied
           to
           him
           :
           and
           we
           may
           as
           well
           ascribe
           to
           God
           a
           Self-Conscious
           seeing
           ,
           a
           Self-Conscious
           hearing
           ,
           and
           a
           Self-Conscious
           smelling
           ,
           and
           all
           distinct
           from
           his
           Knowledge
           ,
           as
           a
           Self-Conscious
           Feeling
           .
           God
           in
           Scripture
           is
           said
           to
           see
           and
           to
           hear
           ,
           to
           express
           to
           us
           the
           Clearness
           and
           Quickness
           of
           his
           Knowledge
           ,
           and
           in
           like
           manner
           may
           be
           said
           to
           feel
           ,
           to
           express
           the
           Intimacy
           of
           his
           knowledge
           to
           the
           object
           known
           ,
           there
           being
           no
           Act
           of
           sence
           ,
           in
           which
           there
           is
           so
           near
           an
           application
           of
           the
           object
           to
           the
           faculty
           ,
           as
           in
           feeling
           .
           So
           that
           this
           whole
           new
           assertion
           is
           founded
           upon
           nothing
           but
           meer
           Trope
           and
           Metaphor
           ,
           translating
           Terms
           from
           their
           proper
           sensible
           signification
           to
           a
           figurative
           and
           spiritual
           ;
           which
           nothing
           but
           an
           absolute
           necessity
           ,
           from
           the
           very
           Nature
           of
           Things
           can
           ever
           justify
           .
           And
           now
           I
           desire
           all
           Professors
           of
           Divinity
           to
           consider
           the
           confidence
           of
           this
           Man
           ,
           and
           whither
           it
           may
           tend
           ;
           who
           ,
           by
           drawing
           words
           from
           their
           proper
           signification
           to
           a
           Tropical
           
           (
           and
           this
           of
           his
           own
           head
           )
           shall
           presume
           to
           found
           a
           New
           Notion
           about
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           and
           Actings
           .
           For
           let
           him
           prove
           any
           other
           ground
           for
           this
           Notion
           of
           Spiritual
           sensation
           or
           feeling
           ,
           distinct
           from
           Knowledge
           in
           God
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           .
           And
           therefore
           ,
           since
           this
           is
           wholly
           a
           new
           Invention
           of
           his
           own
           ,
           and
           not
           hitherto
           proved
           by
           any
           Argument
           ,
           but
           his
           own
           bare
           word
           affirming
           it
           ,
           I
           do
           here
           require
           him
           to
           produce
           his
           Arguments
           for
           it
           :
           for
           (
           it
           being
           a
           Proposition
           wholly
           new
           )
           it
           is
           incumbent
           upon
           the
           Proposer
           of
           it
           ,
           first
           to
           prove
           it
           ,
           and
           not
           upon
           his
           Adversary
           (
           maintaining
           the
           contrary
           Thesis
           ,
           in
           actual
           and
           long
           possession
           )
           to
           disprove
           it
           ;
           but
           only
           to
           expect
           and
           answer
           his
           Arguments
           as
           they
           shall
           be
           offered
           .
           I
           have
           ,
           I
           confess
           ,
           produced
           some
           Reasons
           against
           it
           already
           ;
           but
           it
           was
           more
           than
           what
           the
           Rules
           of
           Disputation
           obliged
           me
           to
           .
           And
           therefore
           ,
           I
           do
           here
           again
           call
           upon
           this
           Man
           to
           produce
           his
           Arguments
           for
           his
           new
           Assertion
           ,
           declaring
           withal
           ,
           That
           I
           here
           undertake
           to
           maintain
           ,
           this
           Thesis
           against
           him
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             there
             is
             no
             such
             thing
             as
             Spiritual
             Sensation
             in
             God
             distinct
             ,
             from
             his
             Knowledge
             .
          
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           I
           declare
           my self
           ready
           to
           defend
           against
           him
           as
           publickly
           as
           he
           has
           asserted
           the
           contrary
           Affirmative
           :
           And
           accordingly
           ,
           in
           the
           Face
           of
           the
           World
           ,
           I
           challenge
           him
           to
           the
           Dispute
           ,
           and
           do
           otherwise
           declare
           him
           a
           disturber
           of
           the
           Church
           ,
           and
           a
           perverter
           of
           our
           Religion
           by
           Paradoxes
           which
           he
           is
           not
           able
           to
           speak
           one
           word
           in
           the
           Defence
           of
           .
        
         
           In
           the
           next
           place
           we
           have
           him
           making
           his
           last
           effort
           to
           keep
           up
           his
           sinking
           Cause
           and
           Credit
           with
           a
           downright
           Falsification
           ,
           and
           an
           utter
           Change
           of
           the
           whole
           Question
           ,
           hitherto
           in
           dispute
           between
           him
           and
           his
           Adversary
           :
           and
           that
           in
           these
           following
           words
           ,
           
           p.
           78.
           lin
           .
           9.
           
           
             That
             he
             hopes
             ,
             that
             if
             the
             Animadverter
             will
             try
             his
             Skill
             again
             ,
             he
             should
             hear
             no
             more
             of
             his
             formal
             Reasons
             of
             Personality
             and
             Vnion
             ,
             but
             that
             he
             will
             be
             pleas'd
             to
             speak
             to
             the
             True
             Point
             ,
          
           viz.
           
             Whether
             a
             Self-conscious
             person
             be
             not
             one
             with
             himself
             ,
          
           
           
             and
             distinguish'd
             from
             all
             other
             persons
             ;
             and
             whether
             he
             does
             not
             feel
             himself
             to
             be
             thus
             one
             ,
             and
             thus
             distinguish'd
             by
             Self-consciousness
             ;
             and
             whether
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             who
             are
             thus
             mutually
             conscious
             to
             each
             other
             ,
             be
             not
             naturally
             and
             essentially
             Vnited
             into
             One
             God
             ?
             And
             all
             other
             Disputes
             are
             certainly
             beside
             the
             Question
             .
          
           And
           if
           so
           ,
           then
           I
           am
           sure
           his
           whole
           Vindication
           ,
           and
           a
           great
           part
           of
           his
           very
           Defense
           of
           it
           are
           so
           too
           .
           But
           has
           this
           man's
           Confidence
           so
           totally
           swallow'd
           up
           his
           Conscience
           ,
           that
           he
           dares
           offer
           so
           notorious
           a
           Falshood
           to
           the
           World
           in
           print
           ?
           I
           do
           here
           solemnly
           averr
           ,
           That
           what
           he
           has
           now
           set
           down
           as
           the
           
             True
             State
             of
             the
             Question
          
           between
           him
           and
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           is
           as
           far
           from
           it
           ,
           as
           the
           bare
           Consequent
           of
           any
           thing
           is
           or
           can
           be
           from
           being
           the
           Cause
           of
           it
           .
           And
           that
           this
           may
           be
           made
           as
           clear
           to
           the
           Reader
           as
           the
           Day
           ,
           he
           is
           desir'd
           to
           take
           notice
           ,
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           wrote
           against
           this
           man's
           new
           Hypothesis
           about
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           as
           he
           found
           it
           deliver'd
           in
           his
           Book
           entituled
           ,
           
             A
             Vindication
             of
             the
             Doctrine
             of
             the
             Blessed
             Trinity
             ,
             &c.
          
           and
           consequently
           ,
           that
           the
           true
           state
           of
           the
           Question
           must
           be
           drawn
           from
           thence
           .
           And
           this
           has
           been
           fully
           and
           fairly
           done
           already
           in
           those
           several
           Propositions
           quoted
           and
           set
           down
           by
           me
           in
           my
           entrance
           upon
           the
           examination
           of
           his
           Answers
           to
           the
           Animadverter's
           Arguments
           ;
           where
           the
           Reader
           
           will
           find
           the
           true
           and
           whole
           state
           of
           the
           Question
           laid
           before
           him
           in
           this
           man
           's
           own
           words
           ;
           which
           tho'
           it
           be
           abundantly
           enough
           to
           shew
           his
           insufferable
           Falsification
           ,
           yet
           to
           shew
           it
           more
           fully
           still
           ,
           (
           if
           possible
           )
           and
           to
           save
           the
           Reader
           the
           trouble
           of
           casting
           his
           Eye
           backward
           and
           forward
           ,
           I
           will
           here
           set
           down
           both
           what
           he
           says
           in
           this
           his
           Defense
           ,
           and
           what
           he
           first
           asserted
           in
           his
           Vindication
           ,
           together
           ;
           that
           so
           ,
           by
           comparing
           what
           he
           retracts
           ,
           or
           rather
           falsifies
           ,
           here
           ,
           with
           what
           he
           had
           so
           positively
           affirm'd
           there
           ,
           the
           Reader
           may
           impartially
           judge
           ,
           whether
           such
           a
           one
           upon
           such
           a
           Subject
           can
           be
           fit
           either
           to
           dispute
           ,
           or
           to
           be
           disputed
           with
           .
           And
           this
           shall
           be
           done
           in
           the
           following
           Particulars
           .
           As
           ,
           
             
               First
               ,
               This
               Author
               ,
               in
               his
               Defense
               ,
               declares
               ,
               
                 That
                 the
                 Question
                 is
                 only
                 this
                 ;
                 Whether
                 Three
                 Self-consciousnesses
                 do
                 not
              
               prove
               
                 Three
                 Self-conscious
                 Persons
                 to
                 be
                 really
                 distinct
                 from
                 each
                 other
                 .
              
               Defense
               ,
               p.
               61.
               l.
               28.
               
               But
               in
               his
               Vindication
               he
               affirms
               ,
               
                 That
                 the
                 Self-consciousness
                 of
                 every
                 Person
                 to
                 itself
              
               makes
               
                 them
                 Three
                 distinct
                 Persons
              
               .
               Vind.
               p.
               68.
               
               And
               will
               any
               man
               alive
               here
               grant
               ,
               or
               any
               Logick
               ,
               but
               this
               Man's
               ,
               allow
               ,
               That
               ,
               for
               Self-consciousness
               only
               to
               prove
               the
               Three
               Divine
               Persons
               really
               distinct
               ,
               as
               he
               says
               in
               the
               Defense
               ,
               and
               to
               
                 make
                 them
                 so
              
               ,
               as
               he
               says
               expresly
               in
               the
               Vindication
               ,
               is
               the
               same
               thing
               ?
               Or
               that
               ,
               Whether
               you
               put
               the
               Question
               concerning
               the
               one
               ,
               or
               concerning
               the
               other
               ,
               it
               is
               one
               and
               the
               same
               Question
               still
               ?
            
             
               Secondly
               ,
               In
               the
               same
               Defence
               he
               declares
               again
               ,
               
                 That
                 if
                 each
                 of
                 the
                 Three
                 Persons
                 have
                 a
                 Self-consciousness
                 of
                 their
                 own
                 ,
                 this
                 distinguishes
                 the
                 Persons
                 ,
                 and
              
               proves
               
                 them
                 really
                 distinct
                 ;
                 which
                 is
                 all
                 that
                 he
                 desires
                 .
              
               Def.
               p.
               64.
               at
               the
               beginning
               .
               But
               his
               Vindication
               ,
               I
               must
               tell
               
               him
               ,
               speaks
               much
               higher
               ,
               
                 viz.
                 That
                 the
                 Self-Vnity
                 of
                 a
                 Spirit
              
               (
               which
               he
               reckons
               each
               of
               the
               Divine
               Persons
               to
               be
               )
               is
               
                 nothing
                 else
                 but
                 Self-Consciousness
                 ,
                 Vind.
                 p.
              
               48.
               
               And
               again
               ,
               
                 The
                 Essential
                 Vnity
                 of
                 a
                 Spirit
              
               consists
               
                 in
                 Self-Consciousness
                 ,
                 and
                 it
                 is
                 nothing
                 else
                 that
              
               makes
               
                 a
                 Spirit
                 one
                 ,
                 and
                 distinguishes
                 it
                 from
                 all
                 others
                 ,
                 Vind.
                 p.
              
               74.
               
               Now
               to
               be
               That
               ,
               which
               only
               
                 proves
                 the
                 Three
                 Persons
                 Distinct
              
               ,
               and
               to
               be
               
                 That
                 ,
                 wherein
                 their
                 Vnity
                 and
                 Distinction
                 consists
                 ,
              
               and
               which
               
                 originally
                 distinguishes
                 them
              
               from
               all
               others
               ,
               are
               Things
               extremely
               Different
               ;
               For
               as
               much
               as
               that
               may
               prove
               them
               Distinct
               ,
               and
               secondarily
               distinguish
               them
               too
               ,
               which
               neither
               
                 originally
                 distinguishes
              
               them
               ,
               nor
               is
               that
               
                 in
                 which
              
               their
               original
               Unity
               and
               Distinction
               
                 does
                 consist
              
               .
            
             
               3.
               
               He
               tells
               us
               in
               this
               Defense
               also
               ,
               That
               the
               Dean
               no
               where
               asserts
               ,
               
                 That
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
                 is
              
               the
               formal
               Reason
               
                 of
                 the
              
               Essential
               
                 Vnity
                 of
                 the
                 Three
                 Persons
                 ,
                 but
                 that
                 Three
                 Persons
                 who
                 are
                 thus
                 mutually
                 Conscious
                 to
                 each
                 other
                 ,
                 must
                 be
              
               essentially
               
                 one
                 ,
                 Def.
                 p.
              
               68.
               l.
               5.
               
               In
               answer
               to
               which
               ,
               he
               has
               been
               often
               told
               ,
               That
               whatsoever
               makes
               or
               constitutes
               a
               Thing
               essentially
               one
               ,
               or
               is
               that
               wherein
               its
               Essential
               Unity
               
                 does
                 consist
              
               ,
               is
               the
               
                 formal
                 Reason
              
               of
               the
               said
               Unity
               .
               And
               as
               touching
               this
               ,
               he
               affirms
               in
               this
               very
               
                 Defense
                 ,
                 p.
              
               66.
               
               
                 That
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
              
               makes
               
                 all
                 Three
                 Persons
                 as
                 much
                 one
                 ,
                 as
                 Three
                 can
                 be
                 one
                 .
              
               And
               likewise
               in
               his
               
                 Vindication
                 ,
                 That
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
              
               makes
               
                 all
                 Three
                 Persons
                 Numerically
                 one
                 Divine
                 Essence
                 ,
                 or
                 one
                 God
                 ,
                 p.
              
               84.
               
               And
               again
               ,
               
                 That
                 the
                 Three
                 Persons
              
               are
               
                 Essentially
                 one
                 God
              
               by
               
                 a
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
                 ,
                 p.
              
               88.
               
               Now
               this
               surely
               implies
               a
               great
               deal
               more
               ,
               
                 Than
                 that
                 Three
                 Persons
                 thus
                 mutually
                 Conscious
                 are
                 Essentially
                 one
                 .
              
               For
               to
               say
               ,
               That
               Three
               mutually
               Conscious
               Persons
               are
               
                 essentially
                 one
              
               ,
               and
               that
               they
               
                 are
                 
                 thus
                 one
                 by
              
               [
               or
               
                 by
                 reason
                 of
              
               ]
               their
               
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
              
               are
               Two
               quite
               different
               Propositions
               ;
               even
               as
               different
               as
               these
               ,
               
                 viz.
                 That
                 every
                 Learned
                 Man
                 is
                 Rational
                 ,
              
               and
               ,
               That
               
                 his
                 being
                 learned
              
               is
               that
               [
               
                 by
                 which
              
               ]
               he
               is
               rational
               :
               which
               latter
               is
               utterly
               false
               .
            
             
               4.
               
               He
               goes
               on
               ,
               and
               tells
               us
               again
               ,
               
                 That
                 if
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
                 be
                 essential
                 to
                 this
                 Vnity
                 ,
                 so
                 that
                 Three
                 Persons
                 are
                 thus
                 Vnited
                 (
                 that
                 is
                 ,
                 are
                 one
                 in
                 point
                 of
                 Knowledge
                 ,
                 and
                 cannot
                 be
                 one
                 without
                 it
                 )
                 he
                 will
                 contend
                 no
                 further
                 with
                 any
                 Man
                 about
                 it
                 ,
                 Defense
                 p.
              
               69.
               at
               the
               latter
               end
               .
               But
               whether
               he
               will
               or
               no
               ,
               his
               Vindication
               will
               contend
               with
               him
               ;
               in
               which
               he
               has
               asserted
               much
               more
               than
               this
               amounts
               to
               ,
               (
               as
               the
               immediate
               forecited
               passages
               demonstrate
               )
               
                 viz.
                 That
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
                 [
                 makes
                 ]
                 the
                 Three
                 Persons
                 essentially
                 one
                 God
                 ,
              
               and
               
                 is
                 That
                 [
                 by
                 which
                 ]
                 They
                 are
                 one
                 ,
              
               and
               
                 [
                 in
                 which
                 ]
                 their
                 essential
                 Vnity
                 consists
                 .
              
               And
               this
               I
               must
               tell
               him
               runs
               much
               higher
               than
               to
               say
               only
               ,
               
                 That
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
                 is
                 essential
                 to
                 their
                 Vnity
              
               :
               for
               it
               may
               be
               so
               only
               
                 as
                 a
                 consequent
                 essentially
              
               following
               it
               ,
               and
               not
               as
               a
               
                 Principle
                 essentially
                 constituent
                 of
                 it
              
               ,
               and
               
                 wherein
                 it
                 does
                 consist
              
               .
               But
               in
               the
            
             
               5
               th
               and
               last
               place
               ,
               He
               declares
               himself
               more
               fully
               and
               roundly
               than
               before
               .
               If
               (
               says
               he
               )
               
                 Self-Consciousness
                 necessarily
              
               results
               from
               and
               infers
               and
               proves
               
                 a
                 distinction
                 of
                 Persons
                 ,
                 and
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
              
               supposes
               ,
               results
               from
               ,
               infers
               and
               proves
               
                 the
                 Vnity
                 of
                 the
                 Divine
                 Persons
                 in
                 the
                 Vnity
                 of
                 the
                 Godhead
                 ,
                 it
                 will
                 satisfy
                 the
                 Dean
                 without
                 Disputing
                 the
                 formal
                 Reason
                 of
                 Personality
                 and
                 Vnion
                 ,
                 Def.
                 p.
              
               75.
               l.
               20.
               
               To
               which
               I
               answer
               ;
               that
               I
               am
               not
               at
               all
               concerned
               what
               will
               
                 satisfy
                 the
                 Dean
                 ,
                 now
              
               that
               He
               is
               driven
               to
               the
               
               Wall
               ,
               but
               what
               the
               
                 Dean
                 has
                 asserted
              
               before
               .
               And
               for
               this
               ;
               as
               to
               the
               Point
               of
               Self-Consciousness
               in
               the
               first
               place
               ,
               he
               having
               several
               times
               ,
               in
               his
               Vindication
               ,
               asserted
               each
               of
               the
               Divine
               Persons
               to
               be
               
                 an
                 Infinite
                 Spirit
              
               ,
               tells
               us
               ,
               p.
               74.
               
               
                 Vind.
                 That
                 the
                 Essential
                 Vnity
                 of
                 a
                 Spirit
              
               [
               consists
               ]
               
                 in
                 Self-Consciousness
                 :
                 and
                 that
                 it
                 is
                 nothing
                 else
                 ,
                 which
              
               makes
               
                 a
                 Spirit
                 one
                 ,
                 and
                 distinguishes
                 it
                 from
                 all
                 others
                 .
                 And
                 ,
                 That
                 the
                 Self-Consciousness
                 of
                 every
                 one
                 of
                 the
                 Divine
                 Persons
                 to
                 it self
              
               [
               makes
               ]
               
                 them
                 Three
                 distinct
                 Persons
                 ,
                 Vind.
                 p.
              
               68.
               l.
               5.
               
               And
               then
               ,
               for
               
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
              
               ,
               he
               tells
               us
               ,
               
                 That
                 Father
                 ,
                 Son
                 ,
                 and
                 Holy
                 Ghost
                 are
                 one
                 by
                 an
                 Internal
                 Consciousness
                 ,
                 as
                 every
                 Man
                 is
                 one
                 with
                 himself
                 ,
                 Vind.
                 p.
              
               56.
               l.
               6.
               
               And
               ,
               
                 that
                 the
                 Three
                 Persons
                 are
                 essentially
                 one
                 God
                 [
                 by
                 ]
                 a
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
                 ,
                 p.
              
               88.
               31.
               
               &c.
               And
               here
               ,
               in
               this
               very
               Defense
               he
               tells
               us
               ,
               
                 That
                 the
                 Dean
                 places
                 the
                 Vnity
                 of
                 the
                 Divine
                 Persons
                 in
                 their
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
                 ,
                 Defense
                 p.
              
               32.
               l.
               9.
               
               And
               now
               (
               to
               summ
               up
               what
               he
               has
               said
               on
               both
               sides
               )
               Whether
               ,
               for
               Self-Consciousness
               to
               be
               
                 That
                 in
                 which
              
               the
               Personal
               Unity
               of
               a
               Spirit
               does
               [
               consist
               ]
               ;
               and
               which
               
                 [
                 makes
                 ]
                 a
                 Spirit
                 or
                 Person
                 one
                 with
                 it self
                 ,
              
               and
               distinguishes
               it
               from
               all
               others
               ;
               and
               [
               makes
               ]
               Father
               ,
               Son
               ,
               and
               Holy
               Ghost
               Three
               distinct
               Persons
               :
               And
               likewise
               for
               
                 mutual
                 Consciousness
              
               to
               be
               That
               ,
               which
               [
               makes
               ]
               all
               the
               Three
               Persons
               to
               be
               essentially
               one
               God
               :
               and
               to
               be
               That
               [
               
                 by
                 which
              
               ]
               they
               are
               so
               ,
               and
               [
               
                 in
                 which
              
               ]
               their
               Unity
               
                 is
                 placed
              
               ,
               be
               no
               more
               than
               to
               
                 suppose
                 ,
                 prove
                 ,
                 infer
              
               ,
               and
               
                 result
                 from
              
               Both
               these
               ,
               viz.
               their
               Personal
               and
               their
               
                 Essential
                 Vnity
              
               respectively
               ;
               that
               is
               to
               say
               ,
               whether
               the
               
                 formal
                 Antecedent
                 Reason
              
               of
               these
               be
               only
               
                 the
                 consequent
              
               of
               them
               ,
               is
               left
               to
               every
               one
               of
               common
               sence
               to
               judge
               .
            
          
        
         
         
           But
           I
           shall
           trouble
           the
           Reader
           with
           no
           more
           of
           these
           Passages
           (
           tho'
           several
           more
           might
           be
           alledg'd
           )
           not
           doubting
           but
           that
           by
           this
           time
           he
           throughly
           sees
           ,
           that
           the
           true
           state
           of
           the
           Question
           ,
           and
           Point
           in
           dispute
           is
           this
           ,
           
           
             viz.
             Whether
             Self-consciousness
             be
             that
             which
             [
             makes
             ]
             each
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             properly
             a
             Person
             ,
             that
             is
             to
             say
             ,
             personally
             one
             with
             himself
             ,
             and
             distinct
             from
             all
             others
             ,
             or
          
           (
           in
           other
           words
           )
           
             be
             that
             [
             by
             which
          
           ]
           each
           Person
           is
           so
           ,
           and
           
             in
             which
          
           his
           being
           so
           does
           consist
           ?
           And
           likewise
           whether
           mutual
           Consciousness
           makes
           the
           Three
           Persons
           essentially
           one
           ;
           or
           be
           that
           [
           
             by
             which
          
           ]
           formally
           they
           are
           thus
           one
           ,
           or
           [
           in
           which
           ]
           their
           essential
           Unity
           
             does
             consist
          
           ?
           This
           I
           averr
           to
           be
           the
           true
           and
           plain
           state
           of
           the
           Question
           ,
           as
           it
           is
           held
           in
           the
           Affirmative
           by
           Dr.
           Sherlock
           throughout
           his
           whole
           Vindication
           on
           the
           one
           side
           ,
           and
           as
           it
           is
           opposed
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           on
           the
           other
           :
           and
           consequently
           ,
           that
           every
           one
           of
           those
           five
           fore-cited
           Passages
           is
           on
           the
           Vindicator's
           part
           a
           direct
           concession
           and
           giving
           up
           of
           the
           Point
           in
           controversie
           between
           them
           .
        
         
           And
           I
           must
           hereupon
           seriously
           and
           solemnly
           profess
           ,
           That
           the
           only
           Difficulty
           which
           I
           have
           yet
           met
           with
           in
           this
           Disputation
           ,
           has
           been
           to
           make
           a
           proud
           ,
           shameless
           man
           own
           his
           own
           Words
           ,
           and
           abide
           by
           his
           own
           plain
           ,
           positive
           ,
           and
           repeated
           Assertions
           .
           Though
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           none
           is
           or
           can
           be
           more
           baffled
           than
           he
           who
           in
           his
           Defence
           is
           brought
           to
           deny
           what
           before
           he
           had
           affirmed
           .
           And
           thus
           we
           have
           here
           (
           as
           the
           Book
           calls
           it self
           )
           a
           Defence
           of
           Dr.
           
           Sherlock's
           Notion
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           if
           Dr.
           
           Sherlock's
           
             denying
             his
             Words
          
           be
           
             defending
             his
             Opinion
          
           .
        
         
         
           But
           our
           Author
           comes
           now
           at
           length
           to
           clear
           himself
           of
           the
           Imputation
           of
           Tritheism
           ,
           and
           here
           he
           says
           ,
           
             Defense
             p.
          
           78.
           line
           last
           .
           
             That
             he
             heartily
             thanks
             the
             Animadverter
             for
             being
             so
             civil
             to
             him
             as
             not
             to
             charge
             him
             with
             Tritheism
             as
             his
             Opinion
             ,
             but
             as
             the
             consequence
             of
             his
             Principles
             .
          
           And
           great
           reason
           ,
           I
           own
           ,
           he
           has
           to
           thank
           him
           for
           so
           undeserved
           a
           Civility
           ;
           though
           the
           Truth
           is
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           rather
           judged
           it
           a
           piece
           of
           Charity
           while
           he
           was
           disputing
           with
           one
           ,
           who
           was
           still
           contradicting
           himself
           ,
           to
           take
           him
           (
           as
           long
           as
           he
           could
           )
           by
           the
           better
           end
           of
           the
           contradiction
           .
           Nevertheless
           ,
           if
           the
           Defender
           will
           be
           pleased
           to
           consult
           the
           Preface
           to
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           p.
           16.
           l.
           7.
           2d
           Edition
           ,
           he
           will
           find
           that
           how
           favourably
           soever
           the
           Animadverter
           may
           be
           thought
           to
           express
           himself
           in
           some
           other
           places
           ,
           he
           speaks
           his
           thoughts
           more
           home
           and
           fully
           in
           that
           .
           For
           there
           he
           affirms
           ,
           that
           his
           Adversarie's
           opinion
           does
           not
           only
           infer
           but
           also
           
             imply
             Tritheism
          
           ;
           and
           this
           surely
           is
           as
           much
           more
           than
           the
           other
           ,
           as
           an
           Equipollent
           is
           more
           than
           a
           Consequent
           .
           And
           whatsoever
           the
           Animadverter
           might
           think
           of
           this
           Author
           then
           ,
           yet
           since
           his
           reading
           this
           Defense
           (
           in
           which
           there
           is
           Ten
           times
           more
           Tritheism
           than
           was
           in
           his
           first
           Book
           )
           and
           especially
           after
           that
           peremptory
           and
           prophane
           Affirmation
           ,
           
             Def.
             p.
          
           8.
           l.
           28.
           viz.
           
             That
             unless
             we
             admit
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             to
             be
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             ,
             there
             is
             not
             only
             an
             end
             of
             the
             Dean's
             Notion
             ,
             but
             (
             he
             fears
             )
             of
             the
             Trinity
             too
             .
          
           After
           this
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           declares
           ,
           That
           he
           does
           not
           only
           look
           upon
           his
           Opinion
           as
           downright
           Tritheism
           ,
           but
           likewise
           accounts
           the
           Author
           himself
           as
           arrant
           a
           Tritheist
           to
           all
           intents
           and
           purposes
           ,
           as
           
             Peraticus
             Euphrates
          
           (
           the
           beginner
           of
           the
           old
           Sect
           of
           the
           Peratae
           )
           
           or
           
             Iohannes
             Philoponus
          
           ,
           or
           as
           even
           
             Valentinus
             Gentilis
          
           himself
           ,
           or
           any
           other
           of
           the
           Tritheistick
           Name
           &
           Tribe
           whatsoever
           ;
           and
           that
           without
           any
           other
           difference
           ,
           that
           he
           knows
           of
           ,
           between
           this
           Author
           and
           
             Valentinus
             Gentilis
          
           ,
           save
           only
           that
           Valentinus
           by
           his
           Tritheism
           got
           what
           he
           deserv'd
           ,
           and
           this
           man
           with
           his
           Tritheism
           has
           got
           what
           he
           does
           not
           deserve
           .
        
         
           But
           let
           us
           see
           how
           he
           defends
           himself
           ;
           and
           that
           in
           the
           first
           place
           is
           by
           plainly
           confessing
           ,
           
             That
             to
             affirm
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             to
             be
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
             is
             an
          
           unusual
           
             way
             of
             speaking
          
           ,
           Def.
           p.
           79.
           and
           elsewhere
           ,
           
             That
             it
             is
             an
          
           inconvenient
           
             way
             of
             speaking
             ,
             p.
          
           81.
           l.
           33.
           and
           likewise
           an
           improper
           
             way
             ,
             p.
          
           84.
           l.
           24.
           
           And
           
             that
             ,
             it
             may
             be
             ,
             no
             body
             so
             expresly
             used
             these
             Terms
             before
             himself
             ,
             p.
          
           81.
           l.
           18.
           
           All
           this
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           he
           confesses
           ;
           and
           therefore
           I
           desire
           the
           Reader
           to
           compare
           it
           with
           this
           Man's
           professed
           Design
           ;
           which
           was
           (
           having
           first
           proclaim'd
           himself
           an
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           -
           man
           ,
           and
           flouted
           at
           all
           the
           Fathers
           ,
           as
           neither
           able
           to
           conceive
           rightly
           ,
           nor
           express
           themselves
           properly
           about
           the
           Trinity
           )
           to
           offer
           a
           plain
           ,
           an
           esie
           ,
           and
           much
           
             more
             intelligible
             account
          
           of
           this
           great
           Article
           ,
           than
           the
           Christian
           Church
           was
           ever
           yet
           acquainted
           with
           .
           And
           now
           must
           all
           this
           be
           done
           by
           Terms
           
             unusual
             ,
             inconvenient
          
           ,
           and
           improper
           ,
           and
           
             never
             used
             expresly
             upon
             this
             Subject
          
           (
           but
           hy
           Hereticks
           )
           before
           ?
           Is
           this
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           the
           way
           of
           giving
           the
           
             most
             intelligible
             account
          
           of
           this
           Mystery
           ,
           that
           was
           ever
           yet
           given
           of
           it
           ;
           and
           that
           by
           throwing
           aside
           the
           Account
           which
           the
           whole
           Christian
           World
           has
           hitherto
           acquiesced
           in
           ,
           to
           make
           room
           for
           it
           ?
           If
           the
           Church
           will
           suffer
           Heresie
           and
           Impudence
           thus
           to
           ride
           and
           impose
           upon
           her
           ,
           she
           may
           ;
           but
           little
           ,
           I
           am
           sure
           ,
           is
           it
           for
           her
           Credit
           ,
           
           that
           such
           things
           should
           be
           endured
           in
           Her
           Communion
           ,
           and
           much
           less
           warranted
           by
           Her
           Authority
           ,
           and
           encourag'd
           by
           her
           Preferments
           ;
           when
           (
           as
           was
           shewn
           in
           the
           Preface
           to
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           p.
           7.
           )
           the
           bare
           use
           of
           any
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           in
           these
           high
           points
           ,
           was
           with
           such
           rigour
           condemn'd
           by
           the
           Sixth
           General
           Council
           ,
           and
           the
           users
           of
           it
           so
           severely
           proceeded
           against
           .
        
         
           Well
           ,
           but
           if
           by
           this
           man
           's
           own
           Confession
           his
           Words
           are
           so
           unjustifiable
           ,
           how
           then
           does
           he
           think
           to
           bring
           himself
           off
           ?
           Why
           ,
           by
           the
           help
           of
           his
           old
           Friend
           
             his
             Meaning
          
           ,
           that
           constant
           Plea
           and
           Refuge
           of
           a
           Baffled
           Person
           .
           But
           still
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           what
           have
           we
           to
           do
           with
           this
           man's
           Meaning
           and
           Intentions
           against
           his
           plain
           ,
           clear
           ,
           and
           unquestionable
           Words
           used
           at
           least
           Forty
           times
           over
           ?
           For
           ,
           are
           Men's
           Words
           to
           be
           understood
           by
           their
           Meaning
           ,
           or
           their
           Meaning
           by
           their
           Words
           ?
           It
           is
           a
           pleasant
           thing
           certainly
           ,
           that
           when
           Mr.
           Dean
           has
           brought
           himself
           into
           a
           Plunge
           by
           his
           Indefensible
           Expressions
           ,
           Mr.
           Meaning
           must
           be
           call'd
           in
           to
           lift
           him
           out
           ,
           and
           wipe
           him
           clean
           again
           ,
           with
           his
           Intentions
           ;
           and
           that
           he
           can
           find
           nothing
           else
           to
           defend
           himself
           with
           ,
           but
           that
           
             Comical
             Salvo
          
           of
           the
           Renowned
           
             Hugh
             Peters
             ,
             Give
             me
             that
             word
             again
             .
          
           But
           I
           would
           have
           this
           man
           know
           ,
           that
           when
           the
           Church
           heretofore
           found
           any
           one
           Heretical
           in
           his
           Words
           ,
           She
           never
           own'd
           or
           suppos'd
           him
           Orthodox
           in
           his
           Meaning
           .
           And
           accordingly
           I
           must
           here
           declare
           further
           ,
           That
           I
           
             will
             not
          
           be
           over-rul'd
           or
           baulk'd
           in
           any
           Argument
           against
           him
           ,
           by
           
             what
             he
             means
          
           ,
           or
           
             what
             he
             intends
          
           ;
           but
           having
           encounter'd
           and
           driven
           him
           off
           from
           his
           own
           plain
           ,
           positive
           ,
           express
           Words
           ,
           (
           and
           that
           according
           to
           the
           Sence
           in
           
           which
           all
           Mankind
           understands
           them
           )
           I
           shall
           leave
           his
           precarious
           forlorn
           meaning
           to
           shift
           for
           it self
           .
        
         
           Nevertheless
           ,
           that
           we
           may
           not
           be
           too
           hard
           upon
           this
           [
           
             Man
             of
             meaning
          
           ]
           let
           us
           see
           what
           his
           meaning
           here
           is
           :
           for
           possibly
           matters
           may
           be
           mannaged
           so
           ,
           that
           even
           
             this
             meaning
          
           it self
           may
           need
           another
           meaning
           to
           rescue
           and
           set
           it
           right
           .
           He
           tells
           us
           therefore
           p.
           80
           ,
           81.
           of
           this
           Defence
           ,
           
             That
             by
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             he
             means
             Three
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
          
           ;
           affirming
           moreover
           ,
           p.
           80.
           l.
           13.
           
           
             That
             a
             mind
             is
             an
             Intelligent
             Person
             ,
             and
             every
             Intelligent
             Person
             a
             mind
             .
          
           Both
           which
           Propositions
           ,
           if
           [
           mind
           ]
           be
           Universally
           taken
           in
           the
           first
           (
           as
           ,
           by
           the
           whole
           tenour
           of
           his
           Discourse
           here
           ,
           it
           must
           be
           )
           are
           manifestly
           false
           .
           For
           a
           Man
           is
           an
           
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ,
           and
           
             not
             a
             mind
          
           ,
           and
           the
           Soul
           of
           Man
           on
           the
           other
           side
           
             is
             a
             mind
          
           ,
           but
           
             not
             a
             Person
          
           ,
           and
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           or
           Essence
           likewise
           absolutely
           considered
           
             is
             a
             mind
          
           ,
           but
           not
           a
           Person
           ,
           and
           consequently
           neither
           of
           them
           can
           be
           said
           to
           be
           an
           
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           .
           But
           let
           us
           see
           whether
           
             Infinite
             mind
          
           and
           
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ,
           do
           or
           can
           properly
           and
           logically
           import
           the
           same
           Thing
           ,
           which
           I
           utterly
           deny
           ,
           and
           that
           for
           these
           Reasons
           .
        
         
           
             1.
             
             Because
             [
             Mind
             ]
             signifies
             an
             
               Absolute
               Being
            
             ;
             nothing
             relative
             belonging
             to
             the
             Definition
             of
             it
             ;
             nor
             was
             it
             ever
             used
             by
             Writers
             but
             in
             an
             
               Absol
               ute
               ,
               Irrelative
            
             sence
             ;
             so
             that
             we
             have
             here
             both
             Signification
             and
             Definition
             ,
             together
             with
             
               Vniversal
               Vse
            
             for
             the
             Absoluteness
             of
             the
             Term
             [
             mind
             ]
             .
             But
             the
             Term
             [
             Person
             ]
             applied
             to
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             is
             always
             Relative
             ,
             and
             does
             and
             must
             signify
             Relatively
             .
          
           
             2.
             
             Because
             the
             Term
             [
             
               Infinite
               mind
            
             ]
             is
             adequately
             predicated
             of
             God
             ,
             and
             we
             properly
             say
             ,
             that
             God
             is
             
             an
             
               Infinite
               Mind
            
             :
             But
             the
             Term
             
               Infinite
               Intelligent
               Person
            
             cannot
             be
             so
             predicated
             of
             God
             :
             for
             if
             there
             be
             Three
             such
             
               Intelligent
               Persons
            
             in
             the
             Godhead
             ,
             we
             can
             no
             more
             ,
             by
             a
             proper
             and
             Natural
             Predication
             ,
             say
             ,
             that
             
               God
               is
               an
               Intelligent
               Person
            
             ,
             that
             we
             can
             say
             ,
             
               That
               God
               is
               the
               Father
            
             .
          
           
             3.
             
             Because
             if
             [
             
               Infinite
               mind
            
             ]
             and
             [
             
               infinite
               Intelligent
               Person
            
             ]
             be
             Terms
             equipollent
             and
             importing
             the
             same
             Thing
             ;
             Then
             ,
             since
             this
             Author
             elsewhere
             affirms
             ,
             that
             
               Three
               Infinite
               minds
               may
               be
               one
               Infinite
               mind
               ,
            
             it
             will
             follow
             (
             as
             we
             observed
             before
             )
             that
             
               Three
               Infinite
               Intelligent
               Persons
               may
               be
               also
               one
               Infinite
               Intelligent
               Person
               :
            
             for
             as
             much
             as
             in
             Terms
             Equipollent
             ,
             the
             same
             Things
             may
             ,
             and
             must
             be
             equally
             affirmed
             and
             denied
             of
             both
             of
             them
             .
             And
             this
             Consequence
             will
             affect
             this
             Author
             throughout
             this
             whole
             Dispute
             .
          
        
         
           From
           all
           which
           I
           conclude
           ,
           That
           an
           
             Infinite
             mind
          
           is
           not
           formally
           and
           properly
           
             an
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ,
           nor
           Equipollent
           to
           it
           ,
           and
           since
           it
           is
           not
           so
           ,
           I
           conclude
           further
           ,
           That
           unless
           it
           may
           be
           allowed
           to
           any
           particular
           Member
           of
           the
           Catholick
           Church
           (
           and
           a
           private
           one
           too
           )
           to
           draw
           off
           a
           word
           from
           its
           proper
           Signification
           ,
           Definition
           ,
           and
           Universally
           received
           use
           ,
           and
           that
           in
           a
           Principal
           Article
           of
           Faith
           ;
           and
           to
           fasten
           an
           arbitrary
           sence
           of
           his
           own
           upon
           it
           ,
           quite
           different
           from
           all
           These
           (
           as
           a
           Relative
           sence
           is
           from
           an
           Absolute
           )
           then
           it
           cannot
           be
           allowed
           to
           this
           Author
           to
           interpret
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             by
             Three
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
             in
             the
             Article
             of
             the
             Trinity
             .
          
           For
           at
           this
           Rate
           there
           can
           be
           nothing
           certain
           in
           any
           Article
           or
           Proposition
           of
           the
           Christian
           Faith
           ,
           as
           setled
           by
           Councils
           ,
           and
           received
           by
           the
           Church
           .
           But
           to
           shew
           how
           far
           this
           Man
           of
           Confidence
           ,
           without
           shame
           ,
           can
           stretch
           his
           
           Interpreting
           faculty
           ,
           let
           this
           Notable
           Instance
           suffice
           .
           For
           having
           affirmed
           over
           and
           over
           ,
           in
           his
           Vindication
           ,
           and
           particularly
           ,
           p.
           66.
           
           
             That
             not
             to
             acknowledge
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             to
             be
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             ,
             was
             Heresy
             and
             Non-sense
          
           ;
           Here
           ,
           in
           his
           
             Defense
             ,
             p.
          
           81.
           l.
           20.
           
           He
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             his
             meaning
             there
             was
             ,
             That
             to
             assert
             ,
             Three
             distinct
          
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           
             who
             are
             not
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
          
           Intelligent
           Persons
           ,
           
             was
             Heresy
             and
             Nonsence
          
           .
           And
           Nonsence
           no
           doubt
           it
           is
           with
           a
           vengeance
           .
           But
           in
           answer
           to
           so
           wretched
           an
           Evasion
           ,
           I
           demand
           of
           this
           Man
           ,
           whether
           ever
           he
           knew
           any
           Divine
           or
           Writer
           in
           the
           World
           ,
           who
           owned
           a
           Person
           ,
           and
           did
           not
           understand
           by
           the
           same
           
             an
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ?
           Nay
           ,
           so
           far
           is
           he
           from
           having
           any
           ground
           for
           such
           a
           Pretence
           ,
           that
           in
           strictness
           of
           speech
           ,
           the
           Term
           [
           Intelligent
           ]
           added
           to
           Person
           ,
           is
           a
           meer
           Redundancy
           and
           Tautology
           .
           For
           as
           much
           as
           it
           is
           Essentially
           Implyed
           in
           the
           
             formal
             Notion
          
           of
           a
           Person
           ,
           which
           is
           defined
           
             Suppositum
             Intelligens
          
           :
           and
           therefore
           for
           this
           Man
           to
           suppose
           any
           one
           to
           assert
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           ,
           and
           to
           deny
           them
           to
           be
           
             Three
             Intelligent
             Persons
          
           ,
           is
           as
           much
           as
           to
           suppose
           that
           a
           Man
           may
           assert
           Three
           Persons
           ,
           and
           yet
           deny
           them
           to
           be
           Three
           Persons
           .
           The
           very
           supposal
           of
           which
           is
           certainly
           a
           Degree
           of
           Nonsence
           next
           to
           the
           asserting
           it
           .
           But
           besides
           ,
           I
           hope
           this
           Man
           is
           not
           so
           very
           Ignorant
           ,
           as
           to
           affirm
           that
           [
           
             a
             Mind
          
           ]
           and
           [
           
             an
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ]
           have
           the
           same
           signification
           .
           For
           suppose
           that
           it
           might
           be
           truly
           said
           [
           
             That
             a
             Mind
             is
             an
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ]
           that
           does
           not
           prove
           it
           to
           signify
           the
           same
           that
           [
           
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ]
           does
           ;
           any
           more
           than
           because
           Homo
           is
           truly
           said
           to
           be
           Animal
           ,
           therefore
           Homo
           and
           Animal
           are
           Terms
           perfectly
           Synonymous
           ;
           and
           that
           by
           one
           we
           are
           still
           to
           understand
           
           the
           other
           ;
           which
           yet
           ,
           if
           they
           properly
           signified
           the
           same
           Thing
           ,
           we
           certainly
           ought
           to
           do
           .
           In
           a
           word
           ,
           I
           refer
           it
           to
           the
           whole
           World
           to
           judge
           ,
           Whether
           ,
           if
           a
           Man
           may
           be
           suffered
           thus
           to
           interpret
           what
           he
           writes
           or
           says
           ,
           he
           may
           not
           upon
           these
           Terms
           discourse
           of
           Men
           ,
           and
           explain
           his
           meaning
           by
           Angels
           ,
           discourse
           of
           Trees
           ,
           and
           say
           ,
           he
           means
           Houses
           ?
           But
           such
           Absurd
           Liberty
           ,
           especially
           in
           strict
           disputation
           ,
           must
           not
           be
           endured
           .
           And
           accordingly
           ,
           after
           all
           these
           shiftings
           and
           struglings
           ,
           he
           begins
           to
           despond
           ,
           and
           plainly
           declares
           ,
           p.
           81.
           l.
           19.
           
           
             That
             he
             will
             not
             contend
             about
             the
             Term
             [
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             ]
             :
          
           By
           which
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           he
           effectually
           gives
           up
           the
           Thing
           in
           dispute
           ;
           for
           as
           much
           as
           the
           main
           stress
           and
           force
           of
           the
           Argument
           rests
           upon
           the
           proper
           and
           received
           sence
           of
           the
           Terms
           .
           And
           whereas
           he
           says
           ,
           
             that
             no
             body
             before
             him
             had
             so
             expresly
             used
             these
             Terms
             ,
             [
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             ]
          
           it
           has
           been
           already
           proved
           against
           him
           ,
           that
           they
           were
           actually
           used
           ,
           and
           insisted
           upon
           long
           before
           ,
           by
           several
           Hereticks
           on
           the
           one
           Hand
           ,
           and
           condemned
           by
           the
           Catholick
           Church
           on
           the
           other
           .
        
         
           But
           to
           shew
           That
           He
           and
           his
           Tritheism
           are
           not
           to
           be
           parted
           so
           ;
           but
           that
           ,
           however
           (
           to
           save
           a
           broken
           Pate
           )
           he
           quits
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ]
           he
           yet
           holds
           fast
           the
           Thing
           signified
           by
           it
           ,
           (
           as
           if
           the
           Heresy
           lay
           not
           in
           
             the
             Thing
             but
             in
             the
             word
          
           )
           He
           tells
           us
           ,
           p.
           81.
           l.
           29.
           
           
             That
             if
             the
             Dean
          
           [
           thinks
           ]
           
             an
             Intelligent
             Person
             to
             be
             a
             Mind
             ,
             and
          
           [
           means
           ]
           
             no
             more
             by
             Three
             Minds
          
           than
           
             Three
             Intelligent
             Persons
          
           ]
           
             let
             the
             Animadverter
             confute
             him
             ,
             if
             he
             can
             .
          
           Which
           is
           just
           ,
           as
           if
           he
           should
           say
           ,
           
             If
             the
             Dean
             by
             a
             Cock
          
           means
           
             a
             Bull
             ,
             let
             the
             Animadverter
             confute
             him
             for
             saying
             a
             Cock
             has
             two
             horns
             and
             four
             legs
             ,
             if
             he
             can
             .
          
           But
           to
           his
           ridiculous
           Plea
           
           I
           answer
           ,
           First
           ,
           That
           the
           Animadverter
           will
           dispute
           with
           no
           Man's
           thoughts
           or
           meaning
           ,
           but
           with
           his
           words
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           the
           Defender
           here
           quite
           changes
           the
           Question
           .
           Which
           is
           not
           ,
           
             Whether
             an
             Intelligent
             Person
             be
             a
             Mind
             :
          
           but
           whether
           
             A
             Mind
             be
             formally
             and
             Convertibly
             an
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ;
           which
           has
           been
           already
           both
           denied
           and
           disprove
           :
           And
           thirdly
           and
           lastly
           ,
           That
           in
           the
           
             Holy
             Trinity
          
           the
           Animadverter
           admits
           (
           abating
           still
           for
           the
           forementioned
           Absurdity
           of
           the
           Tautology
           )
           
             every
             Intelligent
             Person
             to
             be
             a
             Mind
          
           but
           ,
           for
           all
           that
           ▪
           denies
           Three
           Infinite
           Intelligen●
           Persons
           
             to
             be
             Three
             Minds
          
           ;
           For
           as
           much
           as
           they
           are
           Intelligent
           by
           vertue
           of
           
             one
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Mind
          
           common
           to
           them
           all
           .
           And
           whereas
           he
           adds
           ,
           
             That
             of
             he
             means
             by
             Three
             Minds
             Three
             Intelligent
             Persons
             ,
             let
             the
             Animadverter
             try
             his
             skill
             to
             make
             Tritheism
             of
             Three
             Minds
             ,
             and
             excuse
             Three
             Intelligent
             Persons
             from
             the
             same
             Charge
             .
          
           My
           answer
           is
           ,
           First
           ,
           That
           the
           Animadverter
           needs
           try
           his
           skill
           no
           more
           where
           he
           finds
           no
           more
           strength
           to
           try
           it
           upon
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           this
           Question
           is
           not
           to
           be
           determined
           by
           what
           he
           or
           any
           particular
           Man
           whatsoever
           means
           by
           a
           Mind
           contrary
           to
           the
           sense
           of
           the
           whole
           World
           concerning
           it
           :
           but
           by
           what
           the
           whole
           World
           means
           by
           the
           word
           [
           Mind
           ]
           though
           never
           so
           contrary
           to
           his
           particular
           private
           sense
           thereof
           ;
           which
           now
           after
           a
           baffle
           he
           alleges
           to
           defend
           himself
           by
           .
           And
           then
           lastly
           ,
           
             For
             the
             difference
             of
             charging
             the
             Assertion
             of
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             with
             Tritheism
             ,
             but
             not
             that
             of
             Three
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
             ,
          
           That
           also
           has
           been
           more
           than
           sufficiently
           proved
           against
           him
           already
           ,
           by
           having
           shewn
           ,
           that
           Three
           Infinite
           Minds
           are
           Three
           Infinite
           
             Absolute
             Beings
          
           ,
           and
           that
           an
           
             Infinite
             Absolute
             Being
          
           being
           convertibly
           the
           
           same
           with
           God
           ,
           there
           can
           be
           no
           multiplying
           of
           such
           a
           Being
           without
           a
           Multiplication
           of
           Gods.
           But
           that
           on
           the
           other
           side
           ,
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           being
           properly
           Three
           
             Relative
             Subsistences
          
           of
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Infinite
           
             Absolute
             Being
          
           included
           in
           all
           and
           each
           of
           them
           ,
           and
           a
           
             Relative
             subsistence
          
           being
           capable
           of
           being
           multiplied
           without
           a
           Multiplication
           of
           the
           said
           
             Infinite
             Absolute
             Being
          
           ,
           it
           follows
           ,
           That
           though
           
             Three
             Minds
          
           infer
           a
           Plurality
           of
           Gods
           ,
           yet
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           do
           not
           so
           .
           And
           let
           this
           Author
           ,
           with
           all
           his
           Noise
           and
           flounceing
           ,
           disprove
           the
           Reason
           of
           this
           Difference
           between
           Minds
           and
           Persons
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           :
           For
           I
           will
           undertake
           ,
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           will
           not
           only
           abide
           by
           it
           ,
           but
           also
           venture
           the
           issue
           of
           this
           whole
           Controversy
           upon
           it
           :
           And
           we
           shall
           have
           more
           use
           of
           it
           again
           presently
           .
        
         
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           let
           us
           examine
           his
           Answer
           to
           the
           Animadverter's
           first
           Argument
           against
           his
           Three
           distinct
           Infinite
           Minds
           ,
           which
           proceeds
           thus
           .
        
         
           First
           Argument
           .
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Gods.
             But
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             not
             Three
             distinct
             Gods
             :
             And
             therefore
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             not
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             .
          
        
         
           And
           now
           how
           does
           he
           clear
           himself
           of
           this
           Argument
           ?
           Why
           first
           ,
           by
           reproaching
           it
           for
           being
           proposed
           in
           Mode
           and
           Figure
           ;
           and
           I
           on
           the
           contrary
           reproach
           him
           for
           not
           answering
           it
           with
           the
           same
           Logical
           Regularity
           with
           which
           it
           was
           proposed
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           He
           alleges
           as
           Parallel
           to
           this
           Argument
           ,
           an
           Argument
           brought
           by
           the
           Socinians
           to
           prove
           ,
           that
           there
           are
           not
           Three
           Persons
           in
           the
           Godhead
           ;
           Which
           (
           to
           shew
           that
           Logick
           is
           as
           much
           an
           Enemy
           to
           him
           as
           he
           can
           be
           to
           Logick
           )
           he
           sets
           down
           thus
           .
        
         
         
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Gods.
             But
             there
             are
             not
             Three
             Distinct
             Gods
             ;
             And
             therefore
             there
             are
             not
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
             in
             the
             Godhead
             .
          
        
         
           In
           which
           Syllogism
           we
           have
           these
           two
           Terms
           
             viz.
             [
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
             ]
          
           and
           [
           
             Three
             distinct
             Gods.
          
           ]
           But
           as
           for
           the
           Third
           Term
           I
           desire
           this
           Author
           to
           shew
           it
           me
           ,
           for
           I
           must
           confess
           I
           cannot
           find
           it
           .
           I
           know
           well
           enough
           how
           this
           Socinian
           Syllogism
           must
           be
           supplied
           and
           perfected
           ;
           and
           therefore
           (
           though
           it
           is
           not
           my
           business
           to
           correct
           his
           Blunders
           but
           to
           expose
           them
           )
           I
           shall
           set
           it
           right
           for
           him
           thus
           .
        
         
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Gods
             ,
             but
             Father
             ,
             Son
             and
             Holy
             Ghost
             are
             not
             Three
             distinct
             Gods
             ,
             and
             therefore
             Father
             ,
             Son
             and
             Holy
             Ghost
             are
             not
             Three
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
             .
          
        
         
           Thus
           I
           say
           this
           Socinian
           Argument
           ought
           to
           proceed
           ;
           in
           which
           the
           Major
           Proposition
           ,
           and
           the
           Conclusion
           ,
           are
           certainly
           false
           .
           But
           how
           does
           this
           affect
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           or
           how
           does
           it
           prove
           his
           Argument
           ,
           which
           proceeds
           upon
           a
           different
           
             Major
             Terminus
          
           ,
           to
           be
           false
           too
           ?
           unless
           this
           declared
           Enemy
           of
           Logick
           will
           have
           the
           Syllogistical
           form
           (
           which
           indeed
           is
           the
           same
           in
           both
           Arguments
           )
           to
           determine
           the
           truth
           on
           falshood
           of
           the
           Conclusion
           .
           But
           that
           we
           know
           ,
           must
           be
           here
           determined
           by
           the
           Truth
           or
           Falsehood
           of
           the
           matter
           of
           the
           Premises
           ,
           or
           of
           one
           of
           them
           ,
           and
           not
           by
           the
           bare
           form
           of
           the
           Syllogism
           .
           Accordingly
           ,
           if
           this
           Man
           will
           prove
           a
           Parity
           between
           the
           Animadverter's
           Argument
           and
           that
           of
           the
           Socinians
           ,
           he
           must
           prove
           ,
           That
           the
           Animadverter's
           Major
           Proposition
           ,
           [
           
             viz.
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Mind●
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Gods
          
           ]
           is
           of
           the
           very
           same
           signification
           and
           import
           ,
           
           and
           consequently
           of
           the
           same
           falshood
           with
           that
           in
           the
           Socinian
           Syllogism
           ,
           
             viz.
             [
             That
             Three
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
             are
             Three
             Gods
             ]
             .
          
           But
           that
           is
           the
           Thing
           now
           in
           dispute
           ;
           and
           the
           Animadverter
           denies
           it
           ;
           let
           us
           therefore
           see
           how
           this
           Defender
           proves
           it
           .
           Which
           he
           endeavours
           to
           do
           by
           affirming
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Proof
             of
             the
             Animadverter's
             Major
             Proposition
             will
             serve
             as
             well
             for
             an
             Eternal
             Infinite
          
           Intelligent
           Person
           
             as
             for
             an
             Eternal
          
           Infinite
           Mind
           ,
           viz.
           Thus.
           God
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             and
             Eternal
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
             are
             Terms
             as
             equipollent
             and
             convertible
             as
          
           God
           ,
           and
           Infinite
           Mind
           
             or
             Spirit
             are
          
           .
           These
           are
           his
           words
           ,
           
             Def.
             p.
          
           82.
           l.
           21.
           
           And
           they
           are
           false
           and
           Heretical
           to
           the
           Height
           .
           For
           will
           this
           Man
           after
           this
           open
           his
           mouth
           against
           Sabellius
           ,
           who
           asserted
           the
           very
           same
           Thing
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             God
             and
             infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
             are
             Terms
             convertible
             and
             commensurate
             ?
          
           But
           by
           his
           ,
           and
           
           Sabellius's
           good
           leave
           ,
           it
           is
           absolutely
           denied
           him
           ,
           that
           these
           are
           
             Terms
             convertible
          
           ,
           as
           not
           being
           adequately
           Predicable
           of
           one
           Another
           .
           For
           to
           say
           that
           God
           is
           an
           Intelligent
           Person
           ,
           (
           whether
           we
           take
           Person
           determinately
           or
           indeterminately
           )
           if
           there
           be
           more
           Intelligent
           Persons
           than
           one
           in
           the
           Godhead
           ,
           is
           (
           as
           was
           noted
           before
           )
           a
           Proposition
           as
           Absurd
           and
           Illogical
           ,
           as
           to
           say
           ,
           
             That
             God
             is
             the
             Father
          
           ,
           or
           That
           
             God
             is
             the
             Son
          
           :
           the
           Predicate
           in
           such
           Propositions
           being
           of
           less
           compass
           than
           the
           subject
           ,
           which
           (
           where
           it
           is
           not
           larger
           )
           ought
           to
           be
           Commensurate
           to
           it
           at
           least
           .
           And
           I
           do
           particularly
           insist
           upon
           This
           ,
           That
           if
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Three
             Intelligent
             Persons
          
           ]
           be
           adequately
           and
           convertibly
           predicated
           of
           [
           God
           ]
           the
           Term
           [
           
             an
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ]
           (
           which
           can
           signify
           no
           more
           than
           one
           Person
           )
           cannot
           be
           adequately
           predicated
           of
           God
           too
           .
           For
           in
           all
           adequate
           Predications
           ,
           
           the
           subject
           must
           take
           in
           the
           whole
           compass
           of
           the
           Predicate
           ,
           and
           the
           Predicate
           answer
           and
           come
           up
           to
           the
           whole
           compass
           of
           the
           subject
           .
           What
           the
           Defender
           adds
           next
           is
           very
           impertinent
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             the
             bare
             Terms
             from
             which
             the
             Animadverter
             argues
             ,
             do
             not
             prove
             this
             Distinction
             ,
             to
             wit
             ,
          
           between
           
             one
             Mind
          
           ,
           and
           
             one
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
             ,
             p.
          
           83.
           l.
           2.
           
           For
           if
           by
           
             bare
             Terms
          
           ,
           he
           means
           Terms
           stripped
           of
           their
           signification
           ,
           such
           Terms
           ,
           I
           confess
           ,
           can
           prove
           Nothing
           but
           the
           folly
           of
           him
           that
           uses
           them
           ;
           but
           therefore
           I
           must
           tell
           this
           Man
           once
           for
           all
           ,
           That
           the
           Animadverter
           Argues
           from
           the
           Terms
           [
           Infinite
           
             Intelligent
             Mind
          
           ]
           and
           Infinite
           
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ]
           according
           to
           that
           Universally
           received
           sense
           which
           they
           actually
           bear
           at
           Present
           all
           the
           Christian
           World
           over
           ;
           how
           or
           which
           way
           soever
           they
           came
           by
           it
           .
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           is
           that
           ,
           which
           alone
           the
           Animadverter
           argues
           from
           ,
           and
           insists
           upon
           .
           For
           I
           hope
           this
           Author
           would
           not
           have
           the
           Animadverter
           invade
           his
           Prerogative
           ,
           which
           is
           to
           argue
           ,
           not
           from
           Terms
           or
           words
           ,
           but
           from
           meanings
           nothing
           relating
           to
           them
           .
           I
           conclude
           therefore
           from
           what
           has
           been
           said
           ,
           that
           [
           God
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           are
           Terms
           every
           way
           adequate
           and
           convertible
           (
           as
           even
           this
           Author
           himself
           grants
           )
           and
           that
           [
           God
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ]
           are
           not
           so
           .
           But
           he
           goes
           on
           ,
           and
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             it
             is
             custom
             only
             which
             has
             more
             reconciled
             us
             to
             the
             word
             [
             Person
             ]
             than
             [
             Mind
             ]
             ;
             and
             that
             ,
             setting
             aside
             this
             Dispute
          
           (
           viz.
           of
           the
           Trinity
           )
           ,
           
             it
             is
             the
             sense
             of
             all
             Mankind
          
           (
           which
           he
           learnedly
           proves
           from
           its
           being
           the
           sense
           of
           the
           Socinians
           )
           
             That
             the
             same
             Thing
             is
             to
             be
             understood
             by
             [
             an
             Infinite
             Mind
             ]
             and
             [
             an
             Infinite
             Person
             ]
             .
          
           Thus
           He
           ,
           p.
           83.
           l.
           4.
           
           But
           can
           any
           Thing
           be
           more
           absurd
           and
           Ridiculous
           than
           
             to
             talk
             of
             setting
             aside
             
             this
             Dispute
             ,
             viz.
          
           Concerning
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           when
           it
           is
           the
           Subject
           of
           this
           Dispute
           alone
           which
           we
           are
           here
           concerned
           in
           ?
           and
           to
           allege
           the
           sense
           of
           all
           Mankind
           about
           these
           Terms
           before
           there
           was
           any
           Revelation
           of
           a
           Trinity
           to
           apply
           them
           to
           ,
           and
           this
           also
           in
           opposition
           to
           the
           Universal
           sense
           of
           the
           Christian
           Church
           concerning
           the
           same
           ,
           founded
           upon
           such
           a
           Previous
           Revelation
           ?
           Those
           indeed
           who
           in
           Ancient
           Times
           owned
           
             one
             God
          
           ,
           but
           knew
           nothing
           of
           a
           Trinity
           ,
           might
           use
           the
           Terms
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Person
          
           ]
           indifferently
           ,
           and
           take
           the
           latter
           in
           as
           absolute
           a
           sense
           ,
           as
           they
           did
           the
           former
           .
           But
           what
           is
           this
           to
           us
           Christians
           ,
           after
           General
           Councils
           ,
           and
           the
           Universal
           constant
           use
           of
           the
           Church
           ,
           has
           added
           a
           
             Relative
             signification
          
           to
           the
           word
           [
           Person
           ]
           as
           applied
           to
           this
           subject
           ,
           but
           never
           used
           the
           words
           [
           Mind
           or
           Spirit
           ]
           but
           (
           according
           to
           their
           Original
           and
           Universal
           signification
           )
           in
           a
           sense
           Absolute
           and
           Irrelative
           ?
           And
           therefore
           admitting
           his
           Evangelist
           Plato
           (
           as
           he
           reads
           him
           ,
           quoted
           by
           Dr.
           Cudworth
           )
           to
           have
           held
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             to
             be
             one
             God
             ,
          
           it
           is
           not
           at
           all
           the
           less
           an
           Absurdity
           and
           a
           Contradiction
           to
           all
           Principles
           of
           Reason
           and
           Religion
           ,
           for
           its
           being
           held
           by
           Plato
           ;
           though
           I
           confess
           it
           appears
           more
           manifestly
           so
           by
           this
           Author
           's
           holding
           it
           too
           ,
           whose
           talent
           lyes
           so
           remarkably
           this
           way
           .
           But
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Dispute
             ,
             whether
             there
             be
             one
             or
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Intelligent
             Persons
             in
             the
             Godhead
             ,
             is
             of
             an
             higher
             Nature
             than
             to
             be
             determined
             by
             convertible
             Terms
             ,
             p.
          
           83.
           l.
           12.
           which
           I
           positively
           deny
           ;
           and
           affirm
           ,
           that
           although
           the
           Thing
           disputed
           ,
           be
           of
           never
           so
           high
           a
           Nature
           ,
           yet
           Reason
           is
           able
           to
           determine
           these
           Two
           Things
           concerning
           it
           .
           First
           ,
           Whether
           it
           be
           contrary
           to
           Reason
           or
           no
           ?
           And
           secondly
           ,
           That
           
           if
           it
           be
           so
           ,
           it
           ought
           not
           to
           be
           reckoned
           as
           an
           Article
           of
           Religion
           .
           To
           both
           which
           I
           add
           ,
           that
           to
           argue
           from
           
             Terms
             convertible
          
           is
           as
           sure
           a
           way
           of
           Ratiocination
           as
           the
           Mind
           of
           Man
           can
           proceed
           by
           ;
           and
           consequently
           ,
           that
           if
           Reason
           arguing
           this
           way
           ,
           proves
           the
           Absurdity
           and
           Impossibility
           of
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             in
             one
          
           and
           the
           same
           Infinite
           Mind
           or
           Godhead
           ,
           we
           need
           no
           further
           Arguments
           to
           overthrow
           it
           .
           But
           as
           for
           the
           Author's
           Complement
           to
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             he
             learnedly
             proves
             what
             every
             School-Boy
             knows
             .
          
           The
           Animadverter
           bids
           me
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           School-Boys
           generally
           know
           
             Greek
             ,
             Latine
          
           ,
           and
           Grammar
           ;
           which
           is
           more
           than
           some
           confident
           Writers
           ,
           or
           rather
           Copy-mongers
           can
           pretend
           to
           .
           But
           he
           proceeds
           ,
           and
           says
           ,
           
             that
             since
             the
             Animadverter
             has
             made
             [
             God
             ]
             and
             [
             Infinite
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
             ]
             only
             equipollent
             and
             convertible
             Terms
             ,
             the
             Defender
             may
             allow
             him
             this
             ,
             and
             still
             deny
             his
             Major
             Proposition
             [
             That
             therefore
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Gods.
             ]
             For
             though
             God
             is
             an
             Infinite
             Mind
             ,
             and
             an
             Infinite
             Mind
             is
             God
             ,
             yet
             it
             does
             not
             follow
             ,
             That
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Gods
             ,
             no
             more
             ,
             than
             that
             Three
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Gods
             ,
             p.
          
           83.
           l.
           27.
           
           All
           which
           is
           profound
           Reasoning
           indeed
           ,
           viz.
           That
           because
           in
           Terms
           not
           Equipollent
           or
           Convertible
           (
           as
           the
           Terms
           [
           God
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ]
           are
           not
           )
           the
           multiplication
           of
           one
           Term
           does
           not
           multiply
           the
           other
           ,
           therefore
           neither
           must
           it
           do
           so
           in
           Terms
           perfectly
           Equipollent
           ,
           as
           [
           God
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           confessedly
           are
           .
        
         
           But
           I
           shall
           divide
           my
           Answer
           to
           what
           he
           has
           here
           said
           ,
           into
           Two
           parts
           ,
           and
           consider
           ,
           First
           ,
           The
           force
           of
           Arguing
           from
           Equipollents
           .
           And
           secondly
           ,
           Examine
           
           whether
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Distinct
             Infinite
             Persons
          
           ]
           (
           which
           puts
           the
           case
           as
           high
           as
           it
           can
           be
           )
           does
           as
           much
           infer
           
             Three
             distinct
             Gods
          
           ,
           or
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinites
          
           ,
           as
           the
           Animadverter
           contends
           ,
           that
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             do
             and
             must
             .
          
           And
        
         
           First
           ,
           For
           the
           matter
           of
           Equipollency
           .
           Whereas
           this
           Author
           in
           the
           forecited
           place
           says
           ,
           
             That
             he
             may
             allow
             the
             Animadverter
             ,
             That
             [
             God
             ]
             and
             [
             Infinite
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
             ]
             are
             equipollent
             and
             convertible
             ,
             and
             yet
             deny
             ,
             that
             therefore
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Gods
             :
          
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           an
           Ignorant
           unwary
           Adversary
           may
           allow
           a
           great
           deal
           more
           than
           will
           do
           him
           good
           :
           But
           whatsoever
           this
           Man
           either
           grants
           or
           denies
           (
           as
           ,
           for
           ought
           I
           see
           ,
           Cross
           and
           Pile
           may
           be
           the
           Logick
           he
           proceeds
           by
           in
           both
           )
           I
           do
           affirm
           ,
           that
           if
           [
           God
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           are
           Terms
           equipollent
           ,
           then
           according
           to
           all
           the
           Principles
           of
           Reason
           ,
           and
           Rules
           of
           Argumentation
           ,
           which
           have
           hitherto
           obtained
           in
           the
           World
           ,
           the
           multiplication
           of
           one
           equipollent
           necessarily
           and
           unavoidably
           infers
           the
           multiplication
           of
           the
           other
           .
           And
           the
           better
           to
           make
           this
           out
           ,
           and
           to
           relieve
           his
           Ignorance
           in
           some
           measure
           ,
           I
           would
           have
           him
           take
           notice
           .
           First
           ,
           That
           the
           Reason
           of
           this
           mutual
           Inference
           between
           Terms
           equipollent
           is
           ,
           because
           the
           equipollency
           of
           Terms
           imports
           a
           perfect
           formal
           Identity
           in
           their
           signification
           ,
           or
           Thing
           signified
           by
           those
           Terms
           (
           for
           I
           speak
           now
           of
           equipollent
           Terms
           only
           ,
           not
           Propositions
           )
           :
           As
           for
           instance
           ,
           Homo
           ,
           and
           
             Animal
             Rationale
          
           ,
           are
           Terms
           properly
           and
           formally
           equipollent
           :
           and
           then
           ,
           I
           hope
           ,
           that
           for
           one
           and
           the
           same
           thing
           (
           I
           say
           
             formally
             the
             same
          
           )
           to
           be
           multiplied
           ,
           and
           not
           to
           be
           multiplied
           will
           be
           granted
           impossible
           .
           In
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           this
           Author
           ,
           That
           the
           Conditions
           of
           equipollent
           Terms
           are
           these
           .
        
         
         
           First
           ,
           That
           they
           require
           the
           same
           Signs
           ,
           viz.
           of
           Universality
           ,
           Singularity
           ,
           and
           Particularity
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           they
           require
           the
           same
           Predicates
           ,
           whether
           affirmative
           or
           negative
           .
           And
           thirdly
           and
           lastly
           ,
           That
           they
           have
           the
           very
           same
           consequents
           .
           These
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           are
           the
           Necessary
           and
           Essential
           Conditions
           of
           equipollents
           :
           for
           supposing
           a
           failure
           of
           any
           of
           them
           ,
           they
           cannot
           be
           so
           much
           as
           equipollent
           .
           Which
           thus
           premised
           ,
           we
           are
           to
           observe
           further
           ,
           That
           this
           Author
           himself
           allows
           the
           Terms
           [
           God
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
          
           ]
           to
           be
           Terms
           equipollent
           ,
           p.
           82.
           l.
           25.
           
           From
           whence
           I
           infer
           ,
           that
           if
           there
           be
           a
           plurality
           of
           
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ,
           there
           must
           be
           a
           plurality
           of
           Gods
           too
           :
           since
           if
           one
           should
           be
           multiplied
           and
           not
           the
           other
           ,
           there
           could
           be
           no
           Identity
           of
           signification
           ,
           nor
           consequently
           equipollency
           in
           the
           Terms
           ;
           which
           can
           never
           take
           place
           where
           one
           equipollent
           Term
           may
           be
           truly
           affirmed
           ,
           and
           the
           other
           as
           truly
           denied
           of
           any
           Thing
           ,
           or
           any
           Thing
           of
           either
           of
           them
           ;
           which
           is
           so
           very
           plain
           ,
           that
           that
           fundamental
           ground
           of
           all
           discourse
           ,
           
             Impossibile
             est
             idem
             simul
             esse
             &
             non
             esse
             ,
          
           cannot
           be
           more
           self-evident
           .
           And
           therefore
           let
           us
           see
           what
           this
           Man
           alleges
           next
           .
           
             If
             God
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             be
             an
             Infinite
             Mind
             ,
             and
             there
             be
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
             it
             must
             follow
             ,
             That
             each
             of
             these
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           distinctly
           ,
           
             and
             by
             himself
             considered
             ,
             is
             God
             ;
             not
             that
             these
             are
             Three
          
           distinct
           Gods
           ,
           
             but
             one
             God
             ,
             p.
          
           84.
           l.
           7.
           
           But
           I
           affirm
           ,
           that
           it
           must
           follow
           not
           only
           
             That
             each
             of
             them
          
           [
           distinctly
           ]
           
             is
             God
          
           ,
           but
           
             that
             each
             of
             them
             is
          
           [
           a
           distinct
           ]
           God
           :
           For
           since
           he
           grants
           [
           God
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           to
           be
           Terms
           equipollent
           ,
           and
           since
           Terms
           equipollent
           must
           have
           the
           same
           Predicates
           and
           consequents
           ,
           if
           the
           Term
           [
           Distinct
           ]
           be
           ascribed
           to
           and
           predicated
           of
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           it
           must
           be
           predicated
           
           of
           ,
           and
           ascribed
           to
           the
           Term
           [
           God
           ]
           as
           to
           the
           other
           equipollent
           ;
           and
           so
           one
           must
           be
           as
           [
           distinct
           ]
           as
           the
           other
           :
           and
           then
           if
           each
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           be
           ●
           [
           
             distinct
             God
          
           ]
           Three
           Infinite
           Minds
           must
           be
           
             Three
             distinct
             Gods
          
           ;
           if
           there
           be
           any
           such
           thing
           as
           consequence
           in
           the
           World
           :
           In
           a
           word
           ,
           Distinction
           and
           Multiplication
           are
           (
           according
           to
           this
           Author
           )
           Predicates
           belonging
           to
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           ,
           and
           therefore
           by
           vertue
           of
           the
           equipollency
           of
           the
           Terms
           they
           must
           equally
           belong
           to
           [
           God
           ]
           too
           .
           But
           this
           is
           not
           all
           that
           follows
           from
           this
           Man's
           Assertions
           .
           For
           ,
           as
           he
           grants
           here
           that
           the
           Terms
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           and
           [
           God
           ]
           are
           equipollent
           ,
           so
           he
           affirms
           ,
           p.
           82.
           l.
           24.
           
           That
           [
           God
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ]
           are
           Terms
           equipollent
           also
           ;
           whereupon
           ,
           by
           the
           Rule
           of
           equipollency
           ,
           if
           there
           be
           [
           
             but
             one
             God
          
           ]
           there
           can
           be
           [
           but
           
             one
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ]
           likewise
           :
           For
           as
           much
           as
           both
           equipollents
           must
           have
           the
           same
           Predicates
           and
           consequents
           belonging
           to
           them
           .
           Which
           certainly
           represents
           this
           Author's
           Hypothesis
           as
           the
           greatest
           Monster
           that
           ever
           the
           Tongue
           or
           Pen
           of
           Man
           brought
           forth
           .
           For
           first
           ,
           by
           owning
           the
           equipollency
           of
           [
           God
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           and
           withal
           asserting
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ,
           he
           inevitably
           brings
           in
           Tritheism
           ;
           and
           next
           ,
           by
           asserting
           the
           equipollency
           of
           [
           God
           ]
           and
           
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Person
          
           ]
           and
           thereby
           a
           Singularity
           of
           one
           as
           well
           as
           of
           the
           other
           ,
           he
           does
           as
           necessarily
           run
           into
           the
           contrary
           Heresy
           ,
           which
           is
           Sabellianism
           .
           And
           so
           I
           pass
           from
           the
           equipollency
           of
           Terms
           to
           the
           second
           Part
           of
           my
           Answer
           ,
           which
           was
           to
           examine
           ,
           whether
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Persons
          
           ]
           does
           not
           as
           much
           infer
           a
           Plurality
           of
           Gods
           as
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
          
           ]
           does
           .
           Which
           the
           Defender
           here
           affirms
           ,
           and
           the
           Animadverter
           as
           
           positively
           denies
           .
           And
           both
           the
           Reason
           of
           his
           Denial
           and
           the
           Difference
           of
           the
           Case
           are
           very
           full
           and
           clear
           .
           And
           〈◊〉
           in
           This
           ,
           That
           Three
           distinct
           Minds
           are
           Three
           distinct
           Absolute
           Beings
           ,
           Three
           Essences
           ,
           Three
           Natures
           ,
           each
           existing
           by
           it self
           ,
           without
           requiring
           any
           subject
           to
           inhere
           in
           ,
           or
           to
           be
           supported
           by
           :
           And
           every
           such
           Numerical
           Nature
           or
           Essence
           ,
           must
           have
           its
           Numerical
           distinct
           Attributes
           or
           Predicates
           so
           belonging
           to
           it
           ,
           that
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Numerical
           Attribute
           cannot
           belong
           to
           any
           other
           Numerical
           Distinct
           Nature
           besides
           ,
           but
           that
           each
           Numerical
           Nature
           must
           have
           its
           Numerically
           distinct
           Attributes
           ,
           confined
           wholly
           to
           it self
           :
           whereupon
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Numerical
           Infinity
           (
           which
           is
           a
           Natural
           Attribute
           )
           cannot
           belong
           to
           more
           Numerically
           Distinct
           Natures
           than
           to
           one
           alone
           .
           But
           now
           on
           the
           other
           side
           ,
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           are
           not
           Three
           distinct
           
             Natures
             ,
             Essences
          
           ,
           or
           
             Absolute
             Beings
          
           ,
           existing
           by
           themselves
           (
           as
           Minds
           or
           Spirits
           do
           )
           but
           Three
           Modifications
           ,
           or
           
             Relative
             Subsistences
          
           of
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Nature
           ,
           in
           which
           they
           all
           exist
           together
           ,
           as
           in
           their
           subject
           ,
           and
           cannot
           possibly
           exist
           by
           themselves
           without
           it
           ,
           whereupon
           as
           one
           
             Numerical
             Nature
          
           is
           common
           to
           these
           several
           Subsistences
           ,
           so
           the
           
             Numerical
             Infinity
          
           of
           the
           said
           Nature
           ,
           must
           together
           with
           it
           ,
           belong
           in
           common
           to
           the
           same
           .
           In
           short
           ,
           Three
           Distinct
           Minds
           being
           Three
           Distinct
           Essences
           or
           Natures
           ,
           existing
           by
           themselves
           ,
           can
           never
           be
           Infinite
           by
           one
           Numerical
           Infinity
           ,
           any
           more
           than
           one
           Numerical
           Nature
           belonging
           in
           common
           to
           them
           .
           But
           on
           the
           contrary
           ,
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           being
           properly
           ▪
           
             Three
             Subsistences
          
           of
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Nature
           ,
           may
           have
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Infinity
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           Nature
           ,
           belonging
           to
           them
           all
           .
           But
           
           you
           will
           say
           ,
           when
           there
           is
           mention
           of
           [
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Persons
          
           ]
           does
           not
           the
           Term
           [
           Distinct
           ]
           being
           joined
           to
           the
           Term
           [
           Infinite
           ]
           import
           a
           distinction
           ,
           and
           consequently
           a
           Plurality
           of
           Infinites
           ,
           and
           so
           of
           Gods
           too
           ?
           I
           answer
           ,
           No
           ;
           Because
           the
           Term
           [
           distinct
           ]
           though
           next
           in
           place
           to
           the
           Term
           [
           Infinite
           ]
           yet
           being
           but
           an
           Attribute
           ,
           must
           immediately
           ,
           in
           construction
           ,
           affect
           the
           Term
           [
           Persons
           ]
           as
           the
           proper
           subject
           of
           it
           ,
           and
           not
           the
           Term
           [
           Infinite
           ]
           which
           is
           but
           another
           Attribute
           it self
           ,
           and
           immediately
           affects
           the
           same
           subject
           too
           .
           So
           that
           [
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Persons
          
           ]
           signify
           but
           as
           much
           as
           
             Three
             distinct
             Persons
          
           who
           are
           Infinite
           :
           the
           Term
           [
           distinct
           ]
           being
           here
           exegetical
           of
           the
           Numeral
           Term
           [
           Three
           ]
           ,
           and
           so
           belonging
           directly
           to
           the
           [
           Persons
           ]
           not
           to
           their
           [
           Infinity
           ]
           :
           just
           as
           if
           we
           should
           say
           [
           Three
           distinct
           Omniscient
           ,
           or
           Omnipotent
           Persons
           ]
           the
           Term
           [
           distinct
           ]
           belongs
           immediately
           and
           directly
           to
           the
           Persons
           ,
           and
           is
           not
           properly
           an
           Attribute
           of
           their
           Omniscience
           or
           Omnipotence
           .
           In
           like
           manner
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           are
           said
           to
           be
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Persons
          
           :
           but
           how
           ?
           not
           by
           three
           distinct
           Infinities
           ,
           of
           which
           each
           Person
           has
           one
           of
           it self
           ,
           but
           by
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Numerical
           Infinity
           ,
           common
           to
           all
           Three
           .
           And
           yet
           I
           own
           ,
           that
           even
           this
           one
           common
           Infinity
           belongs
           [
           distinctly
           ]
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           after
           [
           
             a
             distinct
             manner
          
           ]
           to
           each
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           even
           as
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           it self
           does
           .
           And
           this
           is
           what
           I
           insist
           upon
           as
           the
           True
           state
           of
           this
           matter
           ,
           and
           shall
           add
           no
           more
           ,
           but
           leave
           it
           to
           the
           Learned
           and
           Impartial
           Reader
           to
           judge
           of
           the
           Disparity
           of
           the
           Case
           :
           for
           nothing
           can
           prove
           a
           parallel
           in
           the
           Two
           forecited
           Instances
           ,
           or
           in
           the
           consequences
           of
           them
           ,
           but
           that
           which
           prove
           
             Three
             absolute
             entire
             
             Beings
          
           or
           Essences
           ,
           and
           Three
           
             R●lative
             subsistences
             of
             one
             Numerical
             Being
             or
             Essence
          
           to
           be
           the
           same
           ;
           and
           that
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Numericall
           Attribute
           may
           as
           well
           belong
           to
           Three
           such
           Absolute
           entire
           Beings
           or
           Essences
           ,
           as
           to
           one
           Numerical
           absolute
           Being
           under
           Three
           
             distinct
             Modes
          
           or
           Relations
           .
        
         
           And
           by
           this
           we
           may
           judge
           of
           the
           Truth
           of
           the
           Defender's
           following
           words
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             the
             Adimadverter
             was
             aware
             That
             the
             Objection
             of
             Three
             Gods
             would
             lye
             against
             Three
             Persons
             as
             well
             as
             against
             Three
             Minds
             ,
             p.
          
           85.
           l.
           13.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           never
           judged
           so
           ,
           but
           yet
           judged
           it
           the
           Part
           of
           a
           Disputant
           to
           answer
           any
           
             seeming
             Objection
          
           against
           the
           Truth
           defended
           by
           him
           ,
           and
           accordingly
           he
           produced
           and
           answered
           this
           ,
           as
           such
           an
           one
           and
           no
           better
           .
           But
           how
           did
           he
           answer
           it
           ?
           Why
           ,
           by
           shewing
           that
           there
           was
           this
           difference
           between
           them
           ,
           viz.
           That
           the
           Notion
           of
           a
           Person
           in
           the
           Godhead
           essentially
           importing
           an
           
             Absolute
             Being
          
           under
           a
           certain
           Relation
           ,
           afforded
           something
           for
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           to
           be
           
             distinguished
             by
          
           ,
           and
           something
           for
           them
           to
           
             agree
             in
          
           ;
           but
           that
           the
           Notion
           of
           a
           Mind
           or
           Spirit
           ,
           importing
           nothing
           but
           a
           bare
           Absolute
           simple
           Being
           ,
           without
           any
           such
           
             Relation
             ,
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
          
           could
           not
           be
           otherwise
           distinguished
           from
           one
           Another
           but
           by
           that
           
             whole
             Absolute
             Being
          
           or
           Nature
           ,
           and
           consequently
           by
           a
           Total
           Distinction
           .
           This
           Argument
           the
           Defender
           repeats
           ,
           adding
           withal
           .
           
             That
             the
             sum
             of
             it
             amounts
             to
             no
             more
             but
             this
             ,
             viz.
             That
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Gods
             because
             they
             are
             distinguished
             ,
             l.
          
           20.
           
           But
           will
           this
           shameless
           Falsificator
           say
           so
           ?
           and
           affirm
           ,
           That
           for
           several
           Beings
           or
           Essences
           
             to
             be
             distinguished
             by
             the
             whole
             of
             what
             they
             are
             ,
          
           is
           no
           more
           than
           
           barely
           
             to
             be
             distinguished
          
           ?
           For
           are
           there
           not
           
             partial
             Distinctions
          
           ,
           and
           modal
           distinctions
           ,
           and
           accidental
           distinctions
           of
           some
           things
           ?
           and
           will
           this
           Ignoramus
           say
           ,
           That
           Things
           thus
           distinguished
           are
           
             distinguished
             by
             the
             whole
             of
             what
             they
             are
             ?
          
           But
           says
           he
           again
           ,
           
             If
             notwithstanding
             this
             Distinction
             they
             are
             essentially
             and
             inseparably
             one
             ,
             they
             are
             not
             Three
             distinct
             Gods
             ,
             p.
          
           85.
           l.
           22.
           
           And
           ,
           no
           doubt
           ,
           they
           are
           not
           so
           ,
           if
           they
           are
           
             essentially
             one
          
           ;
           as
           on
           the
           contrary
           ,
           they
           must
           be
           so
           ,
           if
           they
           are
           
             not
             essentially
             one
          
           :
           But
           then
           can
           there
           be
           a
           grosser
           Absurdity
           in
           Nature
           than
           to
           suppose
           it
           possible
           for
           Three
           
             distinct
             Essences
          
           (
           as
           three
           distinct
           Minds
           are
           )
           to
           be
           
             essentially
             one
          
           ?
           I
           must
           tell
           this
           Author
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           a
           contradiction
           in
           the
           Terms
           .
           All
           
             distinction
             of
             Essences
          
           by
           themselves
           being
           (
           as
           the
           very
           Term
           imports
           )
           an
           
             Essential
             Distinction
          
           of
           the
           same
           :
           and
           for
           Three
           
             essentially
             distinct
          
           Things
           to
           be
           
             essentially
             one
          
           ,
           is
           for
           them
           to
           be
           Three
           ,
           and
           
             One
             ,
             Distinct
          
           and
           
             not
             Distinct
          
           ,
           in
           the
           same
           respect
           ,
           which
           is
           absolutely
           impossible
           ;
           and
           would
           utterly
           confound
           the
           Distinction
           and
           Vnity
           of
           the
           Divine
           Pesons
           ,
           which
           can
           never
           be
           Both
           of
           the
           same
           kind
           .
           And
           I
           am
           confident
           ,
           that
           there
           is
           hardly
           a
           Sophister
           of
           a
           Years
           standing
           in
           either
           of
           the
           Universities
           ,
           but
           would
           look
           upon
           this
           Proposition
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             Three
             distinct
             Essences
             ,
             or
             essentially
             distinct
             Minds
             ,
             may
             yet
             be
             essentially
             one
             ,
          
           as
           much
           fitter
           to
           be
           hissed
           at
           ,
           than
           disputed
           against
           .
        
         
           But
           ,
           says
           the
           Defender
           ,
           
             are
             not
             Three
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
             as
             much
             Three
             Absolute
             simple
             Beings
             and
             Essences
             as
             Three
             Minds
             ?
             p.
          
           85.
           l.
           27.
           
           No
           ;
           He
           has
           been
           told
           again
           and
           again
           ,
           that
           they
           are
           not
           ;
           and
           that
           because
           Three
           Persons
           are
           only
           Three
           
             distinct
             Relative
             Subsistences
             of
             one
             and
             the
             same
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             
             Being
             ,
             or
             Essence
             included
             in
             all
             and
             each
             of
             them
             .
          
           Whereupon
           he
           repeats
           these
           following
           words
           out
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           viz.
           
           
             That
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             Three
             Relatives
             ,
             or
             one
             simple
             Being
             or
             Essence
             under
             Three
             distinct
             Relations
             ,
             and
             consequently
             differ
             from
             one
             another
             ,
             not
             wholly
             ,
             and
             by
             all
             that
             is
             in
             them
             ,
             but
             only
             by
             some
             mode
             or
             respect
             peculiar
             to
             each
             ,
             and
             upon
             that
             account
             causing
             their
             distinction
             .
          
           Thus
           the
           Animadverter
           .
           And
           what
           says
           Sir
           Scorn
           and
           Ignorance
           to
           this
           ?
           Why
           ;
           that
           it
           is
           all
           
             perfect
             Gibberish
          
           :
           That
           is
           in
           other
           words
           ,
           That
           he
           is
           not
           able
           to
           answer
           or
           refute
           one
           Tittle
           of
           it
           .
           For
           let
           me
           tell
           
             His
             Emptiness
          
           ,
           that
           such
           Gibberish
           as
           it
           is
           ,
           it
           is
           the
           Language
           used
           by
           all
           the
           Divinity-Schools
           in
           Christendom
           ,
           in
           the
           Explication
           and
           account
           they
           give
           of
           this
           great
           Point
           of
           Divinity
           .
           And
           accordingly
           I
           have
           transcribed
           the
           whole
           Passage
           ,
           as
           avowing
           every
           Syllable
           of
           it
           against
           this
           Ignorant
           Assumer
           ,
           and
           desiring
           the
           Learned
           Reader
           to
           pass
           his
           strictest
           Examination
           ,
           and
           his
           severest
           censure
           upon
           it
           .
        
         
           But
           let
           us
           see
           what
           follows
           .
           And
           here
           he
           asks
           the
           Question
           ,
           
             What
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             in
             the
             Vnity
             of
             the
             Divine
             Essence
             are
             ?
             Three
             Relations
             ,
             Three
             Modes
             ,
             Three
             Respects
             without
             some
             Being
             ?
             p.
          
           86.
           l.
           17.
           
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           they
           are
           neither
           Three
           bare
           Modes
           nor
           Relations
           or
           Respects
           ,
           but
           Three
           
             Relative
             Subsistences
          
           ,
           or
           
             Subsisting
             Relations
             of
             one
             and
             the
             same
             Infinite
             Divine
             Nature
             ,
             Essence
             ,
             or
             Mind
             ,
             included
             in
             and
             belonging
             to
             all
             and
             each
             of
             the
             said
             Subsistences
             .
          
           This
           is
           the
           Account
           which
           I
           have
           given
           ,
           and
           still
           give
           of
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           and
           which
           (
           as
           I
           told
           him
           before
           )
           I
           shall
           firmly
           abide
           by
           ;
           and
           therefore
           without
           asking
           any
           more
           such
           silly
           Questions
           ,
           let
           him
           
           reckon
           upon
           it
           ,
           and
           set
           himself
           to
           confute
           it
           ,
           and
           prove
           ,
           that
           it
           makes
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           Three
           
             meer
             Modes
          
           or
           Relations
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           .
           And
           whereas
           he
           says
           ,
           
             That
             Three
             Relatives
             are
             not
             Three
             Relations
             ,
             but
             Three
             Things
             related
             to
             each
             other
             ,
             p.
          
           85.
           l.
           15.
           
           I
           answer
           ,
           that
           the
           first
           part
           of
           his
           Assertion
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             Three
             Relatives
             are
             not
             Three
             Relations
             ,
          
           is
           a
           meer
           Childish
           Cavil
           .
           For
           both
           Person
           and
           Relation
           are
           sometimes
           taken
           in
           an
           Abstract
           ,
           and
           sometimes
           in
           a
           Concrete
           sence
           ;
           and
           no
           Body
           says
           ,
           that
           Persons
           are
           properly
           called
           Relations
           ,
           but
           thus
           concretely
           taken
           ,
           and
           as
           Relation
           implies
           the
           Essence
           conjoined
           with
           it
           :
           though
           yet
           ,
           to
           help
           us
           to
           a
           better
           and
           more
           distinct
           conception
           of
           these
           Things
           ,
           we
           are
           sometimes
           forced
           to
           conceive
           and
           speak
           of
           one
           as
           Abstracted
           from
           the
           other
           :
           but
           still
           as
           the
           Schools
           observe
           ,
           Relative
           and
           
             Relation
             ,
             in
             Divinis
          
           ,
           are
           not
           really
           distinct
           Things
           ,
           but
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Thing
           under
           several
           ways
           of
           Conception
           ,
           and
           Expression
           .
           But
           it
           is
           the
           latter
           part
           of
           his
           Assertion
           ,
           in
           which
           we
           are
           most
           concerned
           ;
           
             viz.
             That
             Three
             Relatives
             are
             Three
          
           Things
           
             related
             to
             each
             other
          
           .
           Where
           ,
           if
           he
           understands
           the
           word
           [
           Things
           ]
           in
           a
           strict
           Metaphysical
           sence
           ,
           for
           Three
           distinct
           entire
           Beings
           or
           Essences
           ,
           I
           deny
           ,
           That
           the
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             in
             this
             sence
             Three
          
           [
           Things
           ]
           
             related
             to
             each
             other
          
           .
           But
           one
           Thing
           ,
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           
             one
             entire
             Being
             or
             Essence
          
           under
           Three
           distinct
           Relations
           ,
           or
           
             Relative
             Subsistences
          
           ,
           mutually
           respecting
           or
           referring
           to
           one
           Another
           .
           And
           this
           indeed
           is
           the
           Point
           ,
           which
           this
           Man
           has
           been
           driving
           at
           all
           along
           ,
           viz.
           That
           each
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           has
           a
           distinct
           
             entire
             Being
             or
             Essence
          
           of
           its
           own
           belonging
           to
           it
           ,
           and
           that
           as
           really
           distinct
           from
           the
           Beings
           or
           Essences
           of
           the
           other
           two
           ,
           as
           one
           Being
           or
           Essence
           can
           be
           
           distinguished
           from
           another
           .
           Which
           I
           affirm
           to
           be
           perfect
           ,
           Rank
           ,
           downright
           Tritheism
           .
           Whereupon
           he
           tells
           us
           again
           (
           with
           his
           usual
           Confidence
           and
           no
           Proof
           )
           
             That
             though
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             may
             ,
             with
             respect
             to
             their
             Three
             Real
             subsistences
             be
             called
             Three
             Infinite
             Eternal
             Minds
             ,
             yet
             they
             are
             not
             Three
             Absolute
             simple
             Beings
             or
             Essences
             ,
             p.
          
           87.
           l.
           19.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           .
           First
           ,
           That
           the
           Term
           [
           Mind
           ]
           is
           a
           Term
           properly
           importing
           [
           Nature
           ]
           not
           [
           Subsistence
           ]
           ,
           and
           consequently
           ,
           That
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           can
           never
           be
           called
           Three
           distinct
           Minds
           barely
           from
           their
           being
           Three
           distinct
           Subsistences
           (
           since
           all
           these
           subsistences
           may
           be
           in
           one
           and
           the
           same
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           )
           but
           from
           their
           being
           Three
           
             distinct
             Natures
          
           or
           Essences
           ;
           which
           because
           they
           can
           never
           be
           ,
           neither
           can
           they
           be
           called
           
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
          
           .
           Secondly
           I
           affirm
           ,
           That
           the
           Term
           [
           Mind
           ]
           universally
           signifies
           an
           
             Absolute
             Being
          
           ;
           and
           that
           to
           talk
           of
           a
           Mind
           that
           is
           not
           an
           
             Absolute
             Being
          
           ,
           is
           as
           much
           as
           to
           talk
           of
           
             a
             Man
          
           that
           is
           not
           an
           
             Animal
             Rationale
          
           ;
           and
           so
           well
           am
           I
           assured
           of
           this
           ,
           That
           I
           do
           here
           Challenge
           this
           Man
           to
           produce
           me
           so
           much
           as
           one
           Classick
           ,
           one
           Scholastick
           ,
           or
           Theological
           Writer
           ,
           or
           Christian
           Council
           ,
           that
           ever
           used
           the
           word
           [
           Mind
           of
           Minds
           ]
           in
           any
           other
           signification
           than
           that
           of
           an
           
             Absolute
             Being
          
           or
           Essence
           .
           And
           therefore
           when
           he
           shall
           have
           proved
           ,
           That
           Three
           Minds
           are
           not
           Three
           Absolute
           Beings
           or
           Essences
           ,
           or
           that
           three
           Absolute
           entire
           Beings
           can
           be
           Three
           Relative
           Subsistences
           or
           Modifications
           of
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Infinite
           Mind
           or
           Being
           ,
           then
           I
           will
           grant
           that
           he
           has
           defended
           his
           Assertion
           against
           the
           Animadverter
           ;
           and
           not
           only
           so
           ,
           but
           that
           he
           has
           full
           power
           also
           (
           by
           a
           
             Theological
             use
             of
             his
             own
             making
          
           )
           to
           alter
           the
           sence
           and
           signification
           of
           
           all
           words
           ,
           in
           spight
           of
           the
           World
           ;
           and
           ,
           by
           vertue
           of
           the
           same
           ,
           may
           (
           if
           he
           pleases
           )
           call
           the
           Deanry
           of
           
           Paul's
           the
           Archbishoprick
           of
           Canterbury
           ,
           and
           behave
           himself
           accordingly
           .
           But
           it
           is
           very
           pleasant
           to
           see
           him
           here
           twice
           in
           p.
           87.
           proving
           his
           Three
           Infinite
           Minds
           to
           be
           Three
           Personal
           Subsistences
           by
           that
           exploded
           Chimera
           of
           
             a
             man
          
           and
           
             his
             living
             Image
          
           ;
           which
           having
           been
           so
           fully
           baffled
           ,
           and
           exposed
           ,
           and
           rejected
           for
           its
           Prophaness
           as
           well
           as
           its
           Non-sence
           ,
           this
           Man
           surely
           must
           have
           a
           Degree
           of
           Luck
           equal
           to
           his
           Confidence
           ,
           if
           he
           thinks
           to
           make
           one
           gross
           Absurdity
           an
           Argument
           to
           prove
           and
           make
           good
           another
           .
        
         
           At
           length
           he
           concludes
           his
           lame
           self-contradicting
           Answer
           with
           these
           words
           ,
           
             Had
             the
             Dean
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             made
             Three
          
           complete
           ,
           Absolute
           ,
           Eternal
           Minds
           
             he
             had
             been
             justly
             chargeable
             with
             making
             Three
             Gods
             ,
             p.
          
           87.
           l.
           32.
           
           And
           that
           ,
           I
           assure
           him
           is
           a
           concession
           large
           enough
           ;
           For
           I
           do
           here
           affirm
           ,
           That
           he
           has
           asserted
           every
           one
           of
           the
           said
           Particulars
           ,
           whether
           he
           will
           own
           it
           or
           no.
           For
           first
           ,
           he
           has
           asserted
           Three
           
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ;
           and
           it
           has
           been
           effectually
           proved
           against
           him
           from
           the
           
             Signification
             ,
             Definition
          
           ,
           and
           
             constant
             use
          
           of
           the
           Term.
           That
           
             Three
             Minds
             are
             formally
             Three
             Absolute
             Beings
             .
          
           And
           secondly
           ,
           He
           has
           asserted
           these
           Three
           Minds
           to
           be
           Three
           distinct
           Persons
           ,
           and
           thereby
           has
           asserted
           also
           their
           Completeness
           ;
           since
           Personality
           is
           that
           ,
           which
           gives
           the
           utmost
           completion
           to
           the
           existence
           of
           an
           Intelligent
           Nature
           :
           And
           thirdly
           and
           lastly
           ,
           By
           asserting
           the
           said
           Minds
           Infinite
           ,
           he
           asserts
           them
           also
           Eternal
           .
           For
           as
           much
           as
           nothing
           can
           be
           Infinite
           but
           what
           is
           infinitely
           perfect
           ,
           nor
           can
           any
           thnig
           be
           
             Infinitely
             perfect
          
           without
           including
           the
           Perfection
           of
           Eternity
           in
           it
           .
           So
           that
           if
           this
           Man
           would
           but
           once
           in
           his
           Life
           
           abide
           by
           his
           own
           words
           (
           which
           a
           Self-Contradictor
           ,
           when
           he
           is
           pinched
           ,
           never
           will
           )
           we
           should
           need
           no
           other
           proof
           ,
           but
           his
           forecited
           Confession
           to
           convince
           him
           ,
           That
           he
           stands
           justly
           charged
           with
           
             asserting
             Three
             Gods.
          
           And
           whereas
           he
           asserts
           next
           ,
           
             That
             one
             and
             the
             same
             Infinite
             and
             Eternal
             Mind
             is
          
           [
           repeated
           ]
           
             in
             Three
             Subsistences
             ,
             p.
          
           88.
           l.
           1.
           
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           again
           ,
           That
           the
           Term
           [
           repeated
           ]
           is
           not
           to
           be
           admitted
           or
           endured
           here
           ;
           since
           the
           Repetition
           of
           a
           Thing
           is
           properly
           nothing
           else
           ,
           but
           the
           Production
           of
           another
           Individual
           Instance
           ,
           one
           or
           more
           ,
           of
           the
           same
           kind
           .
           And
           whether
           this
           be
           applicable
           to
           ,
           or
           affirmable
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           or
           Godhead
           ,
           let
           every
           one
           ,
           not
           abandoned
           by
           common
           sence
           ,
           judge
           .
        
         
           In
           fine
           ,
           when
           this
           Man
           shall
           have
           proved
           these
           following
           Positions
           collected
           from
           him
           ,
           and
           held
           by
           him
           ,
           viz.
           
           
             
               1.
               
               That
               [
               
                 Infinite
                 Mind
              
               ]
               and
               [
               
                 Infinite
                 Intelligent
                 Person
              
               ]
               are
               Terms
               as
               equipollent
               ,
               adequate
               ,
               and
               convertible
               ,
               as
               [
               God
               ]
               and
               [
               
                 Infinite
                 Mind
              
               ]
               are
               .
            
             
               2.
               
               That
               though
               [
               God
               ]
               and
               [
               
                 Infinite
                 Mind
              
               ]
               are
               Terms
               adequately
               convertible
               and
               equipollent
               ,
               yet
               that
               Three
               
                 Distinct
                 Infinite
                 Minds
              
               are
               not
               Three
               
                 distinct
                 Gods
              
               :
               whereas
               one
               equipollent
               can
               never
               without
               a
               contradiction
               be
               multiplied
               without
               a
               multiplication
               of
               the
               other
               .
            
             
               3.
               
               That
               Three
               Minds
               are
               not
               Three
               Absolute
               Natures
               or
               Essences
               ;
               or
               that
               Three
               Absolute
               Natures
               or
               Essences
               can
               be
               Three
               Relative
               Subsistences
               (
               and
               consequently
               Modifications
               )
               of
               one
               and
               the
               same
               Infinite
               Mind
               .
            
             
               4.
               
               That
               Three
               distinct
               Essences
               ,
               or
               Three
               
                 essentially
                 distinct
              
               Minds
               may
               be
               essentially
               one
               .
            
          
        
         
         
           When
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           he
           shall
           have
           proved
           all
           these
           with
           as
           much
           Evidence
           as
           he
           has
           asserted
           them
           with
           Confidence
           ,
           then
           will
           he
           have
           secured
           his
           Tritheism
           against
           the
           Animadverter's
           first
           Argument
           ,
           and
           not
           before
           .
           And
           so
           I
           pass
           on
           to
           consider
           what
           he
           has
           to
           say
           to
           the
        
         
           
           Second
           ,
           Which
           is
           this
           .
           
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Substances
             ;
             but
             the
             Three
             Persons
             in
             the
             Blessed
             Trinity
             are
             not
             Three
             distinct
             Substances
             ,
             and
             therefore
             they
             are
             not
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             .
          
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           the
           Defender
           tells
           us
           ,
           That
           the
           
             Dean
             does
             not
             pretend
             to
             know
             any
             thing
             of
             the
          
           Substance
           
             of
             a
             Mind
             ,
             and
             much
             less
             of
             God
             ,
             who
             is
             an
             Infinite
             Mind
             ,
             p.
          
           88.
           l.
           11.
           
           But
           does
           not
           this
           very
           Man
           (
           who
           never
           contradicts
           himself
           ,
           but
           when
           he
           speaks
           ,
           or
           writes
           )
           positively
           profess
           to
           give
           an
           Account
           of
           the
           Nature
           of
           a
           Mind
           or
           Spirit
           ,
           in
           p.
           7.
           of
           this
           Defense
           ,
           telling
           us
           ,
           
             That
             is
             consists
             in
             Internal
             vital
             Sensation
          
           ?
           And
           is
           not
           the
           Nature
           of
           a
           Mind
           the
           Substance
           of
           it
           ,
           even
           according
           to
           this
           Author
           ,
           who
           in
           the
           15
           
             th
             line
          
           of
           this
           88
           
             th
             page
          
           ,
           uses
           the
           words
           [
           Nature
           or
           Substance
           ]
           as
           signifying
           the
           same
           Thing
           ?
           And
           now
           ,
           will
           he
           disclaim
           all
           
             pretence
             of
             knowing
          
           any
           thing
           of
           the
           substance
           of
           a
           Mind
           or
           Spirit
           ,
           after
           he
           has
           undertook
           to
           give
           the
           World
           an
           Account
           what
           the
           Nature
           or
           Substance
           of
           them
           is
           ,
           and
           
             wherein
             it
             does
             consist
          
           ?
           But
           I
           leave
           the
           Reader
           to
           reconcile
           this
           Man
           as
           he
           finds
           him
           here
           in
           this
           88
           
             th
             page
          
           to
           himself
           in
           the
           7
           
             th
             page
          
           of
           the
           same
           Defense
           ,
           if
           he
           can
           .
           But
           he
           must
           not
           think
           to
           carry
           off
           this
           fallacy
           of
           the
           consequent
           so
           .
           For
           though
           we
           understand
           not
           ,
           by
           an
           immediate
           inspection
           of
           things
           themselves
           ,
           the
           Specifick
           Nature
           ,
           or
           Essence
           ,
           of
           this
           or
           that
           kind
           of
           Substance
           ,
           yet
           surely
           
           the
           General
           Nature
           of
           Substance
           may
           by
           discourse
           be
           known
           :
           and
           it
           would
           be
           a
           pleasant
           consequence
           ,
           that
           because
           we
           cannot
           tell
           what
           the
           
             Particular
             Nature
          
           of
           such
           or
           such
           a
           substance
           is
           ,
           that
           therefore
           we
           cannot
           know
           it
           to
           be
           a
           Substance
           .
           And
           therefore
           he
           asks
           ,
           p.
           89.
           l.
           20.
           
           
             What
             a
             Substance
             is
          
           ?
           Adding
           withal
           ,
           
             That
             he
             hopes
             the
             Animadverter
             will
             not
             affirm
             it
             to
             be
             that
          
           quod
           substat
           Accidentibus
           ;
           
             since
             that
             would
             make
             God
             himself
             ,
             who
             is
             incapable
             of
          
           Accidents
           ,
           
             to
             be
             no
          
           Substance
           .
           And
           it
           is
           shrewdly
           argued
           ,
           upon
           my
           word
           .
           But
           why
           then
           does
           he
           stop
           here
           ,
           without
           giving
           us
           the
           True
           Account
           what
           Substance
           positively
           is
           ?
           Which
           the
           very
           Elements
           of
           Logick
           and
           Philosophy
           might
           have
           taught
           him
           ,
           viz.
           That
           
             substance
             is
             a
             Being
             existing
             by
             it self
             ,
             so
             as
             neither
             to
             inhere
             in
             ,
             or
             be
             supported
             by
             another
             Being
             as
             a
             Subject
             .
          
           This
           ,
           Sir
           ,
           is
           the
           true
           Account
           of
           what
           a
           Substance
           is
           :
           And
           such
           a
           Substance
           I
           affirm
           a
           Mind
           or
           Spirit
           to
           be
           .
           But
           as
           for
           that
           which
           does
           
             Substare
             Accidentibus
          
           ,
           it
           imports
           not
           the
           General
           Nature
           ,
           or
           Essence
           of
           Substance
           ,
           but
           only
           a
           property
           of
           one
           sort
           of
           Substance
           ,
           viz.
           Such
           as
           are
           created
           .
           But
           he
           goes
           on
           and
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             though
             understanding
             and
             Being
             ,
             Nature
             or
             Substance
             may
             be
             distinguished
             in
             Created
             finite
             Beings
             ,
             yet
             that
             St.
          
           Austin
           
             had
             taught
             him
             ,
             that
             they
             are
             the
             same
             in
             God
             ,
             p.
          
           88.
           l.
           15.
           
           And
           I
           grant
           ,
           that
           according
           to
           the
           
             Real
             Existence
          
           of
           the
           Thing
           they
           are
           so
           :
           but
           ,
           for
           all
           that
           ,
           I
           affirm
           ,
           That
           they
           
             differ
             formally
          
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           several
           
             conceptus
             objectivi
          
           ,
           which
           they
           afford
           to
           the
           Mind
           ,
           and
           of
           which
           one
           
             conceptus
             objectivus
          
           can
           never
           be
           the
           other
           ,
           nor
           be
           applied
           to
           several
           Notions
           of
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Thing
           .
           So
           that
           ,
           although
           God
           be
           indeed
           one
           pure
           simple
           Act
           ,
           yet
           if
           we
           do
           not
           conceive
           and
           discourse
           of
           this
           simple
           
           Act
           ,
           under
           some
           Distinction
           ,
           such
           as
           is
           between
           a
           
             Subject
             and
             its
             Attributes
             ,
             a
             Principle
             and
             its
             Acts
             ,
             together
          
           with
           the
           several
           Respects
           it
           bears
           to
           several
           Objects
           ,
           neither
           St.
           Austin
           ,
           nor
           He
           ,
           nor
           any
           Man
           alive
           can
           discourse
           of
           God
           as
           of
           an
           Intelligent
           Being
           ,
           or
           Agent
           at
           all
           .
           And
           therefore
           ,
           whereas
           he
           adds
           again
           ,
           
             That
             if
             in
             the
             Vnity
             of
             the
             Godhead
             there
             be
             but
             Three
             such
             distinct
             Vnderstandings
             ,
             or
             Minds
             ,
             or
             Intelligent
             Persons
             ,
             who
             are
             not
             each
             other
             ,
             nor
             understand
             by
             each
             other
             ,
             but
             distinctly
             by
             themselves
             ,
             he
             is
             not
             concerned
             about
             distinct
             Substances
             ,
             p.
          
           88.
           at
           the
           end
           .
           In
           answer
           to
           that
           ,
           I
           tell
           him
           first
           ,
           That
           if
           he
           is
           concerned
           about
           
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
          
           in
           the
           Godhead
           ,
           the
           Reason
           of
           Things
           shall
           force
           him
           to
           be
           concerned
           about
           
             Three
             distinct
             Substances
          
           in
           the
           same
           ,
           whether
           he
           will
           or
           no.
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           though
           I
           grant
           
             Three
             Intelligent
             Persons
          
           to
           be
           in
           the
           Godhead
           ,
           yet
           I
           deny
           
             Three
             distinct
             Vnderstandings
             or
             Minds
          
           to
           be
           in
           it
           ;
           but
           that
           these
           Three
           Intelligent
           Persons
           are
           such
           by
           one
           Numerical
           Infinite
           
             Intelligence
             ,
             Vnderstanding
          
           or
           Mind
           ,
           common
           to
           all
           Three
           ;
           and
           that
           albeit
           one
           of
           the
           
             Persons
             neither
             is
             nor
             can
             be
             the
             other
             ,
          
           nor
           yet
           
             understands
             by
             the
             other
          
           ,
           but
           each
           of
           them
           
             distinctly
             by
             himself
          
           ,
           yet
           that
           they
           understand
           by
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Understanding
           distinctly
           belonging
           to
           each
           Person
           ;
           and
           accordingly
           for
           his
           better
           Instruction
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           one
           Thing
           for
           each
           Person
           to
           have
           an
           
             Infinite
             Vnderstanding
             or
             Mind
             distinctly
          
           belonging
           to
           him
           ,
           and
           quite
           another
           to
           have
           a
           
             distinct
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           belonging
           to
           each
           of
           them
           .
           Which
           distinction
           being
           very
           great
           ought
           always
           carefully
           to
           be
           attended
           to
           ;
           but
           ,
           that
           it
           will
           be
           ever
           able
           to
           make
           its
           way
           into
           this
           Man's
           Understanding
           ,
           I
           cannot
           undertake
           .
        
         
         
           But
           he
           comes
           now
           to
           examine
           how
           the
           Animadverter
           proves
           ,
           
             That
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Substances
             .
          
           And
           because
           he
           draws
           his
           proof
           of
           it
           from
           the
           Definition
           of
           a
           Mind
           or
           Spirit
           ,
           viz.
           That
           it
           is
           
             Substantia
             Incorporea
             Intelligens
          
           ;
           This
           Man
           replies
           ,
           
             should
             we
             now
             deny
             his
             Definition
             and
             say
             ,
             that
             a
             Mind
             is
          
           Res
           cogitans
           ,
           
             he
             would
             be
             undone
             for
             want
             of
             his
             Substances
             ,
             p.
          
           89.
           l.
           7.
           
           No
           ,
           Sir
           Ignorance
           ,
           No.
           While
           the
           Animadverter
           can
           make
           good
           
             one
             substance
          
           in
           the
           Godhead
           he
           will
           never
           be
           undone
           for
           want
           of
           more
           .
           But
           could
           any
           one
           imagine
           this
           Man
           so
           very
           weak
           as
           he
           here
           makes
           himself
           ,
           by
           thinking
           that
           a
           
             Res
             cogitans
          
           can
           be
           any
           Thing
           else
           but
           
             Substantia
             Cogitans
          
           ?
           For
           can
           an
           Accident
           Cogitare
           ?
           or
           be
           either
           the
           Principium
           or
           
             Subjectum
             Quod
          
           of
           any
           Thought
           ?
           or
           does
           Res
           signify
           any
           Thing
           properly
           but
           either
           a
           Substance
           or
           an
           Accident
           ?
           or
           can
           
             Substantia
             Cogitans
          
           be
           any
           other
           than
           
             Substantia
             Intelligens
          
           ?
           Or
           lastly
           ,
           can
           there
           ,
           in
           simple
           Beings
           ,
           be
           a
           
             Substantia
             Intelligens
          
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           not
           also
           Incorporea
           ?
           What
           gross
           ,
           thick
           ,
           abominable
           Ignorance
           does
           this
           Man
           in
           this
           very
           one
           Expression
           betray
           ?
           But
           he
           is
           now
           ,
           as
           he
           tells
           us
           for
           
             capping
             Definitions
          
           with
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           p.
           89.
           l.
           10.
           and
           to
           that
           purpose
           gives
           us
           this
           as
           the
           Definition
           of
           a
           Person
           ,
           viz.
           That
           it
           is
           
             Naturae
             Rationabilis
             Individua
             Substantia
          
           .
           Though
           he
           has
           been
           told
           before
           ,
           That
           this
           Definition
           (
           with
           all
           due
           respect
           to
           Boetius
           be
           it
           spoke
           )
           was
           long
           since
           rejected
           by
           most
           Divines
           ,
           Schoolmen
           and
           others
           as
           defective
           ;
           or
           explained
           by
           others
           in
           a
           very
           different
           sence
           from
           what
           the
           Term
           [
           Individua
           ]
           now
           bears
           ;
           for
           that
           (
           according
           to
           the
           generally
           received
           sence
           of
           it
           )
           it
           would
           certainly
           infer
           two
           distinct
           Persons
           in
           our
           Saviour
           upon
           his
           Incarnation
           .
           It
           is
           true
           
           indeed
           ,
           that
           every
           Person
           is
           
             Naturae
             Rationalis
             Indidua
             Substantia
          
           ,
           That
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           true
           in
           the
           Nature
           of
           an
           
             Essential
             Predicate
          
           ,
           as
           affirming
           nothing
           of
           a
           Person
           but
           what
           necessarily
           belongs
           to
           it
           :
           but
           ,
           for
           all
           that
           ,
           it
           is
           not
           a
           
             true
             definition
          
           ,
           as
           not
           being
           adequate
           to
           the
           Thing
           defined
           ,
           nor
           containing
           all
           that
           is
           in
           it
           ,
           and
           consequently
           not
           convertible
           with
           it
           ,
           as
           a
           definition
           ought
           to
           be
           :
           So
           that
           if
           this
           be
           his
           
             capping
             Definitions
          
           (
           as
           he
           calls
           it
           )
           he
           would
           be
           much
           better
           imployed
           in
           
             capping
             Verses
          
           amongst
           the
           Boys
           ,
           if
           he
           were
           able
           .
           Well
           ,
           but
           though
           (
           according
           to
           the
           received
           sence
           of
           the
           word
           )
           this
           be
           not
           a
           True
           ,
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           a
           perfect
           Definition
           of
           a
           Person
           ,
           yet
           if
           it
           be
           an
           
             Essential
             Predicate
          
           of
           one
           (
           as
           we
           have
           granted
           )
           so
           that
           every
           Person
           is
           truly
           said
           to
           be
           
             Rationalis
             Naturae
             Individua
             Substantia
          
           ,
           must
           not
           then
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           be
           Three
           
             Individual
             Substances
          
           ?
           I
           answer
           ,
           no
           :
           because
           though
           each
           Person
           be
           such
           an
           
             Individual
             substance
          
           ,
           and
           distinctly
           too
           ,
           yet
           each
           Person
           is
           not
           a
           
             distinct
             Individual
             substance
          
           ;
           For
           as
           much
           as
           
             one
             and
             the
             same
             Infinite
             Individual
             substance
          
           may
           sustain
           
             Three
             distinct
             Personalities
          
           ,
           by
           reason
           of
           three
           distinct
           Subsistences
           ,
           or
           distinct
           ways
           of
           subsisting
           belonging
           to
           it
           ;
           from
           whence
           it
           is
           that
           in
           the
           Divine
           Oeconomy
           the
           multiplication
           of
           Persons
           ,
           or
           Personal
           Subsistences
           ,
           does
           not
           multiply
           the
           Divine
           Substance
           .
           But
           ,
           says
           he
           ,
           
             let
             us
             see
             how
             the
             Animadverter
             will
             bring
             off
             Three
             Persons
             from
             being
             Three
             distinct
             substances
             ,
             and
             I
             will
             undertake
             the
             Dean
             shall
             do
             as
             much
             ,
             and
             do
             it
             as
             well
             for
             Three
             Minds
             ,
             p.
          
           89.
           l.
           15.
           
           That
           by
           his
           favour
           shall
           be
           Tryed
           .
           And
           first
           the
           Animadverter
           brings
           off
           the
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           from
           being
           
             Three
             Substances
          
           ,
           by
           this
           one
           Argument
           .
           That
           they
           
             are
             but
             Three
             Subsistences
             of
             one
             and
             the
             same
             Infinite
             
             Substance
             included
             in
             all
             and
             each
             of
             them
          
           ;
           and
           to
           make
           this
           out
           further
           ,
           I
           shall
           premise
           this
           Assertion
           ,
           viz.
           That
           no
           Substance
           is
           properly
           a
           Subsistence
           ,
           nor
           any
           Subsistence
           properly
           a
           Substance
           ;
           But
           differ
           from
           one
           another
           as
           much
           as
           an
           entire
           Being
           and
           the
           mode
           of
           that
           Being
           ;
           As
           a
           Subject
           ,
           and
           as
           an
           Affection
           qualifying
           or
           determining
           the
           said
           subject
           .
           And
           let
           this
           Author
           ,
           with
           his
           New
           Logick
           ,
           and
           his
           No
           Metaphysicks
           ,
           prove
           the
           contrary
           ,
           if
           he
           is
           able
           ;
           For
           I
           here
           Challenge
           him
           to
           do
           it
           :
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           I
           thus
           argue
           ,
           
             
               Three
               distinct
               Subsistences
               of
               one
               and
               the
               same
               Infinite
               Substance
               ,
               included
               in
               all
               and
               each
               of
               them
               ,
               are
               not
               Three
               distinct
               Substances
               ;
            
             
               But
               the
               Three
               Divine
               Persons
               are
               Three
               distinct
               Subsistences
               of
               one
               and
               the
               same
               Infinite
               Substance
               ,
               included
               in
               all
               and
               each
               of
               them
               ;
               And
            
             
               Therefore
               the
               Three
               Divine
               Persons
               are
               not
               Three
               distinct
               Substances
               .
            
          
        
         
           And
           this
           one
           Argument
           I
           rely
           upon
           as
           so
           fully
           conclusive
           of
           the
           Point
           to
           be
           proved
           ,
           that
           I
           judge
           it
           perfectly
           needless
           to
           add
           any
           more
           .
           Only
           as
           I
           have
           here
           proved
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           not
           to
           be
           Three
           Substances
           ,
           so
           on
           the
           other
           side
           ,
           I
           prove
           this
           Author's
           Three
           distinct
           Minds
           to
           be
           Three
           Substances
           ,
           thus
           .
        
         
           
             Three
             distinct
             Absolute
             Beings
             existing
             by
             themselves
             ,
             so
             as
             not
             to
             exist
             in
             or
             depend
             upon
             any
             other
             Being
             ,
             as
             a
             Subject
             ,
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Substances
             .
          
           
             But
             
               Three
               distinct
               Minds
            
             are
             Three
             such
             Absolute
             Beings
             ,
             and
          
           
             Therefore
             
               Three
               distinct
               Minds
            
             are
             
               Three
               distinct
               Substances
            
             .
          
        
         
           In
           which
           Syllogism
           ,
           to
           shew
           the
           disparity
           between
           
           [
           Minds
           ]
           and
           [
           Persons
           ]
           let
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Three
             Persons
          
           ]
           be
           put
           into
           the
           Room
           of
           [
           
             Three
             Minds
          
           ]
           and
           then
           the
           Minor
           which
           is
           true
           and
           must
           be
           granted
           of
           [
           Minds
           ]
           must
           be
           denied
           of
           [
           Persons
           ]
           :
           for
           they
           are
           not
           Three
           distinct
           Absolute
           Beings
           so
           existing
           ,
           as
           was
           expressed
           in
           the
           Major
           Proposition
           :
           and
           therefore
           that
           Argument
           which
           concludes
           Three
           Minds
           to
           be
           Three
           Substances
           ,
           can
           never
           conclude
           Three
           Persons
           to
           be
           so
           too
           .
           And
           whereas
           the
           Defender
           affirms
           ,
           p.
           89.
           l.
           27.
           
           
             That
             Three
             Eternal
             Minds
             are
             but
             Three
             Eternal
             subsistences
             of
             one
             and
             the
             same
             Individual
             Eternal
             Mind
             .
          
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           it
           is
           the
           height
           of
           Absurdity
           ,
           and
           utterly
           impossible
           in
           Reason
           and
           Philosophy
           ,
           for
           a
           Mind
           ,
           which
           is
           an
           Absolute
           entire
           Being
           existing
           by
           it self
           ,
           to
           be
           the
           Subsistence
           of
           another
           Absolute
           Being
           .
           For
           as
           much
           as
           Subsistence
           is
           properly
           and
           formally
           a
           
             Mode
             of
             substance
          
           ,
           and
           in
           the
           Divine
           Substance
           or
           Nature
           a
           
             Relative
             Mode
          
           too
           ,
           though
           still
           implying
           in
           it
           the
           said
           Nature
           as
           modified
           or
           determined
           by
           it
           .
           So
           that
           we
           see
           here
           this
           Man's
           Philosophy
           in
           making
           one
           Mind
           the
           Subsistence
           or
           Modification
           of
           another
           Mind
           ;
           and
           Three
           distinct
           Minds
           so
           many
           distinct
           Subsistences
           or
           Modifications
           of
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Mind
           .
           Which
           I
           am
           sure
           all
           the
           Schools
           in
           Christendome
           will
           with
           one
           voice
           explode
           .
           And
           so
           I
           leave
           this
           Defender
           ,
           or
           rather
           this
           Dean
           in
           Masquerade
           ,
           to
           bring
           off
           his
           Three
           distinct
           Minds
           from
           being
           Three
           distinct
           Substances
           at
           his
           leisure
           .
           But
           I
           fear
           it
           will
           cost
           him
           a
           new
           cast
           of
           his
           [
           meaning
           ]
           to
           do
           it
           :
           though
           let
           that
           be
           what
           it
           will
           ,
           it
           is
           not
           any
           one
           Man's
           meaning
           (
           especially
           founded
           upon
           his
           Ignorance
           )
           but
           the
           Universal
           Judgment
           and
           consent
           of
           all
           Learned
           Men
           that
           must
           determine
           the
           proper
           and
           distinct
           sences
           both
           of
           Substance
           and
           Subsistence
           in
           this
           Dispute
           .
        
         
         
           But
           the
           Animadverter
           in
           proving
           an
           Absolute
           Unity
           ,
           and
           disproving
           all
           plurality
           of
           substance
           in
           the
           Godhead
           ,
           had
           first
           strengthned
           his
           Assertion
           with
           the
           Authorities
           of
           some
           of
           the
           most
           eminent
           Fathers
           positively
           asserting
           the
           former
           ,
           and
           not
           without
           indignation
           rejecting
           the
           other
           .
           And
           what
           does
           this
           Defender
           answer
           to
           these
           ?
           Why
           ;
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Fathers
             ,
             by
             denying
             Three
          
           Substances
           
             principally
             rejected
             Three
             divers
             Natures
             of
             different
          
           Kinds
           or
           Species
           
             in
             Opposition
             to
             Arianism
             ,
             p.
          
           90.
           l.
           5.
           
           Very
           good
           ;
           they
           
             principally
             rejected
          
           a
           plurality
           of
           
             specifically
             distinct
             Substances
          
           ;
           and
           will
           this
           Man
           infer
           from
           hence
           that
           they
           did
           not
           reject
           also
           a
           Plurality
           of
           
             Individual
             Substances
             in
             the
             Godhead
          
           ?
           Why
           ,
           yes
           ,
           if
           he
           will
           invalidate
           the
           Authorities
           alleged
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           he
           does
           and
           must
           do
           so
           .
           And
           accordingly
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           That
           the
           Fathers
           by
           Unity
           of
           Substance
           here
           understand
           only
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           and
           that
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           signifies
           only
           a
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
             of
             Substance
          
           ;
           the
           Fathers
           in
           Opposition
           to
           Arianism
           ,
           designing
           only
           to
           disprove
           a
           Specifick
           plurality
           of
           substance
           in
           the
           Godhead
           ,
           not
           a
           plurality
           of
           numerical
           distinct
           Individuals
           .
           So
           that
           it
           seems
           they
           resolved
           ,
           though
           they
           fell
           foul
           upon
           the
           Arians
           ,
           yet
           to
           do
           it
           so
           ,
           as
           to
           keep
           fair
           Quarter
           with
           the
           Heathens
           .
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           ,
           since
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           imports
           an
           Union
           of
           Persons
           in
           such
           a
           Nature
           ,
           Essence
           ,
           or
           Substance
           ,
           as
           is
           uncapable
           of
           being
           numerically
           multiplied
           (
           as
           the
           Divine
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           essentially
           is
           ,
           and
           cannot
           but
           be
           )
           I
           affirm
           ,
           that
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           irrefragably
           proves
           a
           Numerical
           Unity
           or
           Identity
           of
           substance
           in
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           and
           withal
           that
           all
           Specifick
           Unity
           in
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           or
           Persons
           ,
           is
           absurd
           and
           impossible
           :
           for
           I
           must
           tell
           this
           puny
           Logician
           ,
           That
           it
           is
           one
           thing
           to
           disprove
           
           a
           
             Specifick
             diversity
          
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           in
           the
           Three
           Persons
           ,
           and
           quite
           another
           to
           
             prove
             a
             positive
             specifick
             Vnity
          
           of
           the
           same
           ;
           which
           can
           never
           be
           done
           where
           there
           are
           not
           several
           Individual
           Natures
           of
           the
           same
           kind
           ,
           to
           collect
           it
           from
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           though
           the
           Fathers
           in
           their
           disputes
           with
           the
           Arians
           ,
           alleged
           several
           Things
           for
           the
           Unity
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           in
           the
           Three
           Persons
           ,
           which
           strictly
           reached
           no
           further
           than
           to
           
             Specific
             Vnity
          
           ,
           yet
           when
           they
           disputed
           this
           matter
           more
           exactly
           with
           the
           Heathen
           Polytheists
           ,
           they
           rested
           not
           in
           this
           but
           still
           insisted
           upon
           ,
           and
           contended
           for
           a
           
             Numerical
             Vnity
          
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           ,
           Essence
           or
           Substance
           ,
           as
           the
           Cathol●ck
           Church
           has
           done
           ever
           since
           .
           And
           besides
           ,
           the
           Truth
           is
           ,
           Those
           very
           Arguments
           (
           or
           rather
           Instances
           of
           Resemblance
           )
           brought
           by
           the
           Fathers
           against
           the
           Arians
           ,
           though
           taken
           from
           things
           having
           no
           more
           than
           a
           Specifick
           Unity
           of
           Nature
           ,
           yet
           did
           not
           determinately
           prove
           either
           a
           Specifick
           or
           a
           Numerical
           Unity
           of
           Nature
           in
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           but
           only
           an
           Unity
           or
           Sameness
           of
           Nature
           indefinitely
           ;
           which
           being
           laid
           as
           a
           foundation
           ,
           
             the
             peculiar
             Condition
          
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           quickly
           determined
           the
           kind
           of
           its
           Unity
           ,
           and
           by
           vertue
           of
           its
           Infinity
           ,
           proved
           that
           that
           Vnity
           or
           Sameness
           could
           be
           no
           other
           than
           Numerical
           .
           And
           thus
           having
           answered
           what
           he
           has
           said
           about
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           and
           the
           Testimonies
           of
           the
           Fathers
           ,
           if
           he
           still
           persists
           in
           this
           Scandalous
           Assertion
           ,
           That
           the
           Fathers
           were
           only
           against
           several
           Kinds
           and
           
             Species
             of
             Substance
          
           in
           the
           Godhead
           and
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           but
           not
           against
           several
           Individual
           and
           Numerically
           distinct
           Substances
           in
           the
           same
           ;
           I
           desire
           him
           to
           satisfy
           the
           World
           in
           these
           Two
           Things
           .
           First
           ,
           How
           the
           
           Fathers
           came
           to
           look
           upon
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           or
           Essence
           in
           Three
           distinct
           Persons
           as
           such
           an
           amazing
           Incomprehensible
           Mystery
           (
           as
           they
           still
           avowed
           it
           to
           be
           )
           if
           the
           said
           Nature
           were
           not
           more
           than
           specifically
           one
           :
           for
           that
           one
           and
           the
           same
           specifical
           Nature
           should
           be
           in
           a
           plurality
           of
           Individual
           Persons
           ,
           is
           no
           wonder
           at
           all
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           I
           desire
           him
           to
           satisfy
           the
           World
           also
           ,
           Why
           the
           Primitive
           Latine
           Church
           with
           so
           much
           Zeal
           ,
           and
           for
           so
           long
           a
           time
           ,
           refused
           the
           word
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           declaring
           this
           for
           the
           only
           reason
           of
           their
           refusal
           thereof
           ,
           that
           they
           reckoned
           it
           to
           signify
           
             Three
             Substances
          
           ,
           for
           they
           could
           not
           reckon
           it
           to
           signify
           
             Three
             specifically
             distinct
             Substances
          
           ;
           For
           as
           much
           as
           they
           knew
           ,
           that
           the
           Greek
           Church
           which
           used
           the
           word
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           and
           contended
           for
           it
           ,
           had
           constantly
           ,
           zealously
           ,
           and
           most
           expresly
           ,
           opposed
           the
           Arians
           in
           their
           asserting
           Three
           Species
           of
           Substance
           in
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           and
           therefore
           it
           is
           evident
           ,
           even
           to
           a
           demonstration
           ,
           that
           they
           were
           only
           jealous
           of
           Three
           
             Individual
             Substances
          
           which
           they
           feared
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           might
           introduce
           ,
           and
           so
           betray
           them
           into
           another
           sort
           of
           Arianism
           ,
           or
           rather
           Gentilism
           ,
           as
           bad
           as
           the
           first
           .
           These
           Two
           Quaeries
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           I
           challenge
           this
           Author
           to
           answer
           me
           in
           ;
           by
           making
           it
           appear
           ,
           notwithstanding
           the
           foregoing
           Particulars
           ,
           that
           while
           the
           Fathers
           asserted
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           one
           Divine
           Essence
           or
           Substance
           ,
           it
           was
           only
           a
           Specifick
           not
           an
           
             Individual
             Vnity
          
           of
           the
           same
           ,
           which
           they
           all
           along
           pleaded
           for
           .
           But
           after
           the
           fore-alleged
           Testimonies
           of
           the
           Fathers
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           thought
           fit
           to
           add
           the
           Modern
           Testimony
           of
           Bellarmine
           in
           those
           words
           ,
           
             That
             to
             assert
             that
             the
             Father
             and
             the
             Son
             differ
             in
             substance
             is
             Arianism
             .
          
           In
           reply
           to
           which
           he
           first
           scoffingly
           
           excepts
           against
           
           Bellarmine's
           Orthodoxy
           (
           because
           forsooth
           he
           was
           a
           Papist
           )
           like
           that
           profound
           Dotard
           who
           reprov'd
           a
           young
           Student
           for
           reading
           Clavius
           upon
           Euclid
           ,
           telling
           him
           ,
           That
           he
           ought
           to
           read
           none
           but
           
             Protestant
             Mathematicks
          
           ;
           for
           surely
           the
           Romish
           Writers
           are
           as
           orthodox
           about
           the
           Article
           of
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           as
           any
           Protestant
           Writers
           whatsoever
           .
           Accordingly
           from
           these
           words
           of
           Bellarmine
           the
           Animadverter
           argued
           ,
           
             That
             if
             in
             the
             Trinity
             the
             Father
             and
             the
             Son
             were
             two
             distinct
             Substances
             ,
             for
             them
             not
             to
             differ
             in
             Substance
             would
             be
             impossible
             .
          
           To
           which
           this
           man
           replies
           in
           these
           words
           ;
           
             As
             if
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             to
             be
             distinct
             and
             to
             differ
             in
             Substance
             were
             the
             same
             thing
             .
          
           No
           ,
           Trifler
           ,
           no
           ;
           for
           Accidents
           may
           be
           distinct
           ,
           and
           Modes
           may
           be
           distinct
           ,
           which
           cannot
           
             differ
             in
             Substance
          
           ;
           and
           the
           Animadverter
           speaks
           not
           here
           of
           any
           sort
           of
           Distinction
           in
           general
           ,
           but
           only
           of
           the
           distinction
           of
           Substances
           ;
           and
           as
           to
           that
           ,
           he
           affirms
           ,
           That
           for
           
             Substances
             to
             be
             distinct
          
           ,
           must
           infer
           them
           to
           
             differ
             in
             Substance
          
           too
           .
           But
           he
           asks
           us
           hereupon
           a
           very
           wise
           Question
           ,
           
             Are
             not
             two
             Men
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           Unius
           Substantiae
           ,
           
             of
             one
             and
             the
             same
             substance
             ,
             because
             they
             are
             two
             distinct
             Men
             ,
             and
             each
             of
             them
             has
             a
             distinct
             Nature
             of
             his
             own
             ?
          
           P.
           90.
           l.
           19.
           
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           a
           
             distinct
             Human
             Nature
          
           is
           a
           
             distinct
             Substance
          
           ;
           and
           that
           altho
           '
           two
           Men
           are
           notionally
           and
           specifically
           of
           the
           same
           substance
           or
           nature
           ,
           yet
           really
           and
           numerically
           they
           neither
           are
           ,
           nor
           can
           be
           so
           .
           But
           he
           has
           not
           done
           with
           his
           Questions
           yet
           ,
           but
           asks
           us
           ,
           
             Whether
             to
             differ
             in
             Number
             ,
             and
             to
             differ
             in
             Substance
             and
             Nature
             be
             the
             same
             thing
             ?
          
           and
           ,
           
             Whether
             difference
             in
             Number
             prove
             a
             diversity
             of
             Nature
             too
             ?
          
           Yes
           ,
           Sir
           ,
           a
           Numerical
           Diversity
           of
           
             Individual
             Natures
          
           or
           Substances
           
           it
           does
           prove
           ,
           tho'
           their
           
             Specifick
             Nature
          
           (
           which
           is
           but
           a
           Notion
           founded
           upon
           things
           )
           be
           the
           same
           .
           And
           here
           I
           must
           tell
           His
           Ignorance
           what
           it
           was
           that
           betray'd
           him
           to
           these
           silly
           Questions
           ,
           viz.
           his
           supposing
           ,
           That
           there
           is
           no
           
             Essential
             Difference
          
           or
           no
           
             Diversity
             of
             Nature
          
           ,
           but
           a
           Specifick
           Difference
           or
           Diversity
           .
           Whereas
           an
           Essential
           Difference
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           an
           Essential
           Unity
           ,
           is
           threefold
           ,
           viz.
           a
           Generical
           ,
           a
           Specifical
           ,
           and
           a
           Numerical
           ;
           and
           this
           last
           is
           as
           much
           and
           as
           truly
           an
           Essential
           Difference
           as
           any
           of
           the
           two
           former
           ,
           or
           rather
           more
           so
           ;
           for
           the
           two
           former
           are
           properly
           Notions
           existing
           only
           in
           the
           Mind
           ,
           tho'
           collected
           from
           things
           actually
           existing
           in
           Nature
           ;
           but
           the
           last
           has
           no
           dependance
           upon
           the
           conception
           of
           the
           Mind
           at
           all
           ,
           but
           is
           wholly
           in
           the
           thing
           itself
           ,
           whereof
           it
           is
           the
           difference
           .
           And
           therefore
           I
           do
           here
           tell
           this
           man
           ,
           That
           three
           numerically
           distinct
           Substances
           are
           three
           numerically
           distinct
           Essences
           or
           Natures
           ;
           and
           consequently
           differ
           from
           one
           another
           as
           three
           such
           Essences
           or
           Natures
           do
           .
           As
           for
           the
           Complement
           he
           passes
           upon
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           at
           the
           end
           of
           this
           Paragraph
           ,
           p.
           90.
           as
           if
           he
           were
           
             to
             be
             taught
             by
             this
             man
             to
             construe
             the
             Fathers
             :
          
           For
           that
           and
           sundry
           other
           of
           his
           Scurrilities
           ,
           I
           will
           not
           fail
           to
           reckon
           with
           him
           in
           due
           place
           .
        
         
           But
           after
           the
           several
           Testimonies
           produc'd
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           against
           a
           Plurality
           of
           Substances
           in
           the
           Godhead
           ,
           he
           proceeded
           to
           argue
           against
           the
           same
           from
           Reason
           ;
           And
           what
           does
           the
           Defender
           reply
           upon
           this
           Topick
           ?
           Why
           ,
           says
           he
           ,
           
             Whereas
             the
             Animadverter
             would
             prove
             ,
             That
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             cannot
             be
             Three
             distinct
          
           Minds
           ,
           
             because
             they
             are
             not
             Three
             distinct
          
           Substances
           ,
           
             the
             Dean
             may
             safely
             deny
             the
             
             Consequence
             ,
          
           p.
           90.
           
             at
             the
             latter
             end
          
           .
           And
           may
           He
           so
           ?
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           if
           the
           denyal
           of
           the
           Genus
           does
           and
           must
           infer
           a
           denyal
           of
           the
           Species
           (
           as
           that
           which
           is
           not
           an
           Animal
           cannot
           possibly
           be
           a
           Man
           )
           then
           that
           which
           proves
           the
           Three
           Persons
           not
           to
           be
           
             Three
             Substances
          
           ,
           must
           prove
           them
           also
           not
           to
           be
           
             Three
             Minds
          
           :
           for
           [
           Substance
           ]
           respects
           [
           Mind
           ]
           as
           a
           Genus
           does
           its
           Species
           ,
           and
           the
           consequence
           from
           the
           Genus
           to
           the
           Species
           negatively
           is
           unavoidable
           .
           But
           what
           then
           would
           he
           have
           the
           Animadverter
           to
           prove
           ?
           Why
           this
           ,
           
             That
             if
             Three
             Minds
             are
             Three
             Intelligent
             Persons
             ,
             and
             a
             Mind
             is
             a
             Substance
             ,
             therefore
             three
             distinct
             Minds
             or
             Persons
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Substances
             ,
             p.
          
           91.
           l.
           1.
           
           But
           what
           illogical
           confused
           stuff
           is
           this
           ?
           However
           ,
           since
           it
           affords
           
             Three
             Terms
          
           ,
           I
           will
           cast
           it
           for
           him
           into
           a
           Syllogistical
           Form
           ,
           and
           that
           will
           quickly
           shew
           what
           may
           be
           concluded
           in
           this
           matter
           ,
           and
           what
           cannot
           .
           Thus.
           
        
         
           
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Substances
             ,
             but
             Three
             distinct
             Persons
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             ,
             therefore
             Three
             distinct
             Persons
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Substances
             .
          
        
         
           The
           Major
           of
           which
           Syllogism
           has
           been
           effectually
           proved
           from
           the
           Definition
           of
           a
           Mind
           already
           :
           and
           the
           Minor
           being
           the
           Defender's
           avowed
           Principle
           and
           Assertion
           ,
           can
           any
           Thing
           conclude
           more
           plainly
           than
           this
           Syllogism
           does
           ,
           That
           according
           to
           this
           Man's
           Principles
           ,
           
             The
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Substances
             ?
          
           Which
           is
           the
           Thing
           that
           the
           Defender
           here
           calls
           upon
           the
           Animadverter
           to
           prove
           :
           and
           accordingly
           proved
           it
           is
           .
           But
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             Three
             distinct
             Minds
             may
             subsist
             distinctly
             and
             inseparably
             in
             one
             Eternal
             and
             Infinite
             Substance
             ,
             as
             Three
             Intelligent
             Persons
             do
             ,
             ibid.
          
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           First
           ,
           That
           let
           them
           exist
           
           never
           so
           inseparably
           in
           one
           Infinite
           Substance
           ,
           they
           are
           really
           Three
           Minds
           still
           ,
           and
           can
           never
           be
           one
           Individual
           Substance
           or
           Mind
           ,
           but
           collectively
           .
           And
           that
           I
           am
           sure
           is
           neither
           
             naturally
             ,
             properly
          
           ,
           or
           simply
           one
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           
             That
             Three
             Minds
             may
             as
             well
             be
             in
             one
             Infinite
             Substance
             as
             Three
             Persons
             are
             ,
          
           This
           is
           perfectly
           
             gratìs
             dictum
          
           ,
           and
           (
           according
           to
           his
           usual
           way
           )
           a
           gross
           downright
           presuming
           the
           thing
           in
           dispute
           .
           For
           it
           is
           and
           has
           been
           all
           along
           absolutely
           denied
           him
           ,
           and
           the
           contrary
           more
           than
           once
           proved
           against
           him
           ,
           viz.
           That
           Three
           distinct
           Minds
           being
           Three
           absolute
           entire
           Beings
           ,
           Essences
           ,
           or
           Substances
           ,
           can
           never
           subsist
           in
           one
           absolute
           Being
           ,
           Essence
           ,
           or
           Substance
           ,
           and
           that
           on
           the
           other
           side
           Three
           Intelligent
           Divine
           Persons
           being
           
             Relative
             Subsistences
          
           ,
           not
           
             absolute
             Beings
          
           ,
           may
           subsist
           in
           one
           Absolute
           Being
           or
           Substance
           .
           So
           that
           the
           disparity
           between
           Minds
           and
           Persons
           is
           manifest
           ,
           and
           as
           to
           the
           present
           Case
           irreconcileable
           .
           Nay
           ,
           and
           I
           shall
           add
           one
           consideration
           more
           to
           the
           same
           purpose
           ,
           and
           that
           of
           no
           small
           moment
           ,
           viz.
           That
           no
           Two
           or
           more
           Substances
           (
           nor
           consequently
           Minds
           or
           Spirits
           )
           do
           or
           can
           subsist
           inseparably
           ;
           (
           which
           yet
           this
           Man
           takes
           for
           granted
           )
           but
           that
           ,
           as
           they
           are
           in
           their
           own
           Nature
           capable
           of
           
             existing
             by
             themselves
          
           ,
           and
           for
           that
           Reason
           separable
           ,
           so
           by
           the
           Absolute
           Power
           of
           God
           they
           may
           be
           actually
           separated
           ,
           provided
           his
           Decree
           does
           not
           hinder
           :
           And
           this
           makes
           another
           vast
           disparity
           between
           
             Minds
             ,
             Spirits
          
           ,
           and
           Substances
           on
           the
           one
           hand
           ,
           and
           the
           
             Divine
             Persons
          
           on
           the
           other
           ,
           viz.
           That
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           from
           the
           very
           nature
           of
           the
           Thing
           ,
           are
           even
           by
           the
           Divine
           Power
           it self
           inseparable
           both
           from
           the
           Essence
           which
           they
           belong
           to
           ,
           as
           also
           from
           one
           Another
           ;
           which
           ,
           distinct
           Minds
           can
           
           never
           be
           .
           But
           the
           Defender
           adds
           ,
           
             That
             the
             True
             and
             short
             answer
             to
             the
             Animadverter's
             Argument
             is
             ,
             That
             the
             same
             Substance
             ,
          
           repeated
           
             in
             Three
             distinct
             Subsistences
             ,
             is
             not
             Three
             Substances
             but
             one
             ,
             p.
          
           90.
           ibid.
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           he
           has
           been
           sufficiently
           told
           already
           .
           That
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Repeating
             the
             Divine
             Substance
             or
             Nature
          
           ]
           is
           New
           ,
           Odd
           ,
           and
           Unjustifiable
           ,
           and
           such
           as
           the
           Catholick
           Church
           never
           made
           use
           of
           ,
           and
           for
           that
           cause
           ought
           utterly
           to
           be
           condemn'd
           and
           thrown
           aside
           .
           But
           for
           a
           further
           answer
           to
           it
           ,
           I
           do
           first
           affirm
           in
           general
           ,
           That
           for
           the
           same
           numerical
           Nature
           or
           Substance
           to
           be
           repeated
           is
           impossible
           ,
           and
           a
           contradiction
           ;
           Repetition
           (
           as
           we
           have
           shewn
           )
           being
           nothing
           else
           but
           
             Another
             Production
          
           .
           In
           the
           second
           place
           ,
           I
           deny
           ,
           in
           particular
           ,
           that
           there
           is
           any
           such
           Thing
           as
           a
           Repetition
           of
           the
           Divine
           Substance
           or
           Nature
           in
           Three
           Subsistences
           .
           The
           said
           Nature
           indeed
           [
           is
           ]
           and
           [
           exists
           ]
           
             in
             Three
             Subsistences
          
           ,
           but
           I
           absolutely
           deny
           that
           it
           is
           
             repeated
             in
             them
          
           ;
           and
           it
           will
           concern
           this
           Bold
           Novellist
           to
           prove
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           assert
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           so
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           it
           is
           no
           small
           shame
           and
           calamity
           to
           the
           Church
           ,
           that
           he
           is
           not
           called
           to
           account
           for
           such
           horrible
           Innovations
           .
        
         
           But
           the
           Animadverter
           had
           argued
           further
           against
           Three
           distinct
           Substances
           in
           the
           Godhead
           ,
           thus
           ,
           
             That
             if
             the
             Three
             Persons
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Substances
             ,
             then
             Two
             distinct
             Substances
             will
             concur
             in
             and
             belong
             to
             each
             Person
             ;
             to
             wit
             ,
             That
             Substance
             which
             is
             the
             Divine
             Essence
             ,
             and
             so
             is
             communicable
             or
             common
             to
             all
             the
             Persons
             ,
             and
             that
             substance
             which
             constitutes
             each
             Person
             ,
             and
             thereby
             is
             so
             peculiar
             to
             him
             ,
             as
             to
             distinguish
             him
             from
             the
             other
             ,
             and
             consequently
             to
             be
             incommunicable
             to
             any
             besides
             him
             to
             whom
             it
             belongs
             :
             since
             for
             
             one
             and
             the
             same
             substance
             to
             be
             common
             to
             all
             Three
             Persons
             ,
             and
             withal
             to
             belong
             incommunicably
             to
             each
             of
             the
             Three
             ,
             and
             thereby
             to
             distinguish
             them
             from
             one
             Another
             is
             contradictious
             ,
             and
             impossible
             .
          
           And
           what
           can
           this
           Man
           oppose
           to
           this
           Argument
           with
           the
           least
           shew
           or
           shaddow
           of
           Reason
           ?
           What
           part
           of
           it
           does
           he
           deny
           ?
           Or
           what
           Term
           of
           it
           does
           he
           distinguish
           ?
           For
           the
           Argument
           proceeds
           upon
           his
           own
           supposal
           at
           present
           ,
           that
           the
           Three
           Persons
           are
           Three
           distinct
           Substances
           ,
           as
           the
           Animadverter
           had
           fully
           proved
           them
           to
           be
           before
           .
           Why
           ,
           all
           that
           he
           says
           ,
           is
           ,
           
             That
             he
             is
             heartily
             ashamed
             and
             sorry
          
           (
           good
           Man
           )
           
             to
             see
             such
             stuff
             as
             must
             necessarily
             expose
             our
             Faith
             to
             the
             scorn
             of
             Atheists
             and
             Infidels
             ;
             and
             therefore
             that
             he
             may
             not
             contribute
             to
             it
             ,
          
           he
           graciously
           declares
           ,
           
             that
             all
             this
             Non-sense
             shall
             escape
             the
             lash
             of
             his
             Pen
             ,
             p.
          
           91.
           l.
           22.
           
           That
           is
           ,
           according
           to
           his
           constant
           never
           failing
           way
           ,
           he
           is
           then
           highest
           in
           Noise
           and
           Vapour
           when
           he
           is
           brought
           most
           to
           a
           Nonplus
           .
           But
           I
           have
           some
           Answers
           of
           another
           sort
           to
           make
           to
           this
           passage
           alleged
           out
           of
           him
           ;
           As
           first
           ,
           That
           whatsoever
           his
           Sorrow
           in
           this
           Case
           may
           be
           ,
           he
           will
           hardly
           convince
           the
           World
           that
           he
           has
           any
           shame
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           to
           expose
           our
           Holy
           Faith
           to
           the
           scorn
           of
           Atheists
           and
           Infidels
           ,
           by
           one's
           Folly
           and
           Nonsense
           ,
           is
           very
           bad
           ;
           But
           that
           
             to
             make
             Atheists
             and
             Infidels
          
           by
           one's
           
             Scandalous
             Writings
          
           ,
           and
           more
           
             scandalous
             Practices
          
           ,
           is
           much
           worse
           .
           Thirdly
           ,
           That
           nothing
           does
           ,
           or
           can
           more
           expose
           our
           Holy
           Faith
           to
           the
           scorn
           of
           
             Atheists
             and
             Infidels
          
           ,
           than
           for
           any
           one
           ,
           who
           wears
           but
           the
           Name
           of
           a
           Christian
           ,
           to
           assert
           Three
           Gods
           ;
           which
           Three
           distinct
           
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
             Spirits
          
           ,
           or
           Substances
           ,
           upon
           all
           the
           Principles
           of
           common
           Reason
           and
           Philosophy
           ,
           certainly
           
           and
           undeniably
           are
           ;
           and
           withal
           ,
           that
           there
           can
           be
           no
           Non-sense
           comparable
           to
           the
           asserting
           
             Three
             distinct
             Absolute
             Infinites
          
           :
           And
           fourthly
           and
           lastly
           ,
           Whereas
           he
           says
           ,
           
             That
             all
             the
             Non-sense
             of
             the
             foregoing
             Argument
          
           (
           as
           he
           calls
           
             every
             thing
          
           which
           he
           cannot
           Answer
           )
           
             shall
             escape
             the
             lash
             of
             his
             Pen
          
           ;
           I
           would
           have
           this
           poor
           Whipster
           know
           ,
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           is
           far
           from
           dreading
           the
           
             lash
             of
             that
             Pen
          
           which
           never
           yet
           drew
           blood
           of
           any
           one
           but
           of
           Priscian
           .
           And
           so
           having
           answered
           his
           compassionate
           Preamble
           in
           behalf
           of
           our
           suffering
           Faith
           (
           forsooth
           )
           we
           will
           now
           see
           what
           he
           has
           to
           say
           upon
           occasion
           of
           the
           Animadverter's
           Argument
           (
           for
           it
           can
           be
           no
           more
           called
           an
           Answer
           to
           it
           ,
           than
           to
           that
           Learned
           Reply
           made
           to
           his
           
             Hobbian
             Vindication
             of
             his
             Case
             ,
             &c.
          
           )
           And
           in
           order
           to
           this
           ,
           I
           demand
           of
           him
           first
           ,
           Whether
           that
           one
           Infinite
           common
           Essence
           or
           Substance
           which
           formally
           unites
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           together
           ,
           does
           or
           can
           formally
           distinguish
           them
           also
           from
           one
           another
           ?
           Secondly
           ,
           Whether
           (
           since
           he
           utterly
           denies
           all
           Modes
           as
           well
           as
           Accidents
           in
           God
           )
           that
           which
           distinguishes
           each
           Person
           from
           the
           other
           can
           be
           any
           thing
           else
           but
           a
           Substance
           ?
           there
           being
           nothing
           in
           Nature
           conceievable
           by
           the
           Mind
           of
           Man
           ,
           but
           what
           is
           either
           a
           Substance
           ,
           an
           Accident
           ,
           or
           a
           
             Mode
             of
             Being
          
           :
           and
           I
           defy
           this
           Man
           ,
           or
           any
           one
           besides
           ,
           to
           give
           Instance
           of
           a
           fourth
           which
           is
           none
           of
           these
           :
           And
           Thirdly
           and
           lastly
           ,
           Whether
           each
           Person
           hereupon
           must
           not
           either
           have
           Two
           Substances
           belonging
           to
           him
           ,
           viz.
           One
           uniting
           him
           to
           ,
           and
           the
           other
           distinguishing
           him
           from
           the
           rest
           ;
           or
           be
           both
           united
           and
           distinguished
           by
           one
           and
           the
           same
           substance
           common
           to
           them
           all
           ?
           Both
           of
           which
           are
           Impossible
           .
           This
           is
           the
           Argument
           ,
           though
           after
           another
           and
           more
           particular
           
           manner
           proposed
           ,
           and
           I
           Challenge
           this
           Piece
           of
           a
           Disputant
           to
           overthrow
           any
           one
           Part
           or
           Proposition
           of
           it
           by
           solid
           and
           clear
           Reason
           ;
           for
           fooling
           and
           flounceing
           ,
           and
           throwing
           out
           the
           word
           Non-sense
           (
           from
           a
           plentiful
           stock
           within
           )
           will
           not
           do
           it
           .
           But
           to
           shew
           how
           wofully
           he
           is
           hampered
           ,
           see
           what
           desperate
           assertions
           he
           advances
           ,
           p.
           91
           ,
           92.
           for
           the
           disentangling
           himself
           .
           And
           first
           in
           p.
           91.
           l.
           28.
           he
           roundly
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Dean
             knows
             not
             any
             distinction
             between
             the
             Divine
             Essence
             and
             a
             Divine
             Person
             ,
             but
             that
             the
             Essence
             makes
             the
             Person
             .
          
           In
           which
           words
           there
           are
           Two
           as
           false
           and
           Heterodox
           Propositions
           as
           can
           well
           be
           delivered
           by
           any
           one
           professing
           Divinity
           ,
           viz.
           First
           ,
           
             That
             there
             is
             no
             distinction
             between
             the
             Divine
             Essence
             or
             Substance
             ,
             and
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             .
          
           And
           secondly
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Divine
             Essence
             makes
             the
             Person
             .
          
           Both
           of
           which
           I
           will
           distinctly
           examine
           :
           and
           first
           as
           to
           the
           first
           of
           them
           I
           affirm
           ,
           That
           the
           Divine
           Essence
           is
           and
           cannot
           but
           be
           vertually
           and
           fundamentally
           distinguished
           from
           the
           Persons
           .
           That
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           it
           affords
           a
           Reason
           and
           Foundation
           in
           the
           Thing
           it self
           sufficient
           for
           the
           Mind
           to
           form
           thereupon
           a
           different
           Conception
           of
           the
           
             Divine
             Essence
          
           ,
           from
           the
           Conception
           of
           the
           
             Divine
             Persons
          
           ,
           by
           proper
           and
           Metaphysical
           abstraction
           :
           and
           that
           so
           distinct
           ,
           that
           the
           
             Conceptus
             objectivus
          
           of
           one
           neither
           is
           nor
           can
           be
           the
           
             Conceptus
             objectivus
          
           of
           the
           other
           .
           And
           if
           this
           distinction
           (
           or
           rather
           distinguishableness
           )
           should
           not
           be
           admitted
           in
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           and
           Persons
           ,
           as
           founded
           upon
           some
           Reason
           in
           the
           Things
           so
           distinguished
           ,
           I
           desire
           this
           Man
           to
           tell
           me
           upon
           what
           account
           it
           is
           ,
           that
           all
           Divines
           (
           not
           excepting
           himself
           )
           discourse
           of
           the
           Divine
           Essence
           as
           determinable
           ,
           and
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           as
           of
           those
           by
           
           whom
           it
           is
           determined
           ;
           and
           again
           of
           the
           Divine
           Essence
           as
           communicable
           ,
           and
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           (
           two
           of
           them
           at
           least
           )
           as
           those
           
             to
             whom
          
           it
           is
           communicated
           :
           For
           can
           this
           be
           done
           without
           a
           
             distinct
             Conception
          
           of
           that
           which
           is
           to
           be
           Communicated
           ,
           and
           of
           Those
           to
           whom
           the
           
             Communication
             is
             to
             be
             made
          
           ?
           or
           can
           there
           be
           any
           distinction
           in
           the
           conception
           ,
           where
           there
           is
           not
           a
           proportionable
           Distinguishableness
           in
           the
           Object
           ?
           So
           that
           upon
           the
           whole
           matter
           it
           appears
           ,
           that
           nothing
           could
           be
           more
           contrary
           to
           all
           the
           Principles
           of
           Christian
           Philosophy
           and
           Theology
           ,
           than
           this
           Author's
           denial
           of
           all
           distinction
           (
           in
           the
           sense
           we
           have
           given
           of
           it
           )
           between
           the
           Divine
           Essence
           and
           Persons
           :
           for
           without
           such
           distinction
           it
           is
           impossible
           to
           conceive
           or
           discourse
           of
           the
           said
           Persons
           ,
           as
           one
           in
           Essence
           and
           Three
           in
           Subsistence
           .
           And
           so
           I
           pass
           to
           the
           Examination
           of
           his
           other
           Proposition
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             the
             Essence
             makes
             the
             Person
             .
          
           Concerning
           which
           ,
           I
           do
           with
           the
           greatest
           assurance
           appeal
           to
           all
           the
           World
           ,
           whether
           any
           Thing
           more
           absurd
           ,
           strange
           ,
           and
           Paradoxical
           ,
           was
           ever
           asserted
           in
           Divinity
           .
           For
           
             how
             can
             the
             Divine
             Essence
             be
             conceived
             to
             make
             the
             Person
             ?
          
           Since
           all
           [
           making
           ]
           must
           of
           Necessity
           be
           one
           of
           these
           Two
           ways
           ,
           First
           ,
           Either
           by
           an
           
             efficient
             production
          
           .
           Or
           secondly
           ,
           By
           a
           
             formal
             Constitution
          
           of
           a
           Thing
           .
           For
           no
           third
           way
           besides
           these
           is
           assigneable
           .
           But
           it
           cannot
           be
           by
           the
           first
           ,
           because
           it
           is
           and
           ever
           was
           a
           received
           Maxime
           in
           Theology
           ,
           That
           the
           Divine
           Essence
           ,
           considered
           absolutely
           in
           it self
           ,
           neither
           produces
           ,
           nor
           
             is
             produced
          
           .
           So
           that
           if
           any
           Production
           or
           Operation
           be
           ascribed
           to
           it
           ,
           it
           must
           be
           only
           as
           it
           subsists
           in
           a
           Person
           (
           one
           or
           more
           )
           ,
           who
           is
           the
           sole
           proper
           Agent
           ,
           or
           Producer
           in
           every
           Divine
           Act
           or
           Effect
           ;
           from
           whence
           it
           is
           evident
           ,
           that
           that
           
           which
           can
           produce
           nothing
           but
           as
           it
           is
           and
           
             operates
             in
             the
             Person
          
           ,
           cannot
           produce
           the
           Person
           it self
           ,
           which
           it
           must
           presuppose
           ,
           before
           it
           can
           operate
           .
           Besides
           ,
           that
           if
           the
           Essence
           should
           produce
           the
           Person
           ,
           it
           would
           follow
           that
           it
           must
           produce
           
             one
             Person
          
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           another
           ,
           and
           consequently
           the
           Person
           of
           the
           Father
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           that
           of
           the
           Son
           and
           of
           the
           Holy
           Ghost
           :
           But
           if
           the
           Essence
           should
           produce
           
             the
             Person
             of
             the
             Father
          
           ,
           how
           could
           the
           Father
           be
           said
           to
           be
           the
           
             fountain
             of
             the
             Deity
          
           ?
           (
           as
           the
           Ancient
           Writers
           Term
           him
           very
           often
           )
           and
           to
           be
           without
           all
           Original
           ,
           (
           which
           is
           the
           peculiar
           Character
           of
           his
           Person
           .
           )
           For
           that
           
             the
             Deity
          
           or
           
             Divine
             Essence
          
           (
           which
           are
           but
           two
           words
           for
           the
           same
           thing
           )
           should
           
             produce
             the
             fountain
             of
             the
             Deity
             ,
          
           or
           a
           Self-originated
           Person
           ,
           no
           Mortal
           Man
           ,
           I
           believe
           (
           this
           Author
           still
           excepted
           )
           can
           imagine
           .
           Since
           therefore
           it
           is
           so
           insufferably
           Absurd
           ,
           to
           affirm
           ,
           that
           
             the
             Essence
             makes
             the
             Person
          
           ,
           by
           way
           of
           Production
           ;
           let
           us
           see
           whether
           it
           can
           be
           said
           to
           make
           it
           the
           other
           way
           ,
           viz.
           by
           a
           
             formal
             constitution
             of
             it
          
           .
           But
           if
           this
           be
           admitted
           ,
           then
           the
           Essence
           must
           be
           that
           by
           which
           a
           Person
           
             is
             formally
             a
             Person
          
           :
           whereupon
           the
           Essence
           and
           the
           Person
           being
           commensurate
           and
           convertible
           ,
           it
           will
           follow
           ,
           That
           if
           there
           be
           but
           
             one
             Essence
          
           there
           can
           be
           but
           
             one
             Person
          
           ,
           and
           that
           if
           there
           be
           a
           Plurality
           of
           Persons
           ,
           there
           must
           be
           a
           Plurality
           of
           Essences
           too
           .
           For
           the
           multiplication
           of
           the
           
             formal
             Reason
          
           of
           any
           Thing
           must
           of
           Necessity
           multiply
           the
           Thing
           it self
           of
           which
           it
           is
           so
           .
           And
           here
           I
           must
           tell
           this
           Author
           ,
           that
           as
           much
           as
           he
           disclaims
           the
           use
           of
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Formal
             Reason
          
           ]
           yet
           this
           very
           expression
           of
           his
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Essence
             makes
             the
             Person
             ,
          
           truly
           and
           properly
           ,
           neither
           does
           nor
           can
           import
           any
           thing
           else
           ,
           than
           that
           
             the
             Essence
          
           is
           
             the
             formal
             Reason
          
           
           thereof
           .
           And
           if
           so
           ,
           let
           him
           ,
           upon
           this
           Assertion
           ,
           keep
           off
           the
           forementioned
           Consequence
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             either
             there
             are
             Three
             Essences
             ,
             or
             but
             one
             Person
             ,
          
           if
           he
           can
           .
        
         
           But
           after
           all
           ,
           finding
           himself
           pinch'd
           still
           harder
           and
           harder
           ,
           and
           not
           well
           knowing
           which
           way
           to
           turn
           himself
           ,
           at
           length
           he
           cries
           out
           ,
           
             It
             is
             an
             amazing
             thing
             to
             think
             what
             strange
             Conceits
             this
             man
          
           (
           viz.
           the
           Animadverter
           )
           
             must
             have
             of
             a
             Trinity
             of
             Persons
             ,
             and
             Vnity
             of
             Essence
             or
             Substance
             ,
             p.
          
           92.
           l.
           7.
           
           To
           relieve
           him
           from
           which
           Transport
           ,
           if
           this
           Defender
           ,
           instead
           of
           
             looking
             into
             the
             Fathers
          
           ,
           (
           which
           he
           so
           often
           mentions
           )
           will
           be
           pleas'd
           to
           
             read
             them
          
           ,
           he
           shall
           find
           this
           amazing
           Conceit
           or
           Notion
           of
           the
           Trinity
           (
           as
           he
           calls
           it
           )
           fully
           and
           frequently
           express'd
           by
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           and
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           in
           the
           Greek
           Fathers
           ,
           and
           in
           the
           Latin
           Fathers
           ,
           Councils
           ,
           Schoolmen
           ,
           and
           other
           Divines
           Popish
           and
           Protestant
           ,
           by
           the
           
             Vna
             Essentia
          
           ,
           and
           the
           
             Tres
             Subsistentiae
          
           ,
           or
           
             Modi
             Subsistendi
          
           .
           That
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           by
           three
           distinct
           Modes
           of
           Subsisting
           ,
           or
           three
           Subsistences
           of
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Infinite
           Essence
           or
           Substance
           included
           in
           all
           and
           each
           of
           them
           .
           This
           is
           the
           Animadverter's
           Notion
           of
           
             One
             Divine
             Essence
          
           ,
           and
           
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
          
           (
           as
           this
           man
           has
           been
           more
           than
           once
           told
           )
           :
           and
           the
           Authorities
           producible
           for
           it
           ,
           and
           in
           a
           great
           measure
           produc'd
           already
           in
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           might
           (
           one
           would
           think
           )
           have
           serv'd
           to
           cure
           that
           Amazement
           ,
           or
           rather
           St●por
           ,
           which
           this
           Author
           upon
           this
           account
           has
           been
           so
           deeply
           seiz'd
           with
           .
           On
           the
           contrary
           ,
           such
           a
           Notion
           of
           the
           Trinity
           as
           makes
           the
           
             Divine
             Nature
             or
             Essence
             a
             Person
             ,
          
           and
           the
           three
           Divine
           Persons
           to
           be
           three
           distinct
           Minds
           
           or
           Spirits
           ,
           and
           consequently
           three
           distinct
           Essences
           ,
           Natures
           ,
           or
           Substances
           ,
           is
           Matter
           of
           much
           greater
           Amazement
           and
           Abhorrence
           too
           ,
           to
           all
           that
           are
           concern'd
           for
           the
           Faith
           which
           they
           were
           baptiz'd
           into
           ;
           And
           moreover
           ,
           for
           any
           one
           to
           assert
           three
           Infinit●
           Minds
           ,
           and
           yet
           to
           pretend
           not
           to
           assert
           three
           Gods
           ,
           is
           yet
           more
           amazing
           than
           the
           former
           ;
           And
           lastly
           ,
           for
           such
           scandalous
           Assertions
           to
           wear
           the
           Stamp
           of
           Publick
           Licence
           and
           Authority
           ,
           and
           the
           shameless
           Author
           of
           them
           to
           be
           endur'd
           ,
           and
           not
           only
           so
           ,
           but
           to
           be
           also
           under
           such
           Circumstances
           in
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           ,
           is
           to
           all
           sober
           and
           pious
           Minds
           more
           
             amazing
             ,
             monstrous
          
           ,
           and
           astonishing
           than
           all
           his
           detestable
           Heresies
           put
           together
           .
           But
           to
           draw
           to
           a
           close
           of
           this
           Argument
           against
           his
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ,
           from
           a
           Necessity
           of
           asserting
           
             Three
             Substances
             in
             the
             Godhead
          
           ,
           as
           unavoidably
           consequent
           thereupon
           ;
           I
           find
           this
           Author
           utterly
           at
           a
           loss
           where
           to
           fix
           ,
           and
           by
           no
           means
           consistent
           with
           himself
           ;
           as
           sometimes
           denying
           ,
           and
           sometimes
           allowing
           
             his
             Three
             Minds
          
           to
           be
           
             Three
             Substances
          
           .
           His
           denyal
           of
           it
           appears
           in
           these
           words
           :
           
             Let
             the
             Animadverter
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             bring
             off
             Three
             Persons
             from
             being
             Three
             Substances
             ,
             and
             the
             D●●●
             will
             undertake
             to
             bring
             off
             his
             Three
             Minds
             from
             being
             so
             as
             well
             ;
             p.
          
           89.
           l.
           15.
           
           On
           the
           contrary
           ,
           if
           this
           Author
           does
           not
           allow
           of
           
             Three
             Substances
          
           in
           the
           Trinity
           ;
           why
           does
           he
           interpret
           the
           places
           alledg'd
           by
           the
           Animadverte●
           out
           of
           the
           Fathers
           for
           an
           
             Vnity
             of
             Substance
          
           in
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           and
           Persons
           ,
           only
           of
           a
           
             Specifick
             Vnity
             of
             Substance
          
           ?
           for
           that
           ,
           all
           know
           ,
           is
           fully
           consistent
           with
           a
           plurality
           of
           
             Individual
             Substances
          
           ,
           which
           a
           
             Numerical
             Vnity
             of
             Substance
          
           (
           would
           he
           stick
           to
           that
           )
           neither
           is
           
           nor
           can
           be
           .
           To
           which
           he
           adds
           ,
           
             That
             no
             man
             can
             have
             any
             Idea
             of
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             which
             are
             not
             Substances
             ;
             p.
          
           92.
           l.
           13.
           
           But
           foul
           and
           impudent
           Self-contradiction
           is
           his
           constant
           practice
           from
           first
           to
           last
           ;
           and
           therefore
           without
           pursuing
           him
           any
           further
           ,
           I
           shall
           conclude
           all
           with
           that
           Testimony
           of
           Faustinus
           ,
           an
           eminent
           Divine
           in
           the
           Fourth
           Century
           ,
           and
           one
           of
           those
           who
           scrupl'd
           the
           use
           of
           the
           word
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           for
           fear
           of
           being
           brought
           thereby
           to
           admit
           of
           
             Three
             Substances
          
           in
           the
           Godhead
           ,
           and
           those
           not
           Specifically
           but
           only
           Numerically
           distinct
           :
           as
           appears
           from
           the
           following
           Passage
           at
           the
           end
           of
           the
           Confession
           of
           hi●
           Faith
           ,
           entituled
           ,
           
             Faustini
             Presbyteri
             Fides
          
           ,
           and
           exhibited
           by
           him
           to
           the
           Emperor
           
             Theodosius
             .
             Miramur
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             illos
             Catholicos
             probari
             posse
             ,
             qui
             Patris
             &
             Fili●
             &
             Spiritûs
             Sancti
          
           Tres
           substantias
           
             confitentur
             ;
             nam
             ,
             etsi
             dicunt
             ,
             non
             se
             credere
             Filium
             Dei
             aut
             Spiritum
             Sanctum
             Creaturam
             ,
             tamen
             contra
             fidem
             sentiunt
             cum
             dicunt
          
           Tres
           esse
           Substantias
           :
           
             consequens
             est
             enim
             ,
             ut
          
           Tres
           Deos
           
             consiteantur
             qui
          
           Tres
           Substantias
           
             confitentur
             ▪
             Quam
             vocem
             Catholici
             semper
             execr●ti
             sunt
             .
          
           I
           know
           Faustinus
           wa●
           mistaken
           in
           reckoning
           Hypostasis
           and
           
           Substantia
           ●o●
           Terms
           of
           the
           same
           signification
           ;
           but
           his
           Argument
           founded
           thereupon
           is
           certainly
           so
           clear
           a
           Proof
           of
           the
           Church's
           disowning
           
             Three
             Substances
          
           in
           the
           Blessed
           Trinity
           ,
           that
           a
           clearer
           cannot
           possibly
           be
           :
           And
           yet
           this
           audacious
           man
           ,
           at
           this
           time
           of
           the
           day
           ,
           with
           his
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           or
           Spirits
           ,
           (
           which
           are
           undeniably
           Three
           Substances
           )
           is
           new
           dressing
           and
           setting
           up
           that
           Odious
           Tritheism
           ,
           which
           the
           Primitive
           Christians
           so
           highly
           abhorr'd
           ,
           and
           so
           zealously
           declar'd
           against
           .
           Sad
           therefore
           at
           this
           time
           
           must
           needs
           be
           the
           State
           ,
           and
           woful
           the
           Circumstances
           of
           our
           poor
           Church
           of
           England
           (
           once
           so
           deservedly
           reputed
           the
           Noblest
           and
           Best
           Reform'd
           part
           of
           the
           Catholick
           )
           to
           have
           the
           Pest
           and
           Poyson
           of
           such
           an
           Heresie
           fretting
           in
           her
           very
           Bowels
           ;
           and
           to
           be
           forced
           to
           endure
           what
           at
           the
           same
           time
           I
           am
           sure
           she
           heartily
           does
           and
           cannot
           but
           deplore
           .
           And
           so
           I
           come
           to
           canvase
           his
           Answer
           to
           the
           Animadverter's
           ▪
        
         
           Third
           Argument
           ,
           
           which
           proceeds
           thus
           :
           
             If
             it
             be
             truly
             said
             ,
             That
             one
             and
             the
             same
             Infinite
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
             is
             Father
             ,
             Son
             ,
             and
             Holy
             Ghost
             ,
             (
             I
             mean
             all
             Three
             taken
             together
             )
             and
             it
             cannot
             be
             truly
             said
             ,
             That
             one
             and
             the
             same
             Infinite
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
             is
             three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             ;
             then
             it
             follows
             ,
             that
             Father
             ,
             Son
             ,
             and
             Holy
             Ghost
             are
             not
             three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             .
          
        
         
           "
           But
           it
           may
           be
           truly
           said
           ,
           &c.
           
        
         
           This
           is
           the
           Argument
           .
           In
           the
           Defender's
           Reply
           to
           which
           ,
           these
           Two
           things
           are
           to
           be
           consider'd
           :
           1.
           
           The
           Representation
           he
           makes
           of
           the
           Argument
           ;
           and
           ,
           2.
           
           The
           Answer
           he
           gives
           to
           it
           .
           As
           to
           the
           first
           of
           which
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           That
           
             the
             whole
             of
             the
             Argument
             is
             this
             ,
             That
             One
             Infinite
             Mind
             cannot
             be
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
             nor
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             One
             Infinite
             Mind
             ;
             and
             that
             Three
             Infinite
             Persons
             ,
             who
             are
             One
             Infinite
             Mind
             ,
             cannot
             be
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             :
             p.
          
           93.
           l.
           9.
           
           Now
           supposing
           this
           to
           be
           the
           whole
           Argument
           (
           as
           confusedly
           and
           brokenly
           ,
           according
           to
           his
           known
           Talent
           in
           Logick
           ,
           he
           repeats
           it
           )
           I
           demand
           of
           this
           man
           ,
           which
           of
           all
           these
           Propositions
           he
           can
           charge
           with
           
             Want
             of
             Sence
          
           ?
           Nay
           ,
           I
           confidently
           appeal
           to
           all
           the
           Reason
           and
           
           Common
           Sence
           of
           Mankind
           ,
           whether
           there
           can
           be
           in
           Nature
           a
           clearer
           and
           more
           Self-evident
           Proposition
           than
           this
           ;
           
             That
             one
             and
             the
             same
             Infinite
             Mind
             is
             not
             three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ;
           or
           ,
           (
           as
           even
           this
           Defender
           has
           curtail'd
           it
           )
           
             That
             one
             Infinite
             Mind
             cannot
             be
             three
             Infinite
             Minds
             ?
          
           And
           if
           so
           ,
           let
           the
           Ingenuous
           Reader
           judge
           ,
           whether
           this
           Huff's
           crying
           out
           
             Want
             of
             Sence
          
           could
           proceed
           from
           any
           thing
           but
           extream
           Want
           of
           Shame
           .
           But
           if
           in
           repeating
           the
           Argument
           he
           strips
           it
           of
           its
           proper
           Sence
           ,
           nay
           ,
           and
           of
           its
           principal
           Terms
           ,
           and
           thereby
           makes
           it
           so
           far
           
             his
             own
          
           ,
           surely
           the
           Animadverter
           is
           not
           responsible
           for
           that
           .
           For
           he
           adds
           ,
           
             That
             the
             whole
             force
             of
             his
             Argument
             lies
             in
             the
             meer
             Opposition
             between
          
           Three
           and
           ,
           One
           ,
           
             which
             is
             Childish
             Sophistry
             ;
             p.
          
           93.
           l.
           17.
           
           But
           will
           this
           man
           say
           ,
           That
           these
           two
           Propositions
           [
           
             Three
             cannot
             be
             One
          
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             cannot
             be
             One
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           are
           the
           same
           ?
           For
           ,
           do
           not
           the
           very
           Words
           of
           the
           latter
           Proposition
           declare
           ,
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           founds
           not
           his
           Argument
           upon
           the
           bare
           Numeral
           diversity
           or
           opposition
           ,
           which
           is
           between
           One
           and
           Three
           ,
           but
           upon
           the
           
             peculiar
             Nature
             and
             Condition
          
           of
           the
           Subject
           to
           which
           this
           Numeral
           Difference
           is
           apply'd
           ?
           For
           it
           is
           not
           any
           Instance
           whatsoever
           ,
           but
           only
           this
           particular
           Instance
           of
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
             and
             Minds
          
           ]
           which
           the
           Animadverter
           here
           argues
           from
           .
           And
           certainly
           ,
           there
           is
           a
           vast
           difference
           (
           whether
           this
           man
           perceives
           it
           or
           no
           )
           between
           barely
           saying
           [
           
             That
             Three
             cannot
             be
             One
          
           ]
           and
           [
           
             That
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             cannot
             be
             One
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           :
           For
           ,
           suppose
           a
           man
           should
           say
           ,
           [
           
             That
             three
             Gods
             cannot
             be
             one
             God
             ,
             nor
             one
             God
             three
             Gods
          
           ]
           (
           since
           whatsoever
           may
           be
           said
           or
           deny'd
           of
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           may
           be
           equally
           said
           or
           deny'd
           of
           
           [
           God
           ]
           )
           Will
           this
           man
           now
           say
           ,
           That
           the
           whole
           force
           of
           the
           said
           Propositions
           lyes
           in
           a
           meer
           opposition
           between
           the
           Terms
           [
           Three
           and
           One
           ]
           ?
           And
           consequently
           ,
           that
           all
           that
           can
           be
           concluded
           from
           them
           ,
           is
           but
           
             Childish
             Sophistry
          
           ?
           But
           to
           relieve
           his
           Ignorance
           ,
           and
           to
           correct
           his
           Prophaneness
           ,
           I
           would
           have
           him
           take
           notice
           ,
           that
           the
           force
           of
           the
           Animadverter's
           Argument
           consists
           in
           this
           ,
           That
           he
           argues
           from
           
             an
             Infinite
             Absolute
             Being
          
           ,
           which
           ,
           as
           such
           ,
           and
           in
           the
           very
           Nature
           or
           Essence
           of
           it
           ,
           is
           on
           the
           one
           side
           uncapable
           of
           all
           multiplication
           of
           it self
           ,
           and
           on
           the
           other
           as
           uncapable
           of
           any
           Essential
           Vnity
           or
           Vnion
           upon
           supposal
           of
           such
           a
           multiplication
           .
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           his
           Argument
           manifestly
           rests
           upon
           ,
           and
           not
           upon
           those
           thin
           ,
           pittiful
           Terms
           of
           [
           Three
           and
           One
           ]
           and
           [
           One
           and
           Three
           ]
           .
           And
           therefore
           None
           surely
           would
           have
           dared
           thus
           in
           the
           face
           of
           the
           World
           ,
           and
           even
           in
           spight
           of
           Self-Evidence
           ,
           and
           common
           sense
           it self
           ,
           to
           have
           called
           such
           Propositions
           
             Childish
             Sophistry
          
           ,
           but
           one
           who
           had
           a
           Brow
           of
           Brass
           ,
           and
           a
           Face
           never
           made
           to
           Blush
           .
           But
           to
           pass
           from
           his
           shameless
           representation
           of
           the
           Argument
           to
           his
           senceless
           Answer
           to
           it
           ,
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           
             That
             if
             this
             Proposition
             or
             Rule
             ,
          
           viz.
           
             That
             Three
             cannot
             be
             one
             nor
             one
             Three
             ,
             be
             universally
             True
             ,
             then
             there
             is
             an
             end
             of
             the
             Trinity
             ,
             p.
          
           93.
           l.
           13.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           the
           forementioned
           Proposition
           is
           neither
           
             Vniversally
             True
          
           ,
           nor
           
             Vniversally
             ▪
             False
          
           (
           nor
           ever
           affirmed
           so
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           )
           but
           True
           in
           some
           respects
           ,
           and
           False
           in
           many
           others
           ,
           viz.
           according
           to
           the
           Different
           Nature
           of
           the
           Subjects
           ,
           which
           it
           is
           applied
           to
           .
           As
           for
           instance
           ,
           it
           is
           
             everlastingly
             true
          
           where
           the
           Unity
           and
           Plurality
           is
           
             in
             the
             same
             kind
          
           .
           And
           for
           that
           Reason
           three
           Infinite
           Minds
           can
           
           be
           no
           more
           one
           Infinite
           Mind
           than
           the
           three
           Divine
           Persons
           can
           be
           one
           Person
           ;
           for
           in
           either
           of
           these
           Instances
           the
           Unity
           and
           Diversity
           is
           in
           
             eodem
             genere
             :
             viz.
          
           in
           
             genere
             mentis
          
           in
           the
           former
           ,
           in
           
             genere
             personae
          
           in
           the
           latter
           ;
           and
           consequently
           in
           both
           impossible
           .
           And
           therefore
           ,
           as
           for
           that
           Inference
           ,
           upon
           which
           his
           whole
           answer
           relies
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             if
             it
             be
             no
             Contradiction
             for
             Three
             to
             be
             one
             in
             several
             respects
             ,
             then
             it
             is
             no
             contradiction
             for
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             to
             be
             one
             Mind
             ,
             p.
          
           93.
           l.
           18.
           
           I
           must
           tell
           this
           Anti-Logician
           ,
           That
           he
           concludes
           from
           a
           particular
           Proposition
           instead
           of
           an
           Universal
           ;
           and
           not
           only
           so
           ,
           but
           from
           a
           particular
           Instance
           of
           one
           kind
           to
           a
           particular
           Instance
           of
           another
           :
           His
           Argument
           amounting
           to
           no
           more
           than
           this
           ,
           That
           because
           it
           is
           no
           contradiction
           for
           Three
           to
           be
           one
           upon
           different
           Accounts
           
             in
             some
             Cases
          
           ,
           therefore
           neither
           is
           it
           so
           in
           the
           Case
           of
           
             Three
             Minds
          
           .
           But
           this
           ,
           by
           his
           favour
           will
           never
           follow
           .
           For
           though
           it
           be
           
             no
             contradiction
          
           in
           some
           Instances
           (
           as
           particularly
           in
           that
           of
           three
           Subsistences
           in
           one
           Essence
           ,
           or
           of
           three
           Relations
           or
           respects
           so
           concurring
           in
           any
           one
           thing
           as
           to
           be
           all
           predicable
           of
           it
           )
           yet
           This
           does
           not
           hold
           in
           all
           Instances
           ,
           nor
           in
           
             any
             Indifferently
          
           ,
           nor
           particularly
           in
           this
           of
           three
           Minds
           ;
           For
           as
           much
           as
           no
           respect
           whatsoever
           can
           make
           
             Three
             Minds
          
           to
           be
           essentially
           
             One
             Mind
          
           ,
           nor
           Three
           Spirits
           to
           be
           one
           Spirit
           ,
           nor
           Three
           Substances
           one
           Substance
           ,
           and
           the
           like
           ;
           and
           it
           would
           be
           a
           contradiction
           for
           them
           so
           to
           be
           .
           But
           according
           to
           this
           Author's
           Hypothesis
           ,
           We
           have
           here
           a
           
             Trinity
             and
             Vnity
             of
             Natures
          
           ,
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           
             Three
             distinct
             Natures
             one
             in
             Nature
             ,
             Three
             distinct
             Substances
             one
             in
             Substance
             ,
          
           and
           
             Three
             distinct
             Spirits
             one
             Spirit
          
           ;
           and
           all
           this
           only
           by
           vertue
           of
           several
           Respects
           ;
           whereas
           no
           bare
           diversity
           ,
           
           either
           of
           Respects
           or
           Actions
           ,
           can
           give
           or
           cause
           a
           diversity
           of
           Nature
           or
           Essence
           in
           the
           substances
           they
           belong
           to
           ,
           and
           issue
           from
           ;
           howsoever
           in
           some
           instances
           it
           may
           prove
           or
           infer
           the
           same
           .
           And
           therefore
           ,
           since
           it
           has
           been
           abundantly
           proved
           ,
           That
           the
           Terms
           [
           God
           ]
           and
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           are
           so
           perfectly
           equipollent
           ,
           that
           whatsoever
           may
           be
           affirmed
           ,
           or
           denied
           of
           the
           one
           ,
           must
           be
           equally
           affirmed
           or
           denied
           of
           the
           other
           ,
           I
           challenge
           this
           Author
           to
           give
           the
           World
           a
           solid
           Reason
           ,
           
             Why
             in
          
           different
           respects
           
             Three
             Gods
             may
             not
             be
             one
             God
             ,
             as
             well
             as
             in
             the
             said
          
           respects
           ,
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             may
             be
             one
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ?
           and
           particularly
           why
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
          
           may
           not
           unite
           
             several
             Gods
             into
             one
          
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           
             several
             Infinite
             Minds
             into
             one
          
           ,
           (
           were
           there
           several
           Gods
           to
           be
           so
           united
           )
           ?
           and
           I
           will
           undertake
           to
           prove
           (
           and
           have
           indeed
           more
           than
           sufficiently
           proved
           already
           )
           that
           there
           are
           and
           must
           be
           as
           many
           Gods
           as
           there
           are
           
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           .
           But
           ,
           as
           for
           his
           old
           outworn
           implement
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           which
           is
           the
           only
           Vinculum
           he
           assigns
           ,
           to
           make
           his
           Three
           Infinite
           Minds
           essentially
           one
           ;
           it
           has
           been
           shewn
           ,
           that
           supposing
           it
           (
           as
           this
           Author
           does
           )
           to
           proceed
           from
           Three
           distinct
           Minds
           ,
           it
           cannot
           be
           one
           Act
           ,
           but
           Three
           distinct
           Acts
           ;
           which
           therefore
           can
           never
           make
           
             Three
             Essences
          
           (
           as
           the
           
             Three
             Minds
          
           are
           ,
           from
           which
           the
           said
           Acts
           must
           proceed
           )
           to
           be
           
             essentially
             one
          
           .
           Besides
           ,
           that
           if
           this
           
             mutual
             Consciousness
          
           were
           but
           one
           single
           Act
           ,
           yet
           being
           ,
           as
           such
           ,
           postnate
           to
           the
           Essence
           from
           which
           it
           flows
           ,
           it
           can
           never
           give
           Original
           Unity
           to
           it
           .
           I
           conclude
           therefore
           ,
           That
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           can
           in
           no
           respect
           whatsoever
           be
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           any
           more
           than
           
             Three
             Gods.
          
           For
           This
           very
           Man
           affirms
           ,
           
             in
             Terminis
             ,
             That
             Infinite
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
             is
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             
             or
             Essence
             it self
          
           (
           and
           that
           even
           in
           contradistinction
           to
           any
           of
           the
           Divine
           Attributes
           )
           p.
           94.
           l.
           23.
           
           And
           if
           so
           ,
           then
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             are
             Three
             Divine
             Natures
             or
             Essences
             ,
             and
             Three
             Divine
             Natures
             are
             Three
             Godheads
             ,
             and
             Three
             Godheads
             are
             Three
             Gods
             :
          
           only
           under
           a
           different
           way
           of
           Expression
           .
           All
           which
           is
           so
           very
           plain
           ,
           yea
           so
           flagrantly
           ,
           so
           self-evidently
           plain
           ,
           that
           to
           dispute
           any
           longer
           with
           him
           upon
           this
           subject
           ,
           would
           be
           but
           like
           disputing
           with
           one
           ,
           who
           denies
           that
           the
           Snow
           is
           white
           ,
           or
           that
           there
           is
           any
           such
           Thing
           as
           motion
           ,
           even
           while
           he
           himself
           is
           walking
           about
           the
           Room
           .
           And
           thus
           having
           shook
           in
           pieces
           his
           crazy
           Impertinent
           Answer
           to
           the
           Animadverter's
           Third
           Argument
           ;
           When
           I
           look
           back
           upon
           that
           shrewd
           remark
           of
           his
           ,
           with
           which
           he
           begins
           the
           said
           Answer
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             Logick
             is
             a
             very
             troublesome
             Thing
             when
             Men
             want
             sense
             ,
             p.
          
           93.
           l.
           7.
           
           I
           must
           confess
           ,
           that
           he
           here
           speaks
           like
           a
           Man
           
             who
             understands
             himself
          
           ,
           and
           that
           having
           so
           often
           shewn
           ,
           how
           
             troublesome
             a
             Thing
             Logick
             is
             to
             him
             ,
          
           by
           his
           being
           so
           angry
           with
           it
           ,
           he
           now
           gives
           us
           a
           very
           satisfactory
           Reason
           
             why
             it
             is
             so
          
           ;
           and
           therefore
           in
           requital
           of
           it
           ,
           I
           cannot
           but
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           ,
           if
           Logick
           without
           sense
           be
           so
           troublesome
           ,
           Confidence
           without
           either
           Logi●k
           ,
           or
           Sense
           ,
           or
           Truth
           ,
           or
           Shame
           ,
           or
           so
           much
           as
           Conscience
           of
           what
           one
           says
           or
           denies
           ,
           is
           Intolerable
           .
           And
           so
           I
           am
           at
           length
           come
           to
           the
        
         
           
           Fourth
           and
           concluding
           Argument
           which
           is
           taken
           from
           the
           form
           of
           the
           
             Athanasian
             Creed
          
           ,
           and
           runs
           thus
           .
        
         
           
             Whatsoever
             Attribute
             may
             be
             truly
             predicated
             of
             all
             and
             each
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             in
             the
             Athanasian
             Form
             ,
             so
             belongs
             to
             them
             all
             in
             common
             ,
             that
             it
             can
             belong
             to
             none
             of
             them
             under
             any
             Term
             of
             Distinction
             from
             the
             rest
             .
          
           
           
             But
             the
             Attribute
             [
             
               Infinite
               Mind
               or
               Spirit
            
             ]
             may
             be
             truly
             predicated
             of
             all
             and
             each
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             in
             and
             according
             to
             the
             Athanasian
             Form.
             
          
           
             And
             therefore
             it
             can
             belong
             to
             none
             of
             them
             under
             any
             Term
             of
             distinction
             from
             the
             rest
             .
          
        
         
           And
           what
           has
           our
           Defender
           now
           to
           oppose
           to
           this
           Argument
           ?
           Why
           ,
           first
           ,
           according
           to
           his
           usual
           way
           of
           giving
           a
           dull
           scoff
           ,
           instead
           of
           a
           Rational
           Answer
           ,
           he
           calls
           it
           a
           
             wonderful
             Argument
          
           ;
           and
           I
           confess
           it
           may
           well
           be
           so
           to
           him
           ,
           since
           Wonder
           generally
           springs
           from
           Ignorance
           .
           But
           let
           us
           hear
           what
           the
           Oracle
           says
           ;
           And
           here
           we
           have
           him
           telling
           us
           ,
           
             That
             Infinite
             Mind
             or
             Spirit
             is
             no
             [
             Attribute
             ]
             but
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             or
             Essence
             it self
             ,
             and
             that
             the
             Metaphysical
             Animadverter
             uses
             to
             distinguish
             between
          
           Essence
           and
           Attributes
           
             in
             God
             ,
             Def.
             p.
          
           94.
           l.
           23.
           
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           ,
           the
           
             Metaphysical
             Animadverter
          
           would
           have
           the
           
             Illogical
             Defender
          
           know
           ,
           That
           ,
           what
           Metaphysically
           taken
           is
           properly
           the
           
             Subject
             of
             the
             Divine
             Attributes
          
           ,
           and
           upon
           that
           account
           stands
           distinguished
           from
           them
           (
           as
           the
           Divine
           Essence
           or
           Nature
           so
           taken
           does
           )
           may
           yet
           ,
           Logically
           considered
           ,
           be
           it self
           an
           Attribute
           ,
           as
           it
           obtains
           the
           place
           of
           a
           Predicate
           joined
           with
           a
           Subject
           in
           a
           Proposition
           .
           And
           therefore
           to
           that
           Senceless
           Question
           of
           his
           ,
           
             Is
             God
             an
             Attribute
          
           ?
           I
           Answer
           ,
           that
           in
           a
           Logical
           Sense
           God
           may
           be
           so
           :
           for
           as
           much
           as
           God
           may
           be
           truly
           and
           properly
           predicated
           of
           each
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           .
           And
           I
           would
           have
           this
           poor
           Capechumen
           in
           Logick
           take
           notice
           ,
           that
           whatsoever
           stands
           predicate
           in
           any
           Proposition
           ,
           so
           as
           to
           be
           affirmed
           of
           another
           thing
           ,
           as
           of
           a
           Subject
           ,
           that
           is
           Logically
           an
           Attribute
           .
           And
           therefore
           ,
           though
           the
           Term
           [
           God
           ]
           Metaphysically
           taken
           (
           as
           we
           have
           shewn
           )
           be
           not
           an
           Attribute
           ,
           (
           which
           imports
           
           only
           some
           
             particular
             perfection
          
           of
           the
           Divine
           Nature
           )
           but
           the
           Subject
           of
           all
           such
           Attributes
           ;
           yet
           in
           these
           Propositions
           ,
           
             The
             Father
             is
             God
             ,
             the
             Son
             is
             God
             ,
          
           and
           
             the
             Holy
             Ghost
             is
             God
          
           ,
           it
           is
           a
           
             Logical
             Attritube
          
           in
           every
           one
           of
           them
           ;
           And
           let
           him
           champ
           upon
           this
           ,
           till
           he
           breaks
           his
           Teeth
           upon
           it
           ,
           if
           he
           pleases
           .
           But
           as
           Men
           sometimes
           in
           a
           drunken
           fit
           cry
           out
           
             Fire
             ,
             Fire
          
           ,
           not
           from
           what
           they
           see
           without
           them
           ,
           but
           from
           what
           they
           feel
           within
           :
           So
           this
           Man
           ,
           out
           of
           an
           Internal
           plenitude
           of
           Ignorance
           ,
           cries
           out
           here
           in
           most
           Tragical
           manner
           ,
           
             What
             will
             this
             Animadverter
             make
             of
             God
             at
             last
             ,
             when
             the
             Divine
             Essence
             is
             an
          
           Attribute
           ,
           
             and
             a
             Divine
             Person
             a
             mere
          
           Mode
           ?
           p.
           94.
           l.
           30.
           
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           ,
           as
           it
           has
           been
           sufficiently
           explaiend
           ,
           how
           the
           Animadverter
           makes
           
             the
             Divine
             Essence
          
           concretely
           expressed
           by
           the
           Term
           [
           God
           ]
           an
           Attribute
           ,
           so
           if
           this
           Defender
           will
           say
           further
           ,
           
             That
             he
             makes
             a
             Divine
             Person
             a
             mere
             Mode
          
           ;
           I
           do
           here
           Challenge
           him
           to
           point
           out
           that
           place
           in
           the
           Animadversions
           where
           the
           Animadverter
           says
           so
           .
           He
           has
           indeed
           over
           and
           over
           declared
           (
           and
           that
           without
           shuffling
           from
           his
           words
           to
           his
           meaning
           )
           That
           he
           holds
           
             a
             Divine
             Person
             to
             be
             properly
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             under
             such
             a
             certain
             mode
             of
             Subsistence
             ;
             or
             in
             other
             Terms
             such
             a
             certain
             mode
             of
             Subsistence
             of
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             still
             including
             the
             said
             Nature
             in
             it
             .
          
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           all
           along
           holds
           and
           asserts
           ;
           and
           if
           this
           Man
           calls
           this
           
             the
             making
          
           a
           
             Divine
             Person
             a
             meer
             Mode
          
           (
           as
           it
           is
           a
           gross
           and
           direct
           falshood
           ,
           and
           utterly
           disowned
           by
           his
           Adversary
           )
           so
           ,
           should
           I
           take
           the
           Liberty
           of
           calling
           Things
           by
           their
           own
           proper
           names
           ,
           it
           might
           justly
           entitle
           him
           to
           a
           very
           coarse
           one
           .
        
         
           Now
           the
           Proposition
           from
           first
           to
           last
           ,
           asserted
           by
           
           this
           Author
           is
           this
           ,
           
             
               That
               the
               Three
               Divine
               Persons
               are
               Three
               distinct
               Infinite
               Minds
               or
               Spirits
               ,
            
             which
             the
             Animadverter
             affirmed
             to
             be
             contrary
             to
             the
             Athanasian
             Creed
             (
             as
             he
             shewed
             by
             casting
             it
             into
             the
             same
             Form
             )
             and
             consequently
             ,
             that
             if
             the
             said
             Form
             were
             a
             True
             way
             of
             Reasoning
             concerning
             the
             Divine
             Nature
             and
             Persons
             ,
             This
             Proposition
             ought
             to
             be
             rejected
             as
             utterly
             inconsistent
             with
             it
             .
          
           And
           how
           does
           our
           Author
           counter-argue
           this
           ?
           Why
           ;
           why
           by
           running
           out
           into
           an
           Impertinent
           proof
           ,
           that
           [
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           belongs
           distinctly
           
             to
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             and
             consequently
             may
             be
          
           distinctly
           
             predicated
             of
             each
             of
             them
          
           .
           Both
           which
           are
           as
           easily
           granted
           him
           ,
           as
           they
           can
           be
           alleged
           by
           him
           .
           But
           by
           his
           favour
           ,
           the
           Question
           here
           is
           not
           ,
           Whether
           each
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           be
           
             distinctly
             an
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ,
           but
           whether
           each
           of
           them
           be
           a
           
             distinct
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ,
           which
           this
           Defender
           affirms
           ,
           and
           that
           so
           positively
           ,
           that
           he
           lays
           the
           whole
           stress
           of
           his
           Hypothesis
           upon
           it
           in
           these
           remarkable
           words
           .
           
             That
             if
             every
             Person
             in
             the
             Trinity
             ,
             considered
             as
          
           a
           distinct
           Person
           ,
           
             be
             not
             a
          
           distinct
           Infinite
           and
           Eternal
           Mind
           ,
           
             there
             is
             an
             end
             of
             the
             Dean's
             Notion
             ,
             Def.
             p.
          
           8.
           at
           the
           end
           .
           And
           the
           Animadverter
           on
           the
           other
           side
           ,
           as
           positively
           denies
           
             each
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             to
             be
             a
             distinct
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ;
           or
           that
           the
           Term
           [
           
             Distinct
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ]
           can
           be
           truly
           predicated
           of
           ,
           or
           belong
           to
           any
           of
           the
           Persons
           of
           the
           Blessed
           Trinity
           .
           And
           therefore
           for
           the
           clearing
           of
           this
           matter
           (
           and
           that
           even
           to
           this
           Man's
           Understanding
           ,
           if
           possible
           )
           we
           must
           always
           distinguish
           between
           
             Attributing
             a
          
           Distinct
           Thing
           
             to
             each
             Distinct
             Person
          
           ,
           and
           between
           
             Attributing
             a
             Thing
          
           distinctly
           
             to
             the
             said
             Person
          
           .
           For
           there
           is
           a
           vast
           Difference
           between
           these
           Two
           ;
           and
           yet
           this
           Author
           perpetually
           
           confounds
           them
           ,
           and
           still
           from
           the
           latter
           infers
           the
           former
           :
           which
           is
           a
           manifest
           
             Paralogism
             à
             Dicto
             secundùm
             Quid
             ad
             dictum
             simpliciter
             ,
             viz.
          
           to
           conclude
           absolutely
           a
           diverse
           or
           
             Distinct
             Thing
          
           from
           a
           
             diverse
             or
             distinct
             mode
             of
             a
             Thing
             .
          
           As
           for
           instance
           ,
           Omnipotence
           belongs
           to
           each
           of
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           distinctly
           ,
           but
           that
           does
           not
           prove
           ,
           that
           there
           is
           
             a
             distinct
             Omnipotence
          
           belonging
           to
           each
           of
           them
           ,
           but
           only
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Omnipotence
           belonging
           to
           the
           Three
           Persons
           ,
           
             according
             to
             Three
             distinct
             ways
          
           ;
           and
           what
           I
           have
           said
           of
           Omnipotence
           holds
           equally
           in
           Omniscience
           ,
           or
           Infinite
           Intelligence
           ,
           and
           in
           all
           the
           Essential
           Divine
           Attributes
           besides
           .
           For
           a
           Thing
           's
           belonging
           distinctly
           to
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           ,
           distinctly
           considered
           ,
           imports
           no
           more
           ,
           but
           that
           it
           belongs
           ,
           after
           a
           
             distinct
             manner
          
           ,
           to
           each
           of
           them
           so
           considered
           ,
           which
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Infinite
           Being
           ,
           may
           ,
           without
           any
           multiplication
           of
           it self
           ,
           very
           well
           do
           .
           But
           ,
           says
           our
           Author
           ,
           
             The
             Athanasian
             Form
             does
             not
             forbid
             us
             to
             attribute
             to
             each
             distinct
             Person
             what
             is
          
           common
           
             to
             all
             Three
             ,
             for
             it
             does
             it
             expresly
             ,
             by
             affirming
             ,
             that
             the
             Father
             is
             Vncreate
             ,
             the
             Son
             Vncreate
             ,
             and
             the
             Holy
             Ghost
             Vncreate
             ,
             p.
          
           96.
           l.
           10.
           
           In
           which
           words
           ,
           as
           by
           the
           Term
           [
           Vncreate
           ]
           I
           affirm
           ought
           to
           be
           understood
           an
           
             Vncreate
             Being
             or
             Essence
          
           ;
           So
           I
           readily
           grant
           ,
           that
           Father
           ,
           Son
           ,
           and
           Holy
           Ghost
           ,
           
             distinctly
             considered
          
           ,
           are
           each
           of
           them
           an
           
             Vncreate
             Being
          
           ,
           but
           for
           all
           that
           shall
           never
           grant
           each
           of
           them
           to
           be
           a
           
             distinct
             Vncreate
             Being
          
           ;
           But
           utterly
           deny
           ,
           That
           the
           Father
           is
           a
           
             distinct
             Vncreate
             Being
          
           ,
           the
           Son
           a
           
             distinct
             Vncreate
             Being
          
           ,
           and
           the
           Holy
           Ghost
           a
           
             distinct
             Vncreate
             Being
          
           ;
           as
           being
           all
           of
           them
           Propositions
           absolutely
           false
           ,
           and
           founded
           upon
           this
           perpetual
           Blunder
           ,
           That
           he
           shifts
           the
           Term
           [
           distinct
           ]
           
           from
           the
           Subject
           to
           the
           Predicate
           ;
           still
           arguing
           thus
           ,
           That
           because
           every
           
             distinct
             Person
          
           distinctly
           considered
           is
           an
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ,
           therefore
           every
           such
           Person
           so
           considered
           
             is
             a
             distinct
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           .
           Which
           no
           Logick
           ,
           or
           Rule
           of
           Consequence
           ,
           will
           or
           can
           infer
           .
           And
           therefore
           ,
           whereas
           he
           makes
           the
           Animadverter
           give
           this
           as
           the
           Reason
           of
           the
           Athanasian
           Predication
           ,
           
             That
             what
             is
             common
             to
             all
             Three
             Persons
             does
             not
          
           distinctly
           
             belong
             to
             each
             ,
             Def.
             p.
          
           96.
           l.
           22.
           
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           it
           is
           false
           .
           For
           the
           Animadverter
           affirms
           the
           same
           Nature
           which
           is
           common
           to
           all
           the
           Persons
           ,
           to
           belong
           distinctly
           to
           each
           Person
           :
           but
           nevertheless
           denies
           ,
           That
           ,
           in
           the
           
             same
             respect
          
           in
           which
           it
           is
           common
           to
           all
           ,
           it
           does
           or
           can
           belong
           
             distinctly
             to
             any
             one
          
           .
           For
           it
           belongs
           to
           all
           as
           an
           Essence
           or
           Being
           absolutely
           considered
           ;
           but
           it
           belongs
           distinctly
           to
           each
           Person
           ,
           according
           to
           a
           distinct
           way
           ,
           or
           
             mode
             of
             subsisting
          
           ,
           which
           the
           said
           Being
           or
           Essence
           has
           in
           each
           Person
           :
           and
           consequently
           ,
           since
           the
           same
           Divine
           Essence
           or
           Being
           has
           Three
           Distinct
           ways
           of
           subsisting
           ,
           it
           does
           ,
           according
           to
           each
           of
           them
           ,
           belong
           distinctly
           to
           each
           Person
           ;
           Yet
           still
           (
           as
           I
           said
           before
           )
           not
           as
           a
           
             distinct
             Being
             or
             Essence
          
           in
           any
           Person
           .
           And
           whereas
           this
           Man
           states
           the
           Reason
           of
           the
           Athanasian
           Form
           upon
           this
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Divine
             Perfections
             distinctly
             existing
             in
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             are
             so
             inseparably
             united
             ,
             as
             to
             be
             essentially
             one
             ,
             p.
          
           96.
           l.
           26.
           
           That
           is
           still
           Trumping
           the
           same
           old
           
             Petitio
             Principii
          
           upon
           the
           Reader
           ,
           for
           it
           is
           still
           positively
           denied
           him
           (
           and
           will
           be
           so
           for
           ever
           )
           
             That
             an
             Inseparable
             Vnion
          
           of
           Three
           distinct
           Infinite
           Minds
           (
           were
           such
           an
           Vnion
           possible
           )
           can
           make
           the
           said
           Minds
           essentially
           one
           .
           Since
           it
           is
           not
           so
           much
           as
           possible
           to
           conceive
           them
           to
           be
           Three
           distinct
           Minds
           without
           
           conceiving
           them
           also
           to
           be
           Three
           particular
           distinct
           Essences
           ,
           and
           surely
           Three
           distinct
           Essences
           can
           never
           be
           essentially
           one
           .
           Besides
           ,
           That
           he
           has
           been
           told
           ,
           That
           no
           Substances
           can
           be
           so
           Vnited
           ,
           as
           to
           be
           
             Inseparable
             by
             God's
             absolute
             Power
          
           ;
           And
           therefore
           as
           for
           that
           precarious
           Conclusion
           ,
           in
           which
           he
           says
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Dean
             has
             not
             transgressed
             the
             Athanasian
             Form
             ,
             by
             asserting
          
           Three
           distinct
           Infinite
           Minds
           ,
           
             if
             we
             understand
             by
             them
          
           Three
           Infinite
           Intelligent
           Persons
           ,
           p.
           97.
           l.
           8.
           
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           since
           it
           is
           impossibble
           for
           Three
           
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           (
           which
           by
           their
           very
           Essence
           are
           Three
           
             Absolute
             Beings
          
           )
           to
           be
           Three
           
             Relative
             Subsistences
          
           of
           one
           and
           the
           same
           Infinite
           Mind
           included
           in
           all
           and
           each
           of
           them
           ,
           (
           which
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           are
           )
           it
           is
           evident
           ,
           that
           he
           has
           transgressed
           ,
           and
           (
           as
           much
           as
           in
           him
           lay
           )
           overthrown
           the
           Athanasian
           Form
           ,
           and
           that
           it
           is
           impossible
           for
           all
           the
           Wit
           of
           Man
           to
           reconcile
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           to
           the
           said
           Form.
           Besides
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           manifest
           ,
           that
           notwithstanding
           ,
           he
           says
           ,
           
             That
             by
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
             he
             means
             Three
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
             ,
          
           he
           yet
           discourses
           of
           them
           all
           along
           so
           ,
           that
           
             Vice
             versâ
          
           ,
           it
           is
           evident
           ,
           that
           by
           these
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
          
           ,
           he
           means
           no
           other
           than
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           :
           For
           if
           each
           of
           these
           Infinite
           Intelligent
           Persons
           be
           a
           
             distinct
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           (
           as
           this
           Author
           has
           positively
           affirmed
           )
           I
           leave
           it
           to
           the
           Judgment
           of
           any
           one
           who
           
             can
             tell
             Three
          
           ,
           whether
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Intelligent
             Persons
          
           be
           not
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ;
           so
           that
           he
           is
           still
           but
           where
           he
           was
           ,
           and
           all
           that
           he
           has
           said
           is
           nothing
           but
           dodging
           and
           shewing
           Tricks
           .
           In
           fine
           ,
           it
           is
           extreamly
           in
           vain
           to
           dispute
           any
           longer
           wi●●
           a
           Man
           who
           has
           not
           a
           clear
           or
           True
           Conception
           of
           any
           one
           Thing
           or
           Term
           belonging
           
           to
           the
           subject
           here
           disputed
           upon
           ;
           and
           therefore
           I
           shall
           add
           no
           more
           upon
           this
           Argument
           ,
           but
           shut
           up
           all
           with
           the
           following
           passage
           out
           of
           the
           first
           of
           those
           two
           Latine
           Tracts
           inserted
           into
           the
           second
           Tome
           of
           
           Athanasius's
           Works
           ,
           and
           Entituled
           
             de
             unitâ
             Deitate
             Trinitatis
             ad
             Theophilum
             ,
             p.
          
           551.
           
           
             Colon.
             Edit
          
           .
           
             Cur
             Pater
             Spiritus
             dicitur
             ,
             &
             Filius
             Spiritus
             nuncupatur
             ,
             &
             Spiritus
             Sanctus
             Spiritus
             appellatur
             ?
             Ad
             haec
             respondetur
             ,
             An
             Ignoras
             ,
             quia
             Pater
             unus
             Deus
             est
             ,
             Filius
             unus
             Deus
             ,
             &
             Spiritus
             Sanctus
             Vnus
             Deus
             est
             ,
             dum
             unitum
             nomen
             sit
             in
             Naturâ
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             ;
             Sic
             &
             Vnus
             Spiritus
             est
             ,
             quia
             unita
             est
             Dei●as
             eorum
             ?
             Nam
             si
             Tu
             per
             singula
             Nomina
             Personarum
             Vnitum
             Nomen
             
               Spiritus
               ter
            
             designâsti
             ,
             nunquid
             
               Tres
               Spiritus
            
             dicere
             oportebat
             ?
             Absit
             .
          
           Which
           Testimony
           I
           think
           as
           plain
           and
           full
           against
           this
           Author's
           
             Three
             Spirits
          
           or
           Minds
           ,
           as
           words
           can
           well
           express
           a
           Thing
           .
           The
           Author
           (
           whosoever
           he
           was
           )
           seems
           to
           have
           lived
           since
           the
           Eutychian
           Heresy
           ,
           and
           may
           be
           placed
           about
           the
           seventh
           Century
           .
        
         
           And
           so
           I
           take
           my
           leave
           of
           the
           Dean's
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             ,
             Spirits
             ,
          
           or
           Substances
           ,
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           of
           
             his
             Three
             Gods
          
           ;
           and
           having
           done
           this
           ,
           methinks
           I
           see
           him
           go
           whimpering
           away
           ,
           with
           his
           Finger
           in
           his
           Eye
           ,
           and
           that
           Complaint
           of
           Micah
           in
           his
           Mouth
           ,
           Iudg.
           18.24
           .
           
             Ye
             have
             taken
             away
             my
             Gods
             which
             I
             made
             ,
             and
             what
             have
             I
             more
             ?
          
           Though
           ,
           I
           must
           confess
           ,
           I
           cannot
           tell
           ,
           why
           he
           should
           be
           so
           fond
           of
           them
           ,
           since
           I
           dare
           undertake
           ,
           that
           he
           will
           never
           be
           able
           to
           bring
           the
           Christian
           World
           either
           to
           believe
           in
           ,
           or
           to
           Worship
           a
           
             Trinity
             of
             Gods
          
           :
           nor
           do
           I
           see
           what
           use
           they
           are
           like
           to
           be
           of
           ,
           even
           to
           himself
           ,
           unless
           peradventure
           
             to
             swear
             by
          
           .
        
         
           And
           so
           I
           have
           examined
           and
           gone
           over
           all
           this
           Author's
           
           Exceptions
           against
           the
           Animadverter's
           Arguments
           ,
           and
           that
           with
           all
           the
           Particularity
           and
           Impartiality
           that
           it
           was
           possible
           to
           examine
           any
           Writing
           with
           ;
           and
           upon
           a
           survey
           of
           what
           has
           been
           said
           on
           either
           side
           ,
           I
           cannot
           perceive
           ,
           but
           that
           the
           Animadverter's
           Arguments
           stand
           just
           as
           they
           did
           before
           ;
           unless
           possibly
           something
           firmer
           ,
           for
           this
           Author's
           attempts
           to
           shake
           them
           .
           For
           ,
           upon
           the
           whole
           matter
           ,
           I
           must
           profess
           ,
           that
           I
           never
           met
           with
           a
           weaker
           ,
           and
           a
           lamer
           defence
           of
           any
           Hypothesis
           whatsoever
           .
           But
           he
           threatens
           the
           Animadverter
           with
           
             an
             Answer
             to
             the
             Testimonies
             alleged
             by
             him
             out
             of
             the
             Fathers
             ,
             and
             others
             ,
             Def.
             p.
          
           97.
           l.
           18.
           
           And
           I
           have
           heard
           that
           learned
           Person
           mentioned
           ,
           who
           is
           generally
           supposed
           to
           be
           imployed
           by
           this
           Author
           to
           do
           that
           for
           him
           ,
           which
           he
           cannot
           do
           for
           himself
           ;
           though
           I
           reckon
           him
           to
           be
           one
           of
           too
           much
           Judgment
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           Learning
           ,
           to
           appear
           in
           the
           World
           ,
           both
           as
           
             Veterum
             Vindicator
          
           ,
           and
           
             Novatorum
             Vindicator
          
           too
           .
        
         
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           ,
           as
           for
           those
           Blasphemous
           Passages
           extracted
           out
           of
           this
           Author's
           Book
           of
           the
           
             Knowledge
             of
             Iesus
             Christ
          
           ,
           and
           charged
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           upon
           him
           in
           his
           Preface
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           continues
           and
           persists
           in
           the
           same
           charge
           still
           ;
           nor
           does
           he
           find
           ,
           that
           this
           Author
           has
           at
           all
           cleared
           himself
           from
           it
           ,
           in
           
             the
             Defence
             of
             that
             Book
          
           here
           mentioned
           by
           him
           ;
           p.
           98.
           
           Nor
           are
           the
           said
           lewd
           Passages
           (
           as
           he
           pretends
           )
           proposed
           there
           by
           him
           as
           
             Objections
             to
             be
             answered
          
           ,
           but
           as
           his
           own
           vile
           Descants
           upon
           the
           received
           Doctrine
           of
           the
           Church
           ,
           about
           some
           of
           the
           most
           important
           Points
           of
           Christianity
           .
           Besides
           ,
           that
           what
           is
           said
           ,
           in
           the
           Preface
           ,
           upon
           this
           subject
           ,
           makes
           but
           a
           small
           part
           of
           the
           said
           Preface
           ▪
           so
           that
           if
           he
           should
           attempt
           to
           answer
           
           it
           (
           which
           he
           has
           
             too
             much
             Wit
             in
             his
             Anger
             ,
          
           to
           do
           )
           it
           would
           be
           but
           like
           this
           pittiful
           little
           scrap
           of
           an
           Answer
           published
           by
           him
           against
           the
           Animadversions
           themselves
           .
           But
           still
           ,
           after
           all
           ,
           the
           Blasphemies
           there
           placed
           to
           his
           Account
           are
           so
           very
           foul
           and
           flagrant
           ,
           that
           none
           but
           he
           ,
           who
           uttered
           them
           ,
           can
           pretend
           to
           defend
           them
           :
           and
           the
           whole
           Plea
           ,
           which
           he
           or
           any
           of
           his
           Partisans
           ,
           ever
           yet
           did
           or
           could
           pretend
           to
           make
           for
           them
           ,
           was
           that
           he
           uttered
           them
           in
           the
           Person
           of
           Dr.
           Owen
           ,
           and
           as
           the
           Results
           of
           his
           Opinion
           .
           But
           since
           he
           could
           never
           so
           much
           as
           pretend
           them
           to
           be
           Dr.
           
           Owen's
           words
           ,
           nor
           yet
           prove
           them
           to
           be
           the
           certain
           consequent
           of
           his
           Assertions
           ,
           the
           Blasphemy
           is
           ,
           and
           must
           be
           his
           ,
           who
           formed
           and
           uttered
           those
           Diabolical
           Expressions
           .
           For
           suppose
           a
           Mahumetan
           should
           single
           out
           some
           passages
           of
           St.
           
           Paul's
           Epistles
           ,
           and
           descant
           upon
           them
           ,
           and
           affix
           an
           impious
           and
           Blasphemous
           sense
           to
           them
           ,
           and
           being
           reproved
           for
           his
           Blasphemy
           and
           Impiety
           ,
           should
           allege
           in
           his
           Defence
           ,
           
             That
             he
             spoke
             them
             in
             St.
             Paul's
             Person
             ,
          
           and
           as
           the
           genuine
           Result
           of
           St.
           
           Paul's
           Writings
           ,
           I
           desire
           to
           know
           of
           this
           Man
           and
           his
           absurd
           Favourers
           ,
           whether
           the
           Charge
           of
           Blasphemy
           ought
           to
           lye
           against
           St.
           Paul
           ,
           or
           against
           the
           Mahumetan
           ?
           The
           Case
           is
           exactly
           the
           same
           as
           to
           the
           Thing
           it self
           ;
           abating
           for
           the
           Disparity
           of
           the
           Persons
           ,
           viz.
           of
           an
           Inspired
           Apostle
           ,
           and
           of
           any
           the
           most
           Learned
           Modern
           Doctor
           whatsoever
           .
           And
           therefore
           I
           do
           here
           charge
           him
           afresh
           as
           guilty
           of
           all
           those
           Blasphemies
           set
           down
           in
           that
           Preface
           ,
           nor
           has
           he
           in
           the
           Defence
           of
           that
           wretched
           Book
           answered
           any
           one
           of
           them
           ,
           saving
           that
           at
           the
           latter
           end
           of
           it
           ,
           
             viz.
             p.
          
           529.
           l.
           14.
           
             of
             his
             Defence
             of
             the
             Discourse
             concerning
             the
             Knowledge
             of
             Iesus
             Christ
             ,
          
           he
           seems
           to
           knock
           under
           
           Board
           ,
           and
           to
           own
           that
           there
           is
           an
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           due
           to
           the
           discoursing
           of
           Things
           Sacred
           ,
           be
           the
           Case
           what
           it
           will
           :
           Which
           Apology
           declares
           ,
           that
           ,
           even
           by
           his
           own
           Confession
           ,
           he
           had
           treated
           of
           these
           Things
           in
           a
           most
           scandalous
           unbecoming
           manner
           ;
           as
           in
           truth
           he
           did
           ,
           and
           not
           only
           so
           ,
           but
           (
           whosoever
           set
           him
           upon
           it
           )
           in
           a
           most
           Profane
           ,
           and
           Devillish
           way
           too
           :
           So
           that
           whereas
           he
           here
           says
           ,
           
             That
             he
             had
             by
             that
             answer
             silenced
             his
             Adversaries
             ,
             so
             that
             he
             heard
             from
             them
             no
             more
             ,
             Def.
             p.
          
           94.
           l.
           24.
           
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           some
           silence
           their
           Adversaries
           ,
           because
           they
           
             cannot
             be
             answered
          
           by
           them
           ,
           and
           some
           because
           they
           are
           not
           thought
           
             worth
             the
             answering
          
           ;
           which
           was
           this
           Author's
           Case
           here
           .
           For
           his
           Adversaries
           (
           as
           inconsiderable
           as
           they
           were
           )
           having
           effectually
           baffled
           and
           overthrown
           his
           whole
           Book
           ,
           and
           broken
           the
           strength
           and
           sinews
           of
           it
           (
           if
           it
           had
           any
           )
           ,
           little
           concerned
           themselves
           at
           any
           Insignificant
           Replies
           ,
           he
           did
           or
           could
           afterwards
           make
           ,
           though
           never
           so
           many
           ;
           but
           were
           willing
           to
           let
           him
           have
           
             the
             last
             word
          
           ;
           considering
           ,
           that
           ,
           as
           
             Rector
             of
             Billingsgate
          
           at
           that
           time
           ,
           he
           might
           claim
           it
           by
           his
           place
           .
        
         
           But
           the
           following
           Instruction
           to
           his
           Friend
           is
           certainly
           very
           diverting
           ,
           
             Def.
             p.
          
           98.
           at
           the
           end
           ,
           in
           these
           words
           ,
           
             Where
             the
             Animadverter
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             charges
             the
             Dean
             with
             Absurdities
             and
             Contradictions
             ,
             turn
             to
             the
             place
             ,
             and
             read
             it
             with
             it
             's
             context
             ,
             and
             tell
             me
             what
             you
             cannot
             answer
             ,
             and
             I
             will
             :
          
           to
           which
           he
           should
           have
           done
           well
           to
           have
           added
           ,
           
             If
             I
             can
          
           .
           But
           the
           whole
           Passage
           is
           just
           as
           if
           he
           had
           said
           ,
           Sir
           ,
           If
           you
           find
           not
           Absurdities
           and
           Contradictions
           enough
           in
           my
           Book
           to
           satisfy
           your
           Curiosity
           that
           way
           ,
           pray
           come
           to
           the
           Fountain
           Head
           ,
           and
           consult
           me
           ,
           and
           you
           shall
           be
           
           sure
           of
           a
           more
           plentiful
           supply
           .
           But
           he
           goes
           on
           .
           
             If
             you
             or
             any
             Body
             else
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             can
             be
             perswaded
             by
             the
             Animadverter
             ,
             that
             the
             Dean
             understands
             neither
             English
             ,
             Latin
             or
             Greek
             ,
          
           Logicks
           ,
           Metaphysicks
           ,
           &c.
           
           
             I
             need
             wish
             you
             no
             other
             punishment
             ,
             than
             ,
             when
             ever
             you
             write
             ,
             to
             fall
             into
             the
             hands
             of
             such
             an
             Adversary
             ,
             p.
          
           99.
           l.
           1.
           
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           I
           am
           bid
           only
           to
           tell
           him
           ,
           that
           touching
           his
           Qualifications
           as
           to
           the
           forementioned
           respects
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           is
           perfectly
           of
           the
           same
           mind
           which
           he
           was
           of
           ,
           when
           he
           wrote
           the
           ninth
           and
           tenth
           Chapters
           of
           the
           Animadversions
           ;
           but
           thinks
           it
           not
           worth
           his
           while
           to
           use
           many
           Arguments
           to
           perswade
           the
           Reader
           to
           be
           of
           the
           same
           opinion
           ,
           but
           only
           refers
           him
           to
           two
           Irrefragable
           ones
           ,
           
             viz.
             his
             own
             two
             Eyes
          
           to
           convince
           him
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           it
           may
           be
           some
           diversion
           to
           him
           to
           observe
           how
           ,
           that
           because
           most
           Parts
           of
           Philosophy
           ,
           
             viz.
             Physicks
             ,
             Metaphysicks
             ,
             Mathematicks
             ,
             Ethicks
             ,
             Politicks
             ,
          
           &c.
           are
           always
           expressed
           plurally
           ,
           therefore
           this
           Author
           very
           wisely
           expresses
           Logick
           so
           too
           ,
           calling
           it
           
             Logicks
             ,
             Def.
             p.
          
           99.
           l.
           3.
           which
           I
           dare
           say
           no
           Scholar
           ever
           called
           so
           before
           ;
           and
           in
           my
           poor
           Judgment
           he
           might
           have
           forborn
           to
           speak
           of
           Logicks
           in
           the
           Plural
           ,
           till
           he
           had
           better
           understood
           one
           .
           But
           't
           is
           evident
           that
           he
           knew
           no
           better
           ,
           and
           we
           must
           not
           expect
           that
           any
           one
           should
           speak
           better
           than
           he
           knows
           .
           But
           since
           he
           is
           such
           a
           
             grand
             Exemplar
          
           of
           Pride
           and
           Disdain
           towards
           all
           whom
           he
           ever
           wrote
           against
           ;
           that
           he
           may
           not
           however
           lie
           too
           open
           to
           them
           ,
           when
           they
           turn
           upon
           him
           again
           (
           as
           ,
           in
           all
           likelyhood
           ,
           the
           way
           being
           now
           opened
           to
           them
           ,
           they
           will
           )
           I
           would
           advise
           him
           in
           time
           (
           though
           I
           confess
           it
           is
           something
           with
           the
           latest
           )
           to
           procure
           himself
           some
           good
           honest
           Systems
           in
           all
           the
           forementioned
           sorts
           of
           
           Learning
           (
           adding
           (
           to
           use
           his
           own
           Dialect
           )
           Grammaticks
           withal
           ;
           )
           since
           I
           would
           not
           direct
           him
           to
           Books
           too
           much
           above
           his
           reach
           at
           first
           .
           And
           when
           he
           has
           once
           got
           them
           about
           him
           ,
           I
           would
           have
           him
           ply
           them
           hard
           ,
           assuring
           himself
           (
           which
           all
           know
           ,
           though
           scarce
           any
           one
           is
           so
           much
           his
           Friend
           as
           to
           tell
           him
           so
           )
           that
           he
           has
           a
           great
           deal
           more
           need
           of
           studying
           ,
           than
           the
           World
           has
           or
           can
           have
           of
           his
           Writing
           .
           Nevertheless
           ,
           if
           Writing
           be
           so
           absolutely
           Necessary
           to
           him
           ,
           that
           his
           health
           requires
           it
           ,
           and
           that
           Nature
           cannot
           be
           at
           ease
           ,
           nor
           enjoy
           it self
           ,
           unless
           the
           Scripturient
           humour
           has
           sometimes
           vent
           by
           throwing
           it self
           off
           into
           Paper
           ;
           let
           him
           ,
           at
           least
           ,
           make
           choice
           of
           proper
           Subjects
           ,
           and
           forbearing
           all
           Controversial
           Discourses
           about
           
             Christ's
             Satisfaction
             ,
             God's
             punitive
             Iustice
             ,
          
           and
           
             the
             Trinity
          
           (
           which
           he
           was
           never
           cut
           out
           for
           )
           let
           him
           rather
           jog
           on
           in
           the
           old
           beaten
           Track
           of
           
             Church
             Communion
          
           ,
           and
           of
           Death
           and
           Iudgment
           ,
           and
           upon
           these
           and
           such
           like
           heads
           ,
           (
           the
           Two
           last
           especially
           )
           he
           may
           continue
           on
           ,
           Writing
           and
           Printing
           ,
           and
           Printing
           and
           Writing
           (
           and
           the
           World
           never
           the
           wiser
           for
           either
           )
           even
           till
           his
           Subject
           overtakes
           him
           .
        
         
           I
           have
           now
           gone
           through
           his
           whole
           Defence
           ,
           and
           having
           done
           so
           ,
           cannot
           but
           think
           it
           very
           proper
           ,
           and
           equally
           for
           the
           Reader
           's
           Satisfaction
           ,
           to
           lay
           before
           him
           a
           Brief
           Scheme
           or
           Analysis
           of
           it
           ,
           together
           with
           those
           pittiful
           mean
           ways
           and
           methods
           by
           which
           (
           with
           much
           ado
           )
           it
           has
           been
           patched
           up
           and
           put
           together
           ;
           that
           so
           he
           may
           see
           what
           a
           kind
           of
           Antagonist
           the
           Animadverter
           has
           had
           to
           deal
           with
           ,
           and
           that
           in
           these
           following
           Particulars
           .
           As
        
         
           First
           ,
           That
           (
           for
           the
           better
           salving
           of
           his
           Credit
           )
           he
           imposes
           his
           Book
           upon
           the
           World
           ,
           under
           the
           specious
           
           but
           false
           Title
           of
           an
           
             Answer
             to
             the
             Animadversions
          
           ;
           whereas
           it
           is
           but
           a
           very
           small
           Part
           of
           that
           Discourse
           which
           he
           attempts
           to
           answer
           ,
           passing
           over
           the
           main
           body
           of
           it
           ,
           without
           answering
           ,
           examining
           ,
           or
           so
           much
           as
           medling
           with
           it
           at
           all
           .
        
         
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           he
           boldly
           and
           positively
           denies
           several
           Things
           in
           this
           Book
           ,
           which
           he
           had
           as
           positively
           affirmed
           before
           .
           For
           which
           ,
           compare
           what
           he
           had
           said
           of
           the
           Term
           [
           Substance
           ]
           in
           his
           Vindication
           ,
           with
           what
           he
           says
           of
           it
           in
           this
           his
           Defense
           .
           In
           the
           former
           he
           explodes
           it
           from
           all
           our
           Discourses
           of
           God
           ;
           for
           that
           ,
           as
           he
           affirms
           ,
           the
           Mind
           of
           Man
           cannot
           form
           any
           conception
           of
           Substance
           ,
           either
           
             without
             matter
          
           ,
           or
           
             without
             a
             Beginning
          
           ,
           (
           upon
           which
           score
           I
           am
           sure
           it
           cannot
           be
           applicable
           to
           God
           )
           
             Vind.
             p.
          
           69.
           l.
           1.
           and
           70.
           l.
           7.
           and
           yet
           here
           in
           this
           Book
           he
           allows
           of
           it
           in
           our
           Discourses
           of
           God
           as
           a
           Term
           not
           only
           
             very
             Good
          
           ,
           but
           Vseful
           and
           
             Necessary
             ,
             Def.
             p.
          
           3.
           l.
           27.
           which
           two
           let
           the
           Reason
           of
           all
           Mankind
           reconcile
           ,
           if
           it
           can
           .
           Likewise
           for
           [
           Subsistence
           ]
           compare
           what
           he
           says
           for
           the
           utter
           rejection
           of
           this
           Term
           from
           all
           discourses
           about
           the
           Trinity
           ,
           
             Vind.
             p.
          
           138.
           line
           the
           last
           ,
           and
           139.
           line
           the
           first
           ,
           with
           what
           he
           says
           in
           behalf
           of
           it
           in
           this
           
             Defense
             ,
             p.
          
           25.
           l.
           13.
           affirming
           ,
           that
           
             there
             could
             not
             be
             a
             more
             proper
             word
             used
             to
             express
             an
             Vnity
             in
             Trinity
             by
          
           :
           But
           all
           Instances
           of
           this
           kind
           falling
           under
           the
           Head
           of
           Self-Contradiction
           ,
           I
           pretend
           not
           to
           Arithmetick
           enough
           to
           number
           them
           .
        
         
           Thirdly
           ,
           That
           when
           he
           finds
           himself
           overborn
           by
           an
           Argument
           ,
           he
           flyes
           off
           ,
           and
           quite
           alters
           the
           state
           of
           the
           Question
           ,
           and
           in
           the
           Room
           of
           that
           Term
           which
           he
           finds
           indefensible
           ,
           he
           presently
           substitutes
           another
           .
           As
           instead
           of
           the
           Act
           of
           Self-Consciousness
           ,
           
           which
           he
           had
           so
           frequently
           ,
           and
           so
           expressly
           made
           use
           of
           ,
           and
           insisted
           upon
           ,
           he
           puts
           the
           principle
           of
           the
           said
           Act
           ,
           
             Def.
             p.
          
           39.
           l.
           15.
           
        
         
           Fourthly
           ,
           That
           he
           takes
           shelter
           in
           several
           fallacious
           expressions
           ,
           which
           being
           once
           stripped
           of
           their
           Ambiguity
           by
           distinctions
           duly
           applyed
           ,
           leave
           the
           Thing
           ,
           they
           would
           prove
           ,
           in
           the
           lurch
           ,
           and
           vanish
           into
           Nothing
           ;
           such
           as
           for
           instance
           ,
           amongst
           many
           others
           ,
           is
           his
           insisting
           upon
           a
           
             substantial
             Trinity
          
           in
           opposition
           to
           such
           a
           one
           ,
           as
           admits
           of
           no
           greater
           than
           a
           
             Modal
             distinction
          
           between
           the
           Divine
           Persons
           :
           by
           which
           ,
           if
           he
           means
           ,
           That
           the
           said
           Three
           Persons
           ,
           are
           
             Three
             distinct
             Substances
          
           ,
           it
           is
           false
           ,
           but
           if
           he
           means
           that
           they
           are
           Three
           
             Substantial
             Persons
          
           ,
           so
           called
           from
           one
           and
           the
           same
           
             Infinite
             Substance
          
           common
           to
           them
           all
           ,
           and
           
             subsisting
             differently
          
           in
           each
           of
           them
           ,
           it
           is
           True
           ,
           and
           every
           one
           grants
           such
           a
           
             Substantial
             Trinity
          
           ;
           but
           this
           makes
           nothing
           at
           all
           for
           his
           Hypothesis
           :
           the
           Argument
           resting
           wholly
           upon
           the
           Ambiguity
           of
           the
           Term
           Substantial
           .
        
         
           Fifthly
           ,
           That
           finding
           some
           of
           the
           chief
           Notions
           ,
           which
           he
           built
           his
           whole
           Hypothesis
           upon
           ,
           quite
           baffl'd
           ,
           and
           by
           none
           of
           his
           palliating
           Tricks
           to
           be
           justified
           ,
           he
           fairly
           quits
           and
           gives
           them
           up
           ,
           and
           thereby
           (
           whether
           he
           will
           or
           no
           )
           absolutely
           yields
           the
           Point
           in
           debate
           to
           his
           Adversary
           .
           See
           this
           grosly
           exemplified
           in
           his
           Notion
           of
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
          
           (
           which
           frequently
           comes
           in
           my
           way
           )
           made
           by
           him
           at
           first
           the
           Reason
           of
           the
           
             Essential
             Vnity
          
           of
           the
           
             Divine
             Persons
          
           ,
           and
           afterwards
           allow'd
           by
           him
           to
           be
           no
           more
           than
           the
           Result
           and
           Consequent
           of
           the
           said
           Unity
           .
           
             Defence
             ,
             p.
          
           75.
           l.
           20.
           
        
         
           Sixthly
           ,
           That
           when
           he
           is
           nonplus'd
           in
           any
           Proposition
           
           taken
           and
           understood
           according
           to
           the
           universally
           receiv'd
           sense
           of
           the
           Words
           of
           it
           ,
           he
           presently
           strikes
           off
           from
           thence
           to
           his
           Meaning
           ,
           and
           tells
           the
           Reader
           ,
           That
           he
           ,
           for
           his
           part
           ,
           means
           quite
           another
           thing
           by
           it
           .
           See
           his
           
             Def.
             p.
          
           81.
           l.
           28.
           
        
         
           These
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           are
           some
           of
           those
           Arts
           and
           Shifts
           with
           which
           he
           all-along
           encounters
           the
           Animadverter
           ;
           but
           Shifts
           ,
           by
           his
           Favour
           ,
           will
           neither
           pass
           for
           Arguments
           ,
           nor
           yet
           for
           Answers
           to
           them
           ,
           any
           more
           than
           
             Shuffling
             the
             Cards
          
           can
           be
           reckon'd
           
             Winning
             the
             Game
          
           .
           But
           because
           his
           chief
           Engine
           of
           all
           ,
           and
           which
           he
           makes
           most
           use
           of
           ,
           is
           his
           frequent
           allegation
           of
           his
           Meaning
           ,
           in
           opposition
           to
           his
           plain
           express
           Assertions
           ,
           I
           think
           it
           not
           amiss
           to
           illustrate
           it
           by
           some
           Examples
           .
        
         
           Thus
           for
           instance
           .
        
         
           1.
           
           When
           he
           says
           ,
           That
           
             we
             know
             the
             Nature
             of
             a
             Body
             ,
             Vind.
             p.
          
           4.
           l.
           25.
           his
           
             Meaning
             is
          
           ,
           that
           
             we
             know
             the
             Nature
             of
             Nothing
             in
             the
             World.
          
           Vindic.
           p.
           7.
           l.
           19.
           
        
         
           2.
           
           When
           he
           says
           ,
           That
           
             a
             Person
             and
             an
             Intelligent
             Substance
             are
             reciprocal
             Terms
             ,
          
           Vind.
           p.
           69.
           l.
           18.
           his
           Meaning
           is
           ,
           That
           
             a
             Beast
             or
             Brute
             ,
             which
             is
             not
             an
          
           Intelligent
           
             Being
             ,
             is
             and
             may
             be
             called
             a
             Person
             .
          
           Vindic.
           p.
           262.
           l.
           18.
           
        
         
           3.
           
           When
           he
           says
           ,
           That
           Susistence
           (
           and
           the
           like
           Terms
           reckon'd
           up
           by
           him
           )
           
             serve
             only
             to
             perplex
             and
             confound
             Mens
             Notions
             about
             the
             Trinity
          
           ;
           Vindic.
           p.
           138.
           l
           :
           the
           last
           ,
           &
           139.
           l.
           1.
           his
           Shameless
           Meaning
           (
           as
           we
           have
           shewn
           )
           p.
           25.
           l.
           13.
           of
           his
           Def.
           is
           ,
           That
           
             there
             could
             not
             have
             been
             a
             more
             proper
             Word
             thought
             on
             to
             represent
             the
             Trinity
             by
             ,
             than
          
           Three
           Subsistences
           in
           One
           Individual
           Nature
           .
        
         
         
           4.
           
           When
           he
           says
           ,
           
             A
             Trinity
             in
             Vnity
             is
             a
             Venerable
             Mystery
             ,
          
           and
           that
           
             there
             may
             be
             a
             great
             deal
             more
             in
             it
             ,
             than
             we
             can
             Fathom
             ,
          
           Vind.
           p.
           86.
           l.
           1
           ,
           2.
           his
           Meaning
           is
           ,
           That
           
             it
             is
             a
             plain
             ,
             easie
             ,
             and
             intelligible
             Notion
             ,
          
           (
           as
           explain'd
           by
           him
           )
           
             and
             such
             as
             gives
             a
          
           plain
           solution
           
             of
             all
             the
          
           Difficulties
           
             and
             seeming
             Contradictions
             in
             the
             Doctrine
             of
             the
             said
             Article
             .
          
           Vind.
           p.
           66.
           l.
           2
           ,
           3.
           
        
         
           5.
           
           When
           he
           professes
           to
           explain
           the
           
             Mysterious
             Vnion
             between
             the
             Eternal
             Father
             and
             the
             Son
             by
             the
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
             ,
          
           as
           the
           best
           way
           of
           explaining
           it
           ,
           
             Def.
             p.
          
           6.
           l.
           22.
           his
           Meaning
           in
           the
           same
           Def.
           from
           p.
           19.
           to
           p.
           35.
           is
           ,
           That
           the
           said
           
             Mysterious
             Vnion
          
           is
           best
           explain'd
           
             by
             a
             Man
          
           ,
           and
           his
           
             Living
             Image
          
           :
           though
           neither
           of
           them
           is
           a
           Spirit
           .
           And
           I
           suppose
           that
           that
           which
           is
           not
           a
           Spirit
           can
           neither
           have
           the
           
             Vnity
             of
             a
             Spirit
          
           belonging
           to
           it
           .
        
         
           6.
           
           When
           he
           makes
           
             Self-Consciousness
             the
             Reason
             of
             Personality
             ,
             Personal
             Vnity
             and
             Distinction
             in
             each
             of
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
          
           and
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             the
             Reason
             of
             their
             Essential
             Vnity
             ,
          
           (
           as
           we
           have
           shewn
           he
           does
           )
           his
           Meaning
           is
           ,
           That
           Self-Consciousness
           and
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             do
             only
             suppose
             ,
             result
             from
             ,
             Prove
          
           and
           
             inferr
             the
             said
             Distinction
          
           upon
           the
           former
           account
           ,
           and
           the
           said
           Vnity
           upon
           the
           latter
           .
           That
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           When
           he
           speaks
           of
           a
           Cause
           or
           Antecedent
           ,
           he
           always
           means
           an
           Effect
           or
           Consequent
           .
           And
           I
           need
           not
           quote
           Page
           and
           Line
           for
           this
           ,
           having
           quoted
           them
           so
           often
           before
           .
        
         
           7.
           
           When
           he
           speaks
           of
           an
           
             Infinite
             Mind
          
           ,
           and
           of
           
             Three
             Infinite
             Minds
          
           ,
           (
           as
           he
           does
           very
           often
           )
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           That
           by
           Mind
           he
           means
           a
           
             Person
             ,
             Def.
             p.
          
           81.
           l.
           32.
           though
           [
           Mind
           ]
           and
           [
           Person
           ]
           are
           Terms
           quite
           differing
           from
           one-another
           ,
           both
           in
           Signification
           and
           
           Definition
           ,
           and
           accordingly
           are
           ,
           and
           ever
           have
           been
           so
           used
           .
        
         
           8.
           
           When
           he
           says
           ,
           That
           
             not
             to
             allow
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             to
             be
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Minds
             or
             Spirits
             ,
             is
             Heresie
             and
             Nonsense
             ,
          
           (
           as
           he
           affirms
           in
           words
           equally
           express
           and
           impudent
           )
           he
           tells
           us
           ,
           his
           Meaning
           is
           ,
           That
           
             it
             is
             Heresie
             and
             Nonsence
             to
             assert
             Three
             Persons
             ,
             who
             are
             not
             Three
             distinct
             Intelligent
             Persons
             ,
          
           Def.
           p.
           81.
           l.
           21.
           which
           ,
           I
           dare
           say
           ,
           no
           Man
           alive
           ever
           asserted
           ,
           or
           any
           Man
           of
           Sence
           ever
           imagin'd
           ;
           any
           more
           ,
           than
           any
           one
           ever
           asserted
           Peter
           ,
           and
           Iames
           ,
           and
           Iohn
           to
           be
           
             Three
             Men
          
           ,
           and
           yet
           deny'd
           them
           to
           be
           
             Three
             Rational
             Creatures
          
           .
           But
           an
           impudent
           Copy-monger
           will
           venture
           to
           say
           something
           ,
           though
           in
           defiance
           of
           Sence
           ,
           and
           in
           spight
           of
           Nonsence
           too
           .
        
         
           9.
           
           When
           he
           calls
           a
           Man
           a
           Person
           ,
           (
           as
           he
           often
           does
           in
           his
           Writings
           )
           his
           Meaning
           is
           ,
           Not
           that
           the
           Man
           ,
           but
           that
           the
           
             Soul
             is
             the
             Person
          
           ,
           and
           the
           Body
           the
           
             Vital
             Instrument
             of
             the
             Soul
          
           ;
           and
           that
           neither
           Soul
           nor
           
             Body
             are
             Parts
             of
             the
             Person
             .
          
        
         
           Nor
           is
           this
           soveraign
           thing
           of
           use
           only
           in
           Matters
           of
           Argument
           and
           Dispute
           ,
           
           but
           also
           in
           Matters
           of
           a
           very
           different
           nature
           .
           As
           for
           example
           .
        
         
           1
           st
           ,
           When
           a
           
             known
             Writer
          
           publish'd
           some
           Queries
           against
           the
           
             Commission
             and
             Commissioners
             for
             making
             Alterations
             in
             our
             Liturgy
             ,
          
           severely
           reflecting
           upon
           both
           ;
           his
           [
           Meaning
           ]
           was
           ,
           only
           to
           inform
           the
           World
           what
           
             Excellent
             Persons
          
           (
           as
           he
           styles
           them
           )
           they
           were
           ,
           who
           so
           (
           zealously
           )
           design'd
           and
           promoted
           the
           said
           Alterations
           .
           See
           
             An
             Apology
             ,
             &c.
             p.
          
           5.
           l.
           20.
           
        
         
           2
           dly
           ,
           When
           a
           certain
           Divine
           told
           an
           Irish
           Bishop
           (
           as
           was
           hinted
           before
           in
           the
           
             Animadversions
             ,
             p.
          
           358.
           
           l.
           2.
           
           Edit
           .
           2.
           )
           
             That
             he
             would
             be
             Crucified
             before
             he
             would
             take
             the
             New
             Oath
             to
             K.
          
           W.
           
             and
             Q.
          
           M.
           his
           [
           Meaning
           ]
           was
           ,
           That
           he
           resolv'd
           to
           take
           it
           ,
           and
           accordingly
           did
           so
           .
        
         
           3
           dly
           ,
           And
           lastly
           ,
           When
           one
           (
           very
           well
           acquainted
           with
           the
           former
           )
           said
           ,
           That
           
             those
             very
             Hands
             of
             his
             should
             restore
             King
          
           James
           ,
           
             but
             that
             they
             were
             tyed
             up
             from
             Writing
             .
          
           His
           meaning
           was
           ,
           That
           those
           hands
           should
           write
           Answers
           to
           King
           
           Iames's
           Declaration
           .
        
         
           By
           all
           which
           we
           see
           the
           strange
           and
           wonderful
           force
           of
           a
           skilful
           mannaged
           meaning
           ,
           as
           having
           certainly
           something
           of
           Enchantment
           or
           Spell
           in
           it
           .
           For
           it
           is
           proof
           against
           all
           Impressions
           :
           and
           no
           Argument
           can
           pierce
           ,
           or
           so
           much
           as
           reach
           it
           ,
           but
           it
           absolutely
           renders
           the
           Person
           ,
           who
           carries
           it
           about
           him
           ,
           Invulnerable
           ,
           and
           by
           Consequence
           Invincible
           .
           And
           therefore
           whereas
           this
           Author
           in
           his
           
             Defense
             ,
             p.
          
           78.
           l.
           10.
           prescribes
           some
           Rules
           to
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           
             in
             case
             he
             should
             think
             fit
             to
             try
             his
             skill
             again
             upon
             this
             subject
          
           (
           which
           words
           seem
           to
           ●ound
           very
           much
           like
           a
           Challenge
           .
           )
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           the
           Animadverter
           ever
           yet
           took
           him
           for
           as
           easy
           a
           Combatant
           as
           heart
           could
           wish
           ,
           and
           bids
           me
           acquaint
           him
           further
           ,
           that
           he
           shall
           be
           readier
           to
           engage
           in
           a
           Controversial
           Duel
           with
           him
           ,
           than
           with
           any
           Man
           alive
           ,
           provided
           ,
           That
           he
           does
           not
           bring
           his
           Meaning
           for
           his
           Second
           .
        
         
           But
           it
           is
           now
           time
           to
           discharge
           the
           Debt
           I
           brought
           my self
           under
           ,
           and
           to
           account
           with
           this
           Author
           (
           in
           some
           measure
           at
           least
           )
           for
           the
           scurrilities
           which
           he
           had
           so
           freely
           bestowed
           upon
           the
           Animadverter
           .
           But
           before
           I
           enter
           upon
           so
           just
           ,
           and
           (
           as
           I
           think
           )
           so
           requisite
           a
           work
           ,
           I
           cannot
           but
           solemnly
           declare
           ,
           that
           nothing
           seems
           to
           me
           so
           strange
           ,
           Amazing
           and
           Unaccountable
           ,
           as
           that
           there
           should
           be
           so
           much
           as
           one
           
           mouth
           opened
           ,
           either
           for
           this
           Man
           ,
           or
           against
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           by
           way
           of
           Complaint
           ,
           as
           if
           too
           much
           sharpness
           had
           been
           used
           by
           one
           against
           the
           other
           .
           For
           did
           the
           Animadverter
           appear
           against
           this
           Man
           as
           the
           Aggressor
           ,
           or
           rather
           as
           the
           Vindicator
           of
           so
           many
           excellent
           Persons
           whom
           he
           had
           trampled
           upon
           with
           the
           utmost
           Insolence
           and
           Contempt
           ?
           For
           I
           Challenge
           the
           most
           Zealous
           and
           Partial
           of
           his
           Friends
           ,
           to
           shew
           me
           that
           Man
           ,
           whom
           he
           ever
           wrote
           against
           ,
           and
           did
           not
           treat
           in
           this
           manner
           .
           Nor
           is
           his
           Conversation
           (
           by
           what
           I
           can
           hear
           )
           at
           all
           less
           Provoking
           and
           Insulting
           than
           his
           Pen
           ;
           so
           that
           very
           slavish
           Animals
           certainly
           they
           must
           needs
           be
           ,
           who
           can
           frame
           themselves
           to
           endure
           either
           .
           But
           what
           would
           these
           Abject
           Creatures
           have
           ?
           Would
           they
           have
           the
           whole
           World
           
             lye
             down
          
           as
           often
           as
           this
           Man
           
             writes
             a
             Book
          
           ?
           and
           all
           Mankind
           suffer
           themselves
           to
           be
           aspersed
           as
           long
           as
           his
           Everlasting
           Diabetical
           Quill
           shall
           be
           disposed
           to
           Drop
           Pamphlets
           ?
           This
           is
           very
           hard
           upon
           my
           word
           :
           for
           his
           Pen
           scarce
           ever
           lies
           still
           for
           four
           Months
           together
           ,
           but
           that
           its
           old
           Laxe
           returns
           upon
           it
           afresh
           ,
           and
           then
           so
           much
           Paper
           is
           sure
           to
           be
           fouled
           ,
           and
           many
           a
           worthy
           and
           good
           Name
           besides
           .
           But
           perhaps
           these
           Men
           would
           have
           the
           Animadverter
           come
           cringing
           to
           his
           Deanship
           ,
           as
           the
           
             Socinian
             Considerer
          
           has
           done
           ,
           whom
           I
           find
           with
           the
           most
           unparallelled
           humility
           ,
           or
           rather
           prostration
           of
           Carriage
           (
           that
           I
           ever
           met
           with
           in
           a
           Man
           of
           Parts
           and
           Spirit
           )
           in
           lowly
           manner
           Kissing
           his
           Reverend
           Feet
           ,
           for
           having
           so
           scornfully
           kicked
           and
           trod
           upon
           him
           and
           his
           Party
           ,
           and
           swallowing
           all
           the
           foul
           stuff
           which
           he
           had
           with
           such
           Insufferable
           contumely
           spit
           upon
           them
           ;
           as
           if
           it
           had
           not
           been
           enough
           for
           him
           tamely
           to
           bear
           his
           base
           Reproaches
           ,
           but
           that
           he
           
           must
           also
           requite
           him
           with
           Panegyricks
           and
           Commendations
           .
           But
           I
           shall
           pay
           my
           Devoirs
           to
           this
           Gentleman
           again
           presently
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           I
           can
           assure
           him
           ,
           and
           the
           whole
           World
           ,
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           is
           quite
           of
           another
           Temper
           ,
           and
           accordingly
           does
           here
           by
           me
           solemnly
           declare
           ,
           That
           whatsoever
           he
           has
           born
           or
           may
           bear
           from
           others
           ,
           he
           is
           resolved
           not
           to
           take
           the
           least
           affront
           at
           this
           Man's
           hands
           ,
           but
           will
           be
           sure
           to
           repay
           him
           to
           his
           face
           .
           And
           this
           is
           all
           the
           Apology
           that
           shall
           be
           made
           for
           any
           sharpness
           used
           either
           in
           the
           Animadversions
           themselves
           ,
           or
           in
           this
           Vindication
           of
           them
           .
           And
           so
           I
           proceed
           to
           animadvert
           upon
           his
           Scurrilities
           ,
           which
           I
           shall
           do
           in
           such
           order
           as
           I
           think
           fit
           ,
           since
           the
           Reader
           shall
           be
           sure
           to
           have
           the
           several
           places
           faithfully
           pointed
           out
           to
           him
           ,
           which
           I
           intend
           to
           remark
           upon
           .
           And
           here
           I
           shall
           direct
           him
           ,
        
         
           First
           ,
           to
           that
           remarkable
           passage
           in
           this
           Defence
           ,
           p.
           43.
           at
           the
           end
           .
           
             The
             Animadverter
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             is
             a
             Notable
             man
             ,
             if
             he
             can
             draw
             you
             into
             a
             School-Question
             ,
             for
             he
             can
             make
             a
             shift
             to
             read
             and
             transcribe
             ,
             but
             he
             hates
             an
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             and
             
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
               〈◊〉
            
             -
             men
             at
             his
             heart
             ,
             which
             is
             none
             of
             his
             Talent
             ,
             for
             it
             requires
             Thinking
             .
          
           Concerning
           which
           ,
           I
           desire
           the
           impartial
           and
           ingenuous
           Reader
           to
           judge
           ,
           whether
           it
           be
           possible
           for
           the
           Tongue
           or
           Pen
           of
           man
           to
           utter
           any
           thing
           more
           Opprobrious
           .
           And
           therefore
           if
           the
           byassed
           and
           malicious
           part
           of
           the
           World
           will
           not
           excuse
           me
           ,
           they
           must
           give
           me
           leave
           to
           excuse
           my self
           ,
           if
           I
           answer
           this
           Libeller
           as
           he
           deserves
           .
           And
           here
           in
           the
           first
           place
           I
           require
           him
           in
           the
           Animadverter's
           Name
           and
           Behalf
           to
           declare
           and
           assign
           that
           Writer
           from
           whom
           the
           Animadverter
           even
           transcribed
           any
           Thing
           ,
           unless
           by
           way
           of
           Quotation
           ;
           though
           ,
           I
           must
           confess
           ,
           that
           I
           cannot
           return
           upon
           him
           this
           
           Charge
           of
           Transcribing
           from
           any
           Schoolman
           ,
           or
           other
           ominent
           Greek
           or
           Latine
           Writer
           ,
           since
           ,
           I
           dare
           swear
           ,
           he
           never
           quoted
           any
           such
           ,
           but
           from
           those
           who
           had
           first
           quoted
           them
           to
           his
           hands
           .
           But
           must
           the
           Animadverter
           then
           pass
           for
           a
           Transcriber
           ?
           What
           will
           this
           man
           make
           of
           him
           ?
           Will
           he
           make
           him
           write
           
             Cases
             of
             Allegiance
          
           ,
           and
           borrow
           his
           Arguments
           out
           of
           a
           
             Letter
             from
             a
          
           *
           Friend
           ?
           which
           a
           certain
           Person
           in
           the
           World
           has
           been
           as
           good
           at
           ,
           as
           he
           can
           be
           at
           writing
           
             Letters
             to
             a
             Friend
          
           .
           But
           what
           is
           this
           his
           boasted
           of
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           after
           all
           ?
           Why
           ,
           even
           this
           one
           poor
           Greek
           word
           ,
           which
           having
           by
           much
           ado
           got
           by
           the
           end
           ,
           I
           would
           have
           him
           by
           all
           means
           make
           the
           best
           ,
           he
           can
           ,
           of
           .
           For
           I
           dare
           say
           his
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           will
           never
           make
           him
           an
           Archimedes
           ,
           or
           indeed
           so
           much
           as
           a
           Figure
           in
           any
           Thing
           .
           And
           therefore
           whereas
           he
           says
           the
           Animadverter
           
             hates
             him
          
           ,
           that
           is
           his
           Mistake
           ,
           and
           I
           wonder
           that
           he
           cannot
           distinguish
           between
           Hatred
           and
           Pity
           .
           He
           owns
           himself
           indeed
           (
           as
           all
           good
           men
           ought
           to
           do
           )
           an
           Hater
           of
           the
           Character
           of
           an
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           man
           in
           matters
           of
           Faith
           ,
           which
           God
           has
           proposed
           to
           men
           as
           objects
           to
           employ
           their
           Assent
           and
           Submission
           ,
           but
           by
           no
           means
           to
           exercise
           their
           Invention
           ;
           and
           there
           was
           no
           sort
           of
           Men
           whatsoever
           ,
           whom
           the
           Catholick
           Church
           always
           looked
           upon
           as
           such
           Pests
           as
           these
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           Men
           ,
           which
           is
           only
           another
           word
           for
           
             Venturous
             ,
             Meddlesome
             ,
             Self-Opiniators
          
           and
           
             Self-Conscious
             Innovators
          
           ,
           and
           that
           in
           those
           Sacred
           Points
           ,
           in
           which
           all
           Innovation
           ever
           was
           ,
           and
           is
           ,
           and
           ought
           to
           be
           Intolerable
           .
           For
           
             Arius
             ,
             Macedonius
             ,
             Nestorius
          
           ,
           and
           Eutyches
           ,
           were
           all
           of
           them
           great
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           -
           Men
           in
           the
           several
           Ages
           they
           lived
           in
           .
           Nor
           were
           there
           any
           whom
           the
           Primitive
           Church
           still
           kept
           so
           watchful
           an
           Eye
           ,
           and
           so
           severe
           an
           hand
           over
           ,
           
           as
           these
           Novellists
           ;
           and
           had
           this
           Author
           lived
           ,
           not
           only
           under
           the
           Discipline
           of
           the
           Church
           of
           those
           Ages
           ,
           but
           even
           of
           that
           excellent
           Copy
           of
           it
           the
           Church
           amongst
           our selves
           before
           the
           
             great
             Rebellion
          
           (
           which
           gave
           it
           such
           an
           Incurable
           Wound
           )
           he
           would
           have
           found
           to
           his
           Cost
           ,
           what
           it
           had
           been
           to
           play
           the
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           .
           Man
           upon
           the
           Trinity
           ;
           for
           whatsoever
           else
           it
           might
           have
           done
           for
           him
           ,
           it
           would
           have
           been
           sure
           to
           have
           stopp'd
           him
           in
           his
           way
           to
           St.
           
           Paul's
           .
           But
           this
           is
           not
           all
           his
           Civility
           to
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           for
           he
           allows
           him
           not
           only
           able
           to
           Transcribe
           ,
           but
           to
           make
           a
           shift
           to
           read
           too
           ;
           (
           for
           this
           Author
           has
           convinced
           me
           ,
           that
           't
           is
           not
           impossible
           for
           one
           to
           Transcribe
           what
           he
           cannot
           Read.
           )
           In
           requital
           of
           which
           Complement
           ,
           I
           do
           here
           tell
           this
           Man
           ,
           that
           if
           he
           could
           ,
           and
           should
           pay
           to
           the
           Crown
           a
           penny
           for
           every
           Greek
           word
           which
           he
           can
           neither
           Read
           nor
           Spell
           ,
           nor
           make
           any
           Thing
           of
           ,
           I
           dare
           undertake
           that
           it
           might
           save
           the
           Nation
           a
           Tax
           for
           one
           year
           at
           least
           .
           In
           fine
           ,
           as
           much
           a
           Transcriber
           as
           his
           foul
           mouth
           would
           make
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           let
           him
           but
           prove
           that
           he
           ever
           transcribed
           any
           thing
           out
           of
           His
           Writings
           ,
           and
           I
           will
           give
           him
           leave
           to
           prosecute
           him
           ,
           not
           only
           
             for
             a
             Thief
          
           ,
           but
           for
           the
           very
           worst
           ,
           the
           basest
           and
           meanest
           of
           Thieves
           ,
           
             viz.
             A
             Robber
             of
             the
             Spittle
             .
          
           But
           I
           assure
           him
           ,
           that
           for
           what
           concerns
           his
           own
           Writings
           ,
           he
           is
           safe
           ;
           for
           as
           to
           them
           ,
           let
           any
           Man
           but
           first
           Read
           ,
           and
           I
           dare
           undertake
           he
           will
           never
           be
           tempted
           to
           transcribe
           .
        
         
           Secondly
           ,
           The
           next
           passage
           ,
           I
           shall
           take
           notice
           of
           ,
           is
           that
           in
           p.
           38.
           at
           the
           end
           ,
           and
           39.
           at
           the
           beginning
           ,
           where
           (
           with
           the
           grossest
           Ignorance
           )
           pretending
           to
           prove
           Risibility
           the
           formal
           Reason
           of
           Humanity
           ,
           from
           an
           Assertion
           of
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           which
           he
           understood
           
           not
           .
           This
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             makes
             well
             for
             the
             Animadverter
             to
             prove
             him
             to
             be
          
           a
           Man
           ,
           
             though
             he
             is
             seldom
             in
             so
             good
             an
             Humor
             ,
             as
             to
          
           laugh
           without
           grinning
           ,
           
             which
             belongs
             to
             another
             Species
          
           .
           Thus
           the
           Courtier
           of
           Gravel-lane
           ;
           By
           which
           words
           it
           is
           evident
           ,
           that
           the
           poor
           man
           is
           here
           offering
           at
           Wit
           ,
           but
           cannot
           reach
           it
           .
           But
           as
           for
           the
           Risibility
           he
           is
           so
           much
           concerned
           against
           ,
           do
           not
           all
           the
           Schools
           of
           Philosophy
           make
           Risibility
           the
           Property
           of
           a
           man
           ?
           and
           withal
           deny
           the
           Form
           or
           Nature
           of
           any
           Thing
           to
           consist
           in
           the
           Property
           of
           it
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           the
           Animadverter
           ?
           But
           let
           him
           set
           his
           heart
           at
           rest
           ;
           for
           whatsoever
           Risibility
           may
           be
           in
           others
           ,
           yet
           so
           far
           as
           it
           concerns
           himself
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           will
           hardly
           allow
           it
           for
           an
           Argument
           of
           Rationality
           ,
           as
           
             it
             is
             in
             him
          
           ,
           but
           as
           it
           is
           imployed
           
             upon
             him
          
           .
           But
           to
           cut
           off
           the
           Unfortunate
           Animadverter
           from
           all
           Hopes
           of
           ever
           proving
           his
           Rationality
           by
           his
           Risibility
           ,
           with
           one
           terrible
           blow
           he
           strikes
           him
           down
           into
           the
           
             grinning
             Species
          
           :
           the
           meaning
           of
           which
           word
           is
           very
           well
           known
           ,
           and
           a
           word
           it
           is
           as
           fit
           for
           this
           Man
           's
           Billingsgate
           mouth
           ,
           as
           his
           mouth
           is
           peculiarly
           fitted
           for
           that
           .
           Though
           by
           his
           Favour
           ,
           he
           shall
           never
           make
           the
           Animadverter
           so
           far
           of
           the
           
             grinning
             Species
          
           ,
           as
           either
           to
           find
           him
           amongst
           the
           
             sneaking
             Spaniels
          
           ,
           or
           the
           
             Hybrid
             Mongrils
          
           :
           but
           rather
           of
           that
           genuine
           English
           kind
           ,
           which
           having
           once
           fastned
           (
           as
           the
           Animadverter
           has
           upon
           this
           Man
           )
           will
           not
           be
           made
           
             to
             quit
             their
             Hold.
          
           But
           if
           he
           were
           desirous
           to
           learn
           that
           Canine
           Art
           of
           fetching
           and
           carrying
           ,
           (
           especially
           between
           
           Paul's
           and
           Lambeth
           )
           he
           knows
           where
           to
           find
           one
           very
           well
           able
           to
           instruct
           him
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           I
           humbly
           present
           the
           World
           with
           this
           Specimen
           of
           Mr.
           Dean's
           refined
           Breeding
           ,
           Civility
           ,
           and
           Discretion
           ,
           that
           he
           has
           no
           other
           Answer
           to
           give
           his
           Adversary
           ,
           but
           by
           calling
           
           him
           
             Grinning
             Dog.
          
           Which
           yet
           ,
           I
           confess
           ,
           is
           very
           agreeable
           to
           the
           Rage
           I
           hear
           the
           Animadversions
           have
           put
           him
           into
           ;
           which
           is
           such
           ,
           that
           in
           most
           Companies
           he
           speaks
           of
           nothing
           but
           
             Daggers
             ,
             Gibbets
          
           ,
           and
           Furnaces
           ;
           the
           very
           mention
           either
           of
           the
           Animadverter
           or
           Animadversions
           ,
           transporting
           him
           into
           such
           Fits
           and
           Agonies
           ,
           as
           render
           him
           extremely
           troublesom
           both
           to
           himself
           ,
           and
           to
           all
           who
           are
           so
           unhappy
           as
           to
           be
           with
           him
           :
           and
           much
           ado
           has
           he
           ,
           in
           one
           of
           those
           Fits
           ,
           to
           forbear
           cursing
           Both
           of
           them
           
             by
             his
             Gods.
          
           But
           ,
        
         
           Thirdly
           ,
           I
           pass
           on
           to
           present
           the
           Reader
           with
           another
           of
           his
           Flowers
           ,
           gather'd
           out
           of
           p.
           90.
           l.
           25.
           of
           this
           Defence
           ,
           where
           he
           closes
           a
           Paragraph
           with
           these
           Magisterial
           Words
           pronounc'd
           (
           one
           would
           think
           )
           out
           of
           the
           Chair
           of
           Aristarchus
           himself
           ,
           or
           some
           such
           eminent
           Grammarian
           .
           
             It
             is
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             a
             tedious
             thing
             to
             dispute
             with
             Men
             who
             must
             be
             taught
             to
          
           construe
           
             the
             Fathers
             ,
             and
             understand
             Common
             Sence
             .
          
           But
           will
           this
           Abcedarian
           venture
           to
           reproach
           any
           one
           for
           that
           ,
           who
           ,
           but
           a
           few
           Pages
           before
           this
           ,
           construes
           that
           Expression
           of
           the
           Fathers
           ,
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           
             by
             Mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           p.
           71.
           l.
           6
           ?
           And
           that
           in
           those
           remarkably
           positive
           words
           ;
           This
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           (
           says
           he
           )
           
             is
             that
             very
             Mutual
             Consciousness
             which
             the
             Dean
             holds
          
           ;
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           With
           the
           grossest
           Ignorance
           he
           construes
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           or
           
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
             〈◊〉
          
           ,
           which
           signifies
           an
           Act
           of
           the
           Will
           ,
           by
           
             Mutual
             Consciousness
          
           ,
           which
           is
           an
           Act
           of
           Knowledge
           ,
           or
           (
           as
           he
           whimsically
           calls
           it
           )
           of
           Sensation
           .
           And
           therefore
           let
           me
           tell
           this
           *
           
             Anti-nicene
             ,
             Quadrigesimal
             ,
             Chrysom
             ,
             Paraphrases-man
             ,
          
           That
           the
           Animadverter
           can
           construe
           the
           Fathers
           ,
           and
           understand
           them
           too
           ,
           at
           much
           another
           rate
           than
           this
           comes
           to
           ,
           provided
           that
           he
           reads
           them
           in
           their
           
             own
             Works
          
           ;
           but
           he
           confesses
           ,
           
           that
           when
           he
           reads
           them
           quoted
           by
           him
           in
           his
           Writings
           ,
           he
           cannot
           construe
           them
           for
           Solecisms
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           ,
           I
           ,
           for
           my
           part
           ,
           am
           so
           far
           from
           thinking
           this
           Author
           fit
           to
           set
           up
           for
           a
           
             Construer
             of
             the
             Fathers
          
           ,
           and
           much
           less
           for
           a
           Teacher
           of
           others
           to
           construe
           them
           ,
           that
           I
           shrewdly
           suspect
           that
           it
           has
           been
           for
           want
           of
           a
           Construing-Book
           ,
           that
           he
           is
           no
           better
           acquainted
           with
           his
           Grammar
           .
        
         
           Fourthly
           ,
           The
           next
           thing
           which
           I
           think
           fit
           to
           take
           notice
           of
           ,
           is
           his
           frequent
           reproaching
           the
           Animadverter
           with
           the
           Character
           of
           a
           Wit
           ,
           though
           joyn'd
           with
           such
           ill-favour'd
           Epithets
           as
           his
           Witless
           Malice
           has
           thought
           fit
           to
           degrade
           it
           with
           ;
           as
           ,
           p.
           9.
           l.
           19.
           
           That
           
             he
             is
             a
             Spightful
             Wit
          
           ;
           and
           p.
           66.
           i.
           21.
           
             a
             Wrangling
             Wit
          
           ;
           and
           p.
           1.
           l.
           6.
           
             a
             Satyrical
             Wit
          
           ,
           and
           the
           witty
           ,
           
             subtile
             ,
             good-natur'd
             Animadverter
             ,
             p.
          
           38.
           l.
           26.
           &c.
           
           Though
           after
           all
           ,
           I
           think
           ,
           there
           is
           but
           very
           little
           Wit
           shewn
           in
           making
           such
           Charges
           .
           However
           ,
           if
           Wit
           be
           a
           Reproach
           ,
           (
           be
           it
           of
           what
           sort
           it
           will
           )
           the
           Animadverter
           is
           too
           just
           to
           return
           this
           Reproach
           upon
           the
           Defender
           ;
           and
           withal
           ,
           understands
           himself
           ,
           and
           what
           becomes
           him
           ,
           too
           well
           ,
           either
           to
           assume
           to
           himself
           ,
           or
           so
           much
           as
           to
           admit
           the
           Character
           of
           a
           Wit
           ,
           as
           at
           all
           due
           to
           him
           ;
           especially
           since
           he
           knows
           that
           
             Common
             Sence
          
           (
           a
           thing
           much
           short
           of
           Wit
           )
           is
           enough
           to
           enable
           him
           to
           deal
           with
           such
           an
           Adversary
           .
           Nevertheless
           ,
           there
           are
           many
           in
           the
           World
           ,
           who
           are
           both
           called
           and
           accounted
           Wits
           ,
           and
           really
           are
           so
           ;
           which
           (
           one
           would
           think
           )
           should
           derive
           something
           of
           Credit
           upon
           this
           Qualification
           ,
           even
           in
           the
           esteem
           of
           this
           Author
           himself
           ,
           or
           at
           least
           rebate
           the
           edge
           of
           his
           Invectives
           against
           it
           ,
           considering
           that
           it
           might
           have
           pleas'd
           God
           to
           have
           made
           him
           a
           Wit
           too
           .
           But
           ,
        
         
         
           Fifthly
           ,
           To
           come
           to
           another
           of
           his
           Reproaches
           ,
           and
           that
           of
           a
           much
           blacker
           import
           than
           the
           former
           ;
           he
           tells
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           That
           
             he
             is
             by
             much
             an
             Overmatch
             for
             any
             one
             who
             is
             a
             Christian
             ,
             p.
          
           90.
           l.
           12.
           
           And
           again
           ,
           That
           
             his
             Example
             is
             too
             scandalous
             to
             be
             imitated
             ,
             p.
          
           99.
           at
           the
           end
           .
           Worse
           than
           which
           ,
           I
           am
           sure
           ,
           can
           be
           said
           of
           no
           Man.
           But
           ,
           in
           the
           mean
           time
           ,
           what
           flat
           downright
           Railing
           is
           this
           ?
           And
           ,
           what
           dull
           ,
           dry
           ,
           wooden
           Blows
           does
           he
           deal
           forth
           here
           ,
           fit
           only
           (
           one
           would
           think
           )
           to
           come
           from
           an
           Hand
           made
           rather
           to
           manage
           a
           Flayl
           ,
           or
           a
           Coulstaff
           ,
           than
           a
           Scholastick
           Pen
           ,
           and
           such
           as
           I
           defie
           him
           to
           find
           any
           thing
           like
           to
           ,
           in
           all
           the
           Animadversions
           ?
           But
           is
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           in
           good
           earnest
           ,
           so
           enormously
           wicked
           ,
           that
           his
           very
           
             Example
             is
             scandalous
          
           ,
           and
           himself
           a
           Reproach
           to
           his
           Christian
           Profession
           ?
           What
           has
           he
           done
           ,
           besides
           Animadverting
           upon
           a
           Publick
           Nusance
           ,
           who
           had
           affronted
           and
           abused
           the
           whole
           World
           besides
           ?
           Has
           he
           wrote
           
             a
             Plea
             for
             the
             Lawfulness
             of
             taking
             the
             New
             Oath
             to
             K.
          
           W.
           
             and
             Q.
          
           M.
           
             asserting
             it
             upon
             the
             strictest
             Principles
          
           (
           as
           one
           calls
           them
           )
           
             of
             old
             Church
             of
          
           England
           Loyalty
           :
           and
           after
           a
           few
           weeks
           wrote
           
             another
             Tract
             to
             prove
             the
             utter
             Vnlawfulness
             of
             the
             same
             ?
          
           (
           Both
           which
           Pieces
           have
           flown
           abroad
           as
           far
           as
           Manuscripts
           could
           well
           spread
           )
           Or
           did
           he
           upon
           the
           late
           Publick
           Turn
           of
           Affairs
           ,
           not
           only
           most
           zealously
           own
           K.
           
           Iames's
           Cause
           himself
           ,
           but
           also
           join
           with
           and
           abett
           those
           who
           owned
           it
           too
           ,
           and
           yet
           presently
           after
           ,
           in
           a
           barbarous
           manner
           ,
           reflect
           upon
           and
           insult
           over
           those
           very
           Persons
           when
           they
           had
           lost
           all
           they
           had
           for
           it
           ?
           This
           Man
           indeed
           ,
           for
           his
           part
           ,
           had
           his
           Preferments
           all
           the
           time
           kept
           void
           for
           him
           ,
           (
           Thanks
           to
           his
           Honourable
           Diocesan
           ,
           whom
           ,
           I
           doubt
           not
           but
           ,
           he
           has
           since
           fairly
           requited
           for
           that
           supererogation
           of
           his
           Kindness
           to
           him
           )
           so
           that
           his
           
           Stake
           in
           the
           Church
           was
           sufficiently
           secured
           ,
           while
           his
           Refusal
           of
           the
           Oath
           gave
           him
           opportunity
           to
           enter
           into
           the
           Bosomes
           of
           those
           who
           refused
           it
           too
           :
           and
           to
           observe
           their
           behaviour
           ,
           and
           to
           scan
           all
           that
           was
           either
           said
           or
           done
           by
           them
           ;
           which
           I
           hope
           he
           did
           without
           turning
           it
           to
           their
           Prejudice
           ;
           though
           the
           known
           Case
           of
           Dr.
           
             H
             n
          
           and
           Dr.
           
             I
             m
          
           (
           who
           complain
           of
           a
           scurvy
           Trick
           play'd
           them
           for
           their
           confidence
           )
           shews
           ,
           That
           in
           this
           man
           ,
           
             hearing
             ,
             and
             seeing
             ,
             and
             saying
             nothing
          
           do
           not
           always
           go
           together
           .
           Nor
           was
           this
           all
           ,
           viz.
           That
           his
           Places
           were
           kept
           undisposed
           of
           during
           his
           Suspension
           ,
           but
           assoon
           as
           he
           took
           the
           Oath
           (
           the
           time
           of
           which
           was
           fairly
           intimated
           by
           a
           Friend
           of
           his
           at
           a
           Publick
           Table
           at
           Oxon
           ,
           about
           
             three
             months
          
           before
           he
           took
           it
           )
           assoon
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           as
           he
           had
           taken
           it
           ,
           he
           was
           immediately
           and
           
             per
             saltum
          
           mounted
           up
           to
           one
           of
           the
           best
           Preferments
           in
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           ;
           which
           demonstrated
           that
           his
           Recusancy
           of
           the
           Oath
           so
           long
           ,
           was
           not
           accounted
           so
           criminal
           a
           Thing
           by
           those
           who
           knew
           him
           ,
           as
           to
           need
           any
           time
           of
           Probation
           ,
           gradually
           to
           clear
           and
           set
           him
           right
           again
           in
           their
           Opinions
           ,
           but
           that
           he
           presently
           stepped
           forth
           All
           
             Worth
             ,
             Merit
          
           ,
           and
           
             pure
             Allegiance
          
           ,
           after
           the
           Turn
           was
           once
           served
           ,
           and
           the
           Scene
           was
           over
           .
           In
           fine
           therefore
           ,
           since
           he
           has
           so
           reproachfully
           objected
           Scandal
           of
           Example
           to
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           I
           would
           advise
           him
           to
           lay
           his
           Hand
           upon
           his
           Heart
           (
           if
           he
           can
           find
           where
           it
           is
           )
           and
           consider
           how
           many
           worthy
           and
           sincere
           Persons
           have
           by
           the
           fallacious
           Influence
           of
           his
           Example
           and
           Pretences
           (
           still
           bleeding-fresh
           both
           in
           Their
           minds
           ,
           and
           the
           minds
           of
           many
           others
           )
           been
           brought
           ,
           through
           their
           Refusal
           of
           that
           Oath
           ,
           to
           Misery
           and
           Want
           ,
           and
           a
           piece
           of
           bread
           ,
           when
           they
           can
           
           get
           it
           .
           Which
           ,
           let
           me
           tell
           him
           ,
           is
           a
           very
           dreadful
           Consideration
           ,
           and
           when
           he
           comes
           to
           look
           Death
           in
           the
           face
           (
           which
           he
           will
           find
           a
           much
           harder
           work
           than
           to
           write
           upon
           it
           )
           may
           chance
           to
           lye
           cold
           at
           his
           heart
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           ,
           I
           should
           be
           glad
           to
           hear
           how
           much
           of
           the
           Revenue
           of
           his
           Deanry
           he
           lays
           aside
           for
           the
           Relief
           of
           those
           poor
           men
           ,
           who
           have
           been
           so
           unhappily
           trapanned
           into
           this
           Distress
           .
           But
           not
           a
           tittle
           could
           I
           ever
           hear
           of
           this
           or
           any
           Thing
           like
           it
           .
           So
           that
           as
           ill
           a
           Christian
           as
           he
           would
           represent
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           let
           him
           for
           me
           keep
           his
           New-fashioned
           Christianity
           to
           himself
           ;
           with
           this
           charitable
           Wish
           however
           ,
           viz.
           That
           it
           may
           do
           him
           more
           good
           in
           the
           other
           World
           ,
           than
           it
           has
           done
           others
           in
           this
           .
        
         
           7.
           
           The
           last
           Instance
           of
           His
           Rancor
           ,
           which
           I
           shall
           mention
           ,
           and
           by
           which
           ,
           I
           doubt
           not
           ,
           he
           designed
           a
           shrewder
           Blow
           to
           the
           Animadverter
           than
           by
           any
           of
           the
           rest
           ,
           is
           his
           calling
           the
           
             Socinians
             his
             Friends
          
           ,
           and
           Admirers
           ,
           
             Def.
             p.
          
           97.
           l.
           31.
           
           Though
           these
           words
           (
           to
           such
           as
           know
           what
           this
           Man
           was
           )
           shew
           only
           how
           desirous
           of
           late
           he
           is
           to
           
             throw
             off
          
           his
           
             old
             Friends
          
           ,
           
           whomsoever
           he
           throws
           them
           upon
           ;
           But
           that
           the
           Reader
           may
           see
           ,
           whether
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           or
           that
           disguised
           Dean
           ,
           have
           the
           greater
           Interest
           in
           the
           Friendship
           and
           esteem
           of
           the
           Socinians
           ,
           I
           must
           refer
           him
           to
           a
           certain
           Socinian
           Tract
           ,
           published
           something
           above
           a
           year
           since
           ,
           and
           Entituled
           ,
           
             Considerations
             upon
             the
             several
             Explications
             of
             the
             Trinity
             ,
          
           &c.
           
           A
           Book
           wrote
           with
           such
           an
           hearty
           Zeal
           and
           concern
           for
           Dr.
           Sherlock
           ,
           and
           such
           a
           peculiar
           design
           to
           reproach
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           really
           a
           set
           and
           formed
           Defence
           of
           the
           former
           against
           
           the
           latter
           ,
           and
           can
           be
           called
           by
           no
           name
           so
           properly
           as
           a
           Panegyrick
           upon
           the
           one
           ,
           and
           a
           Satyre
           against
           the
           other
           .
           This
           Piece
           the
           Animadverter
           read
           soon
           after
           it
           was
           published
           ;
           but
           finding
           so
           few
           Things
           said
           in
           it
           with
           reference
           to
           the
           main
           Argument
           ,
           and
           those
           so
           grosly
           (
           if
           not
           also
           wilfully
           )
           misrepresenting
           the
           Doctrine
           which
           they
           were
           brought
           to
           impugn
           ,
           he
           could
           not
           think
           himself
           obliged
           to
           answer
           it
           .
           Nor
           should
           it
           have
           been
           at
           all
           medled
           with
           now
           ,
           but
           that
           the
           bitter
           reflexive
           part
           of
           it
           (
           which
           I
           shall
           chiefly
           remark
           upon
           )
           offers
           it self
           ,
           as
           so
           apposite
           and
           full
           an
           Answer
           to
           the
           Imputation
           ,
           which
           the
           Defender
           has
           thought
           fit
           to
           load
           the
           Animadverter
           with
           ,
           that
           it
           could
           not
           have
           been
           more
           full
           and
           home
           ,
           had
           it
           been
           contrived
           and
           wrote
           for
           this
           very
           purpose
           .
           And
           here
           to
           enable
           the
           Reader
           the
           better
           to
           pass
           his
           Judgment
           on
           both
           sides
           ,
           I
           think
           it
           requisite
           first
           to
           premise
           after
           what
           manner
           Dr.
           Sherlock
           ,
           whom
           this
           Considerer
           so
           much
           magnifies
           ,
           had
           on
           the
           one
           hand
           ,
           and
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           whom
           he
           so
           reviles
           ,
           (
           having
           first
           assigned
           him
           a
           Name
           ,
           or
           rather
           a
           
             piece
             of
             a
             Name
          
           ,
           accorning
           to
           his
           own
           Fancy
           )
           had
           on
           the
           other
           hand
           treated
           the
           Socinians
           ;
           of
           which
           number
           this
           Author
           professes
           himself
           to
           be
           one
           .
           And
           for
           this
           ,
           he
           will
           find
           Dr.
           Sherlock
           reproaching
           them
           in
           his
           Vindication
           
             for
             having
             neither
             Greek
             nor
             Latine
             ,
          
           and
           thereupon
           very
           magisterially
           sending
           them
           
             to
             School
             again
          
           (
           I
           suppose
           in
           his
           own
           Room
           )
           Likewise
           charging
           them
           with
           Nonsense
           ,
           and
           calling
           their
           Opinion
           
             one
             of
             the
             most
             stupid
             senceless
             Heresies
             that
             ever
             infested
             the
             Christian
             Church
             ,
             Pref.
          
           to
           Vind.
           at
           the
           end
           .
           Vowing
           withal
           ,
           never
           to
           put
           up
           his
           Goose-quill
           
             in
             this
             Quarrel
          
           against
           them
           ,
           Ibid.
           and
           ,
           in
           short
           ,
           treating
           them
           with
           the
           utmost
           scorn
           ,
           that
           it
           was
           possible
           for
           words
           to
           express
           :
           
           whereas
           on
           the
           contrary
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           though
           he
           could
           by
           no
           means
           be
           of
           their
           Opinion
           ,
           nor
           yet
           come
           up
           to
           the
           Lambeth-strain
           ,
           in
           declaring
           them
           the
           only
           Scholars
           and
           Disputants
           in
           the
           World
           ,
           and
           in
           comparison
           of
           whom
           ,
           some
           of
           the
           most
           eminent
           ,
           upon
           both
           accounts
           ,
           that
           Christendom
           ever
           had
           ,
           were
           but
           
             meer
             Bunglers
          
           ,
           yet
           with
           a
           due
           and
           just
           deference
           to
           Truth
           ,
           
           he
           frankly
           acknowledged
           their
           Parts
           and
           Learning
           ,
           and
           asserted
           the
           Reputation
           of
           both
           against
           their
           Beloved
           Dr.
           Sherlock
           ,
           who
           had
           with
           the
           utmost
           contumely
           and
           disdain
           ,
           vilified
           them
           .
           All
           which
           considered
           ,
           the
           whole
           conduct
           of
           this
           spightful
           usage
           of
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           by
           Persons
           (
           even
           by
           their
           own
           Confession
           ,
           
             Consid.
             p.
          
           12.
           2
           
           
             Col.
             l.
          
           41.
           )
           wholly
           unprovoked
           by
           him
           ,
           is
           to
           me
           (
           I
           must
           confess
           )
           all
           Riddle
           ,
           and
           I
           believe
           to
           all
           sober
           Persons
           besides
           :
           nor
           can
           I
           see
           what
           tolerable
           account
           can
           be
           given
           of
           it
           ,
           but
           that
           they
           did
           all
           this
           by
           particular
           Orders
           ,
           and
           then
           it
           is
           easy
           to
           judge
           from
           whom
           those
           Orders
           came
           ;
           which
           by
           such
           a
           mighty
           Act
           of
           
             restraining
             Grace
          
           ,
           put
           a
           stop
           to
           all
           Socinian
           Pens
           ,
           from
           writing
           against
           such
           a
           Bosome-Favourite
           ,
           and
           turned
           them
           against
           that
           sawcy
           Church
           of
           
           England-Animadverter
           ,
           for
           daring
           to
           assert
           the
           old
           Doctrine
           of
           the
           Trinity
           against
           the
           Sentiments
           of
           those
           New
           Dons
           ,
           who
           may
           perhaps
           for
           fashion-sake
           ,
           own
           a
           Trinity
           ,
           and
           some
           such
           other
           Articles
           of
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           ,
           ☞
           but
           (
           according
           to
           Mr.
           Dean's
           excellent
           ,
           and
           never
           to
           be
           forgotten
           words
           )
           
             not
             perfectly
             in
             her
             own
             way
             .
          
        
         
           Now
           as
           to
           the
           Argument
           debated
           in
           the
           Animadversions
           ,
           the
           Grand
           Charge
           this
           Considerer
           brings
           against
           the
           Animadverter
           is
           ,
           
             That
             he
             makes
             the
             Three
             Divine
             Persons
             in
             the
             Blessed
             Trinity
             only
             Three
             different
          
           
           Postures
           
             of
             the
             Godhead
             ,
             Consid.
             p.
          
           22.
           
           Col.
           1.
           l.
           4.
           repeating
           the
           same
           objection
           again
           and
           again
           ,
           that
           none
           may
           mistake
           him
           .
           But
           is
           this
           fair
           dealing
           in
           disputation
           ,
           or
           a
           just
           and
           true
           Representation
           of
           the
           Animadverter's
           Assertion
           ?
           He
           asserted
           indeed
           ▪
           That
           as
           Posture
           and
           Figure
           were
           Modes
           affecting
           the
           Body
           ,
           without
           superadding
           any
           new
           Entity
           (
           properly
           so
           called
           )
           to
           it
           :
           So
           a
           Spirit
           ,
           whether
           Finite
           or
           Infinite
           ,
           might
           have
           its
           proper
           Modes
           also
           ,
           affecting
           it
           sutably
           to
           its
           particular
           Nature
           ,
           without
           superadding
           to
           it
           any
           new
           Entity
           or
           Being
           distinct
           from
           it
           .
           For
           since
           the
           General
           Nature
           of
           a
           Mode
           consisted
           only
           in
           this
           ,
           
             viz.
             That
             it
             determined
             a
             Being
             ,
             in
             it self
             Absolute
             and
             undetermined
             ,
             to
             some
             certain
             state
             or
             condition
             ,
             without
             superadding
             to
             it
             any
             such
             new
             distinct
             Entity
             ,
             as
             we
             have
             mentioned
          
           ;
           I
           would
           gladly
           know
           ,
           why
           there
           might
           not
           be
           an
           Agreement
           and
           Analogy
           in
           this
           
             general
             Nature
          
           of
           a
           Mode
           between
           such
           
             particular
             Modes
          
           ,
           as
           do
           yet
           otherwise
           ,
           upon
           their
           proper
           Accounts
           ,
           vastly
           and
           infinitely
           differ
           from
           one
           Another
           ;
           (
           as
           the
           Modes
           of
           an
           
             Infinite
             Vncreate
          
           .
           Being
           and
           the
           Modes
           of
           all
           
             finite
             Created
          
           Natures
           must
           needs
           do
           .
           )
           Why
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           these
           (
           notwithstanding
           their
           peculiar
           differences
           )
           may
           not
           agree
           as
           Analogous
           in
           the
           general
           Nature
           of
           a
           Mode
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           an
           Infinite
           and
           a
           finite
           substance
           do
           agree
           in
           the
           General
           Nature
           of
           Substance
           ;
           Let
           any
           one
           by
           some
           solid
           Reason
           prove
           .
           But
           besides
           this
           ,
           the
           Animadverter
           affirmed
           also
           ,
           That
           the
           Personal
           Modes
           belonging
           to
           the
           Deity
           ,
           were
           of
           that
           peculiar
           kind
           as
           to
           affect
           it
           Eternally
           ,
           Necessarily
           ,
           and
           Inseparably
           ;
           though
           there
           are
           several
           Modes
           of
           another
           kind
           belonging
           to
           the
           said
           Nature
           ,
           which
           do
           not
           so
           .
           This
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           and
           no
           more
           ,
           was
           the
           Doctrine
           delivered
           by
           the
           Animadverter
           
           concerning
           the
           
             Divine
             Modes
          
           ;
           which
           is
           so
           utterly
           uncapable
           of
           the
           Representation
           made
           of
           it
           by
           this
           Considerer
           ,
           that
           though
           he
           is
           pleased
           to
           sport
           himself
           with
           a
           thing
           by
           no
           means
           fit
           to
           be
           sported
           with
           ,
           yet
           I
           am
           confident
           ,
           in
           the
           present
           Case
           ,
           his
           own
           judgment
           will
           not
           suffer
           him
           to
           believe
           his
           own
           words
           .
        
         
           But
           he
           is
           for
           putting
           the
           whole
           Dispute
           to
           a
           short
           issue
           (
           if
           he
           will
           say
           and
           hold
           )
           by
           the
           decision
           of
           this
           one
           Question
           ▪
           
             To
             which
          
           (
           he
           says
           )
           
             if
             the
             Animadverter
             will
             give
             a
             clear
             and
             Categorical
             Answer
             ,
             it
             will
             appear
             to
             all
             Men
             ,
             That
             either
             he
             falls
             in
             with
             Dr.
          
           Sherlock
           ,
           
             and
             the
             Tritheists
             ,
             or
             with
             the
             Socinians
             .
          
           And
           the
           Question
           is
           this
           ,
           
             Whether
             there
             are
             in
             God
             Three
             distinct
             all
             knowing
             Almighty
             understandings
             ,
             wills
             and
             energies
             ,
             as
             there
             are
             Three
             distinct
             Persons
             ?
             Or
             whether
             the
             Three
             Persons
             have
             but
             one
             onely
             self-same
             understanding
             will
             and
             energy
             ,
             as
             there
             is
             but
             one
             self-same
             substance
             in
             Number
             .
             Consider
             .
             p.
          
           24.
           
           Col.
           2.
           l.
           25.
           
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           ,
           and
           that
           as
           Categorically
           as
           he
           can
           desire
           .
        
         
           First
           ,
           That
           there
           are
           not
           
             Three
             distinct
             Infinite
             Vnderstandings
             ,
             &c.
          
           in
           God
           as
           there
           are
           
             three
             Persons
          
           :
           and
           that
           to
           assert
           ,
           that
           there
           are
           ,
           is
           as
           arrant
           Tritheism
           as
           any
           that
           Dr.
           Sherlock
           is
           guilty
           of
           ,
           and
           greater
           there
           cannot
           well
           be
           .
        
         
           Secondly
           ,
           That
           there
           is
           but
           one
           Numerical
           infinite
           Understanding
           in
           God
           or
           in
           the
           three
           Persons
           .
           But
           then
           I
           affirm
           withal
           ,
           That
           this
           one
           Numerical
           infinite
           Understanding
           has
           three
           distinct
           ways
           of
           subsisting
           ,
           according
           to
           which
           it
           subsists
           distinctly
           and
           differently
           in
           each
           of
           the
           Three
           Divine
           Persons
           .
           For
           still
           
             Three
             distinct
             infinite
             Vnderstandings
          
           and
           one
           infinite
           Understanding
           subsisting
           
             after
             Three
             distinct
             ways
             or
             modes
             ,
          
           are
           two
           vastly
           different
           Hypotheses
           .
           
           And
           if
           by
           this
           latter
           the
           Animadverter
           falls
           in
           with
           the
           Socinians
           ,
           it
           is
           certain
           that
           the
           Socinians
           must
           also
           fall
           in
           with
           him
           .
           Which
           I
           should
           be
           very
           glad
           to
           find
           ▪
           for
           I
           'm
           sure
           it
           is
           the
           received
           Doctrine
           of
           the
           Church
           ,
           and
           that
           which
           the
           Animadverter
           has
           all
           along
           contended
           for
           ,
           and
           this
           very
           Man
           with
           so
           much
           spight
           and
           personal
           Reflection
           (
           beyond
           all
           that
           I
           ever
           met
           with
           )
           has
           opposed
           and
           reviled
           .
           However
           I
           have
           answered
           him
           civilly
           ,
           which
           is
           a
           way
           of
           answering
           ,
           which
           he
           seems
           a
           stranger
           to
           .
        
         
           But
           to
           pass
           to
           the
           main
           Business
           of
           his
           Paper
           ,
           which
           is
           to
           expose
           and
           ridicule
           the
           Animadverter
           as
           much
           as
           (
           in
           so
           small
           a
           compass
           )
           he
           can
           .
           The
           first
           Instance
           of
           his
           Spleen
           against
           him
           (
           though
           I
           think
           very
           little
           savouring
           of
           the
           Spirit
           of
           a
           Gentleman
           )
           is
           his
           expressing
           a
           Grudge
           at
           the
           very
           Support
           and
           Maintenance
           which
           the
           Animadverter
           has
           from
           the
           Church
           ,
           telling
           him
           ,
           
             That
             he
             is
             full
             and
             even
             overflows
             with
             the
             Blessings
             of
             his
             Holy
             Mother
             ,
          
           Consid.
           p.
           20.
           
           Col.
           1.
           l.
           36.
           
           And
           so
           much
           ,
           I
           hope
           ,
           I
           may
           say
           in
           the
           Animadverter's
           behalf
           ;
           That
           if
           he
           does
           indeed
           overflow
           ,
           there
           are
           many
           about
           him
           who
           find
           themselves
           the
           better
           for
           it
           :
           though
           yet
           I
           know
           several
           in
           the
           Church
           much
           fuller
           ,
           who
           never
           overflow
           .
           And
           for
           this
           I
           will
           instance
           in
           a
           certain
           Dean
           ,
           who
           was
           applied
           to
           by
           a
           poor
           Widow
           ,
           about
           the
           renewing
           of
           a
           Lease
           ;
           the
           Fine
           for
           which
           was
           to
           be
           25
           l.
           And
           she
           ,
           to
           obtain
           some
           Abatement
           thereof
           ,
           pleaded
           her
           Husband's
           and
           her
           own
           Kindness
           to
           him
           while
           they
           had
           been
           all
           formerly
           of
           the
           same
           Conventicle
           (
           that
           is
           ,
           during
           his
           Probationship
           for
           his
           future
           Church
           Preferments
           ▪
           )
           But
           a
           deaf
           For
           (
           it
           seems
           being
           turned
           to
           all
           such
           Pleas
           ,
           she
           at
           length
           in
           plain
           terms
           told
           him
           ,
           
             That
             her
             poor
             
             Children
             were
             in
             a
             starving
             condition
             .
          
           To
           which
           he
           presently
           replied
           ,
           
           
             What
             if
             they
             do
             starve
             ,
             what
             is
             that
             to
             me
             ?
          
           Concerning
           which
           Christian
           and
           compassionate
           Reply
           I
           shall
           only
           say
           thus
           much
           :
           That
           if
           this
           Author
           can
           ever
           prove
           ▪
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           sends
           such
           an
           Ob●ect
           of
           Charity
           away
           with
           such
           an
           Answer
           ,
           he
           will
           not
           expect
           so
           much
           Charity
           from
           him
           ,
           or
           from
           any
           man
           alive
           ,
           as
           to
           be
           accounted
           by
           them
           a
           Christian
           .
           But
           the
           Considerer
           goes
           on
           ;
           and
           as
           if
           it
           were
           not
           enough
           for
           him
           to
           expose
           the
           Animadverter
           to
           the
           Odium
           of
           the
           World
           ,
           as
           so
           much
           overladen
           with
           Church-Preferments
           ,
           he
           taxes
           him
           also
           with
           Avarice
           or
           Ambition
           ,
           or
           both
           ,
           by
           traducing
           him
           as
           one
           
             who
             thought
             that
             he
             had
             not
             yet
             enough
             ,
          
           Consid.
           p.
           20.
           
           Col.
           1.
           l.
           30.
           
           But
           if
           the
           Animadverter
           really
           thought
           so
           ,
           let
           this
           Gentleman
           give
           some
           good
           Reason
           ,
           why
           he
           never
           applies
           himself
           to
           such
           as
           are
           able
           to
           give
           him
           more
           ;
           and
           particularly
           let
           him
           ask
           that
           noted
           Citiz●n
           of
           the
           same
           Perswasion
           with
           himself
           (
           who
           of
           late
           years
           saw
           the
           inside
           of
           Lambeth
           as
           often
           ,
           and
           knew
           i●
           as
           well
           as
           any
           man
           )
           whether
           ever
           he
           saw
           the
           Animadverter
           amongst
           the
           Seekers
           there
           ?
           No
           ;
           let
           me
           tell
           him
           ,
           and
           the
           whole
           World
           besides
           ,
           upon
           this
           occasion
           ,
           That
           from
           the
           very
           bottom
           of
           his
           heart
           ,
           he
           scorned
           it
           .
           But
           in
           the
           mean
           time
           ,
           may
           I
           not
           calmly
           ask
           this
           Author
           ,
           whether
           the
           Animadverter
           ever
           rivall'd
           or
           defeated
           Him
           ,
           or
           any
           of
           his
           Brethren
           in
           their
           Suit
           for
           any
           Church-Preferment
           ,
           that
           they
           thus
           envy
           and
           repine
           at
           his
           ?
           Or
           whether
           they
           are
           at
           all
           the
           poore●
           for
           what
           he
           has●
           No
           ,
           nothing
           like
           this
           ,
           I
           am
           sure
           ,
           can
           be
           so
           much
           as
           pretended
           .
           But
           the
           Truth
           is
           ,
           the
           main
           Quarrel
           this
           man
           ,
           and
           others
           like
           him
           ,
           have
           with
           the
           Animadverter
           is
           ,
           that
           (
           thanks
           be
           to
           God
           )
           his
           
           condition
           is
           such
           yet
           ,
           as
           neither
           forces
           him
           to
           want
           ,
           or
           sneak
           ;
           and
           that
           he
           can
           be
           much
           sooner
           brought
           to
           the
           former
           ,
           than
           he
           can
           be
           made
           to
           do
           the
           latter
           .
           But
           since
           it
           is
           hardly
           imaginable
           ,
           upon
           Terms
           of
           common
           Humanity
           ,
           that
           one
           man
           should
           venture
           to
           charge
           another
           in
           so
           contumelious
           a
           manner
           ,
           but
           for
           some
           very
           great
           Reason
           ;
           Let
           us
           see
           what
           Reason
           this
           Considerer
           brings
           for
           charging
           the
           Animadverter
           at
           this
           rate
           ;
           and
           it
           is
           in
           short
           this
           :
           
             Because
             the
             Animadverter
             submitted
             his
             Explication
             of
             the
             Trinity
             to
             the
             Iudgment
             of
             the
             Church
             of
          
           England
           ,
           
             Consid.
             p.
          
           20.
           
           Col.
           1.
           l.
           20.
           
           Whereupon
           he
           not
           only
           brands
           him
           (
           as
           has
           been
           shewn
           )
           with
           
             Avarice
             and
             Ambition
          
           ,
           but
           sets
           him
           out
           further
           ,
           as
           
             one
             ready
             at
             the
             first
             Nod
             of
             the
             Church
             to
             throw
             his
             Faith
             into
             the
             Kennel
          
           :
           and
           in
           a
           word
           as
           a
           Person
           of
           neither
           
             Faith
             ;
             Conscien●●
          
           nor
           Religion
           .
           In
           Reply
           to
           which
           odious
           Stuff
           ,
           I
           would
           have
           this
           Man
           take
           notice
           ,
           that
           the
           whole
           force
           of
           his
           charge
           (
           if
           there
           be
           any
           force
           in
           it
           )
           must
           depend
           upon
           his
           Proof
           of
           these
           three
           Things
           ,
           viz.
           
           
             
               1.
               
               That
               the
               Animadverter
               affirms
               his
               Explication
               of
               the
               Trinity
               to
               be
               a
               Fundamental
               of
               the
               Christian
               Faith.
               Which
               I
               utterly
               deny
               to
               be
               any
               where
               affirmed
               by
               him
               .
            
             
               2.
               
               That
               a
               man
               may
               not
               quit
               his
               
                 Explication
                 of
                 an
                 Article
                 of
                 the
                 Faith
              
               without
               parting
               with
               the
               Article
               it self
               .
               Which
               Das
               positively
               affirm
               he
               may
               :
               And
               ,
            
             
               3.
               
               (
               Which
               is
               much
               more
               )
               That
               a
               Man
               may
               not
               quit
               his
               Explication
               of
               an
               Article
               of
               the
               Faith
               without
               so
               much
               as
               renouncing
               the
               said
               Explication
               
                 as
                 false
              
               ,
               but
               ●●ly
               by
               his
               
                 forbearing
                 to
                 asser●
              
               ,
               publish
               ,
               or
               insist
               upon
               it
               .
            
          
        
         
           Which
           ,
           I
           〈…〉
           Man
           may
           very
           〈…〉
           ,
           that
           this
           
           Author
           (
           till
           he
           proves
           the
           contrary
           )
           has
           most
           unworthily
           abus'd
           and
           defam'd
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           as
           without
           any
           provocation
           ,
           so
           beyond
           all
           possibility
           of
           making
           him
           satisfaction
           :
           But
           (
           Thanks
           be
           to
           God
           )
           the
           Charge
           is
           so
           very
           black
           and
           foul
           ,
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           dares
           trust
           the
           World
           with
           the
           belief
           of
           it
           ,
           and
           thinks
           it
           extreamly
           below
           him
           so
           much
           as
           to
           offer
           to
           clear
           himself
           from
           it
           .
        
         
           And
           so
           I
           pass
           to
           the
           next
           Instance
           of
           his
           Spleen
           against
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           and
           that
           (
           if
           possible
           )
           more
           hostile
           than
           the
           former
           ,
           as
           carrying
           in
           it
           all
           the
           Symptoms
           of
           an
           extream
           Malice
           ,
           viz.
           his
           Endeavour
           to
           enrage
           an
           whole
           University
           against
           him
           ,
           by
           representing
           him
           as
           a
           great
           Undervalue●
           of
           one
           of
           those
           two
           Noble
           Seats
           of
           Learning
           ,
           in
           comparison
           of
           the
           other
           :
           For
           ,
           what
           else
           can
           he
           mean
           by
           that
           dirty
           ironical
           Expression
           of
           [
           
             Poor
             ,
             Senceless
             ,
             Illiterate
             ,
             Cantabrigian
             Ignoramus
          
           ]
           on
           the
           one
           hand
           ,
           and
           of
           
             [
             The
             Oxford
             Adep●i
             ]
             Consid.
             p.
          
           21.
           
           Col.
           2.
           l.
           30.
           on
           the
           other
           ?
           For
           ,
           has
           the
           Animadverter
           in
           his
           Book
           given
           the
           least
           occasion
           for
           this
           ?
           Did
           he
           speak
           one
           tittle
           in
           preference
           of
           Oxford
           before
           Cambridge
           ?
           Or
           ,
           did
           he
           at
           all
           reflect
           upon
           his
           Advers●ry
           ,
           for
           being
           of
           that
           University
           ,
           which
           he
           equally
           honours
           with
           the
           other
           ?
           No
           ;
           so
           far
           was
           he
           from
           it
           ,
           that
           I
           have
           often
           heard
           him
           say
           ,
           that
           he
           could
           not
           perceive
           by
           his
           Writings
           that
           he
           had
           been
           
             of
             either
             Vniversity
          
           .
           But
           let
           us
           see
           the
           next
           Complement
           he
           passes
           upon
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           viz.
           his
           comparing
           him
           in
           a
           long
           ridiculous
           Romance
           ,
           with
           the
           
             Spanish
             Fool
             err●nt
             Don
             Qui●●t
             ,
             p.
          
           21.
           col
           .
           ●
           .
           Tho●
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ;
           that
           the
           Animadverter
           is
           not
           sensible
           (
           nor
           other●
           neither
           )
           of
           my
           Resemblance
           that
           he
           bears
           to
           
             Don
             Qui●●●
          
           ,
           〈…〉
           be
           〈…〉
           one
           
           whom
           the
           World
           took
           for
           a
           Giant
           ,
           but
           whom
           ,
           by
           his
           turning
           round
           ,
           he
           found
           to
           be
           but
           a
           Windmill
           .
           These
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           are
           some
           of
           the
           Instances
           of
           the
           Socinians
           Respect
           and
           Friendship
           ,
           which
           the
           Defender
           has
           upbra●ded
           the
           Animadverter
           with
           .
           To
           which
           we
           may
           add
           the
           Change
           of
           
             Barbarity
             ,
             p.
          
           19.
           col
           .
           1.
           l.
           ult
           .
           of
           
             more
             〈◊〉
             than
             Argument
             ;
             p.
          
           19.
           col
           .
           1.
           l.
           32.
           of
           
             Arrogance
             ;
             p.
          
           23.
           col
           .
           1.
           l.
           11.
           of
           
             Nonsence
             ;
             p.
          
           13.
           col
           .
           1.
           l.
           6.
           and
           (
           which
           is
           of
           a
           much
           blacker
           import
           )
           of
           his
           
             Vnfi●edness
             in
             his
             Religion
             ,
             p.
          
           20.
           col
           .
           ●
           .
           l.
           ●3
           .
           of
           
             a
             readiness
             to
             turn
             from
             his
             Faith
             with
             every
             Wind
             ,
             p.
          
           20.
           ibid.
           l.
           25.
           
             to
             set
             it
             afloat
          
           ,
           ibid.
           l.
           40.
           and
           
             to
             throw
             it
             into
             the
             Kennel
             ,
             p.
          
           20.
           col
           .
           2.
           l.
           4.
           
           Which
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           are
           not
           meer
           Scoptical
           Reflections
           ,
           but
           High
           and
           Criminal
           Charges
           ,
           and
           fitter
           to
           be
           try'd
           before
           the
           Judge
           ,
           than
           to
           be
           debated
           with
           the
           P●●
           ;
           at
           a●●aigning
           the
           Animadverter
           in
           the
           face
           of
           the
           World
           for
           a
           Rogue
           ,
           an
           Hypocrite
           ,
           a
           Renouncer
           of
           his
           Faith
           ,
           and
           a
           man
           of
           no
           Religion
           .
           And
           all
           this
           (
           as
           has
           been
           noted
           )
           usher'd
           in
           by
           this
           Considerer
           himself
           with
           a
           free
           and
           full
           acknowledgment
           ,
           
             That
             the
             Animadverter
             had
             not
             concern'd
             himself
             with
             the
          
           Socinians
           ,
           
             and
             that
             therefore
             the
          
           Socinians
           
             would
             not
             concern
             themselves
             with
             him
             ,
             p.
          
           12.
           
           Col.
           2.
           towards
           the
           end
           ;
           and
           at
           last
           closed
           up
           by
           him
           with
           this
           affirmation
           also
           ,
           
             That
             he
             had
             given
             the
             Animadverter
             on
             disrespectful
             Language
             at
             all
             ,
          
           p.
           25.
           
           Col.
           2.
           l.
           36.
           and
           consequently
           ,
           that
           he
           ought
           not
           to
           take
           the
           foregoing
           Reproaches
           ill
           ,
           but
           to
           embrace
           and
           accept
           them
           all
           ,
           as
           pure
           ,
           perfect
           
             Socinian
             Courtship
          
           and
           Civility
           .
           Though
           in
           the
           Judgment
           of
           all
           that
           I
           can
           meet
           with
           ,
           these
           things
           clash
           so
           irreconcileably
           both
           with
           themselves
           and
           some
           other
           Passages
           in
           the
           same
           
           tract
           ,
           and
           carry
           in
           them
           so
           much
           of
           Sherlocism
           and
           Self-Contradiction
           ,
           that
           they
           evidently
           shew
           ,
           how
           hard
           (
           if
           not
           impossible
           )
           it
           is
           for
           any
           one
           to
           write
           for
           Dr.
           Sherlock
           without
           writing
           like
           him
           too
           .
           In
           fine
           ,
           I
           believe
           the
           whole
           World
           can
           hardly
           shew
           another
           Instance
           of
           such
           Bitter
           ,
           Virulent
           ,
           Reproachful
           Language
           given
           (
           and
           that
           even
           by
           the
           Confession
           of
           him
           who
           gave
           it
           )
           without
           the
           least
           Provocation
           .
           Nevertheless
           I
           have
           thought
           fit
           to
           treat
           this
           Considerer
           in
           a
           very
           different
           way
           from
           that
           ,
           in
           which
           I
           treated
           Dr.
           Sherlock
           ,
           and
           much
           more
           from
           that
           ,
           in
           which
           He
           himself
           has
           (
           to
           the
           Amazement
           of
           all
           sober
           Persons
           )
           treated
           the
           Animadverter
           :
           not
           ,
           but
           that
           I
           am
           sufficiently
           .
           sensible
           of
           every
           one
           of
           his
           Reproaches
           ;
           But
           since
           they
           are
           only
           Personal
           ,
           and
           designed
           against
           the
           Animadverter
           alone
           ,
           and
           wrote
           (
           as
           I
           am
           well
           satisfied
           )
           
             by
             Order
          
           too
           ,
           he
           may
           easily
           Command
           me
           (
           as
           he
           〈◊〉
           done
           )
           to
           slight
           and
           overlook
           them
           .
           But
           Dr.
           Sherlock
           is
           to
           be
           looked
           upon
           as
           a
           common
           ,
           or
           rather
           an
           Universal
           Adversary
           ,
           and
           deserves
           to
           be
           treated
           as
           such
           ,
           and
           that
           in
           a
           due
           Vindication
           of
           all
           those
           worthy
           suffering
           Reputations
           (
           those
           of
           the
           Fathers
           themselves
           reckoned
           for
           the
           chief
           )
           which
           he
           has
           so
           rudely
           and
           illiterately
           ,
           and
           in
           a
           word
           (
           so
           like
           himself
           )
           made
           an
           invasion
           upon
           .
           And
           so
           having
           represented
           the
           Invectives
           of
           this
           Socinian
           Writer
           against
           the
           Animadverter
           ,
           without
           returning
           them
           upon
           himself
           (
           howsoever
           I
           have
           turned
           them
           upon
           him
           
             for
             whose
             sake
          
           they
           were
           written
           )
           I
           leave
           it
           to
           the
           Reader
           and
           all
           Mankind
           to
           judge
           from
           the
           forementioned
           Passages
           ,
           what
           a
           share
           the
           Animadverter
           has
           in
           the
           Socinians
           Friendship
           and
           how
           much
           he
           is
           the
           object
           of
           their
           Admiration
           .
        
         
         
           But
           the
           Animadverter
           has
           been
           attacked
           by
           Enemies
           from
           more
           Quartels
           than
           one
           ,
           
           and
           amongst
           the
           rest
           ,
           by
           that
           Diminutive
           Oberon
           in
           Divinity
           the
           little
           Oxford-Excommunicate
           .
           A
           Person
           little
           indeed
           in
           every
           thing
           but
           Spight
           and
           Heresie
           .
           He
           in
           his
           poor
           Still-born
           Pamphlet
           published
           against
           the
           Animadversions
           endeavours
           to
           set
           off
           his
           
             small
             Ware
          
           with
           the
           specious
           Title
           (
           forsooth
           )
           of
           
             the
             Trinity
             placed
             in
             its
             due
             light
             .
          
           Though
           I
           must
           tell
           him
           ,
           That
           his
           
             Naked
             Gospel
          
           has
           much
           the
           Advantage
           of
           this
           Piece
           ,
           as
           having
           been
           placed
           by
           the
           Execution
           done
           upon
           it
           at
           Oxford
           ,
           not
           only
           in
           
             its
             due
             light
          
           ,
           but
           
             in
             its
             due
             heat
             too
          
           .
           But
           has
           not
           this
           Man
           ,
           think
           we
           ,
           found
           out
           a
           very
           odd
           way
           of
           explaining
           this
           high
           Mystery
           to
           us
           ,
           viz.
           by
           first
           setting
           his
           College
           all
           in
           a
           Flame
           ,
           and
           then
           pretending
           to
           show
           us
           the
           Trinity
           by
           the
           Light
           of
           it
           ?
           But
           how
           in
           the
           name
           of
           all
           the
           Fairies
           (
           amongst
           whom
           he
           is
           no
           small
           Prince
           )
           comes
           he
           to
           be
           so
           fierce
           and
           furious
           against
           the
           Animadverter
           ?
           For
           the
           Animadverter
           never
           deposed
           against
           him
           ,
           nor
           does
           he
           know
           that
           he
           ever
           disobliged
           this
           pettit
           Doctor
           either
           by
           word
           or
           deed
           .
           Nevertheless
           since
           there
           are
           some
           Tempers
           that
           can
           be
           spightful
           purely
           for
           Spight
           's
           sake
           .
           This
           Man
           was
           resolved
           to
           vent
           his
           Spleen
           ,
           though
           I
           believe
           it
           would
           put
           him
           hand
           to
           it
           ,
           to
           give
           a
           good
           Reason
           ,
           why
           ,
           whether
           we
           respect
           the
           Person
           whom
           he
           wrote
           against
           ,
           or
           whom
           he
           wrote
           for
           .
           Accordingly
           ,
           several
           sourvy
           Passages
           of
           no
           small
           Rancor
           occur
           in
           his
           Discourse
           ;
           which
           ,
           I
           assure
           him
           ,
           might
           easily
           be
           returned
           upon
           him
           ,
           and
           that
           with
           shrewd
           Advantage
           ;
           But
           that
           I
           scorn
           to
           foul
           my
           Paper
           ,
           〈◊〉
           indeed
           my
           very
           Ink
           ,
           upon
           one
           of
           such
           a
           Character
           ,
           by
           quitting
           Scores
           with
           him
           in
           his
           own
           way
           .
           Nor
           shall
           I
           step
           
           so
           low
           ,
           as
           to
           engage
           against
           a
           Book
           wrote
           in
           an
           entire
           Ignorance
           of
           the
           Subject
           which
           it
           was
           wrote
           upon
           ;
           or
           think
           that
           worth
           answering
           ,
           which
           hardly
           any
           Man
           of
           fence
           thinks
           worth
           Reading
           ;
           as
           his
           Bookseller
           by
           woful
           Experience
           finds
           .
           However
           ,
           in
           Case
           the
           Learned
           and
           Judicious
           shall
           at
           any
           time
           judge
           it
           needful
           to
           have
           so
           slight
           a
           piece
           replied
           to
           ,
           (
           which
           I
           could
           never
           yet
           find
           )
           the
           way
           is
           so
           far
           already
           prepared
           for
           it
           ,
           That
           the
           Author
           is
           more
           than
           sufficiently
           known
           ,
           how
           little
           soever
           he
           is
           
             taken
             notice
          
           of
           ;
           we
           have
           his
           mark
           and
           his
           measure
           ;
           there
           being
           scarce
           any
           one
           but
           s●e●
           ,
           and
           
             s●es
             through
          
           him
           too
           .
           For
           since
           the
           World
           has
           been
           acquainted
           with
           his
           
             Naked
             Gospel
          
           (
           thanks
           be
           to
           his
           good
           Stars
           for
           it
           )
           he
           may
           be
           distinguished
           by
           the
           
             stroke
             of
             his
             hand
          
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           by
           the
           mole
           on
           
             his
             foot
          
           .
           There
           are
           others
           also
           who
           have
           discharged
           their
           Potg●ns
           at
           the
           Animadverter
           ;
           but
           he
           does
           not
           think
           it
           worth
           his
           while
           to
           fight
           with
           every
           one
           who
           can
           
             shoo●
             Paper
          
           .
        
         
           
           And
           thus
           ,
           having
           at
           length
           brought
           the
           work
           intended
           by
           me
           to
           a
           Conclusion
           ,
           (
           after
           the
           Churche's
           and
           the
           Reader
           's
           Pardon
           begged
           for
           all
           failures
           that
           shall
           appear
           in
           it
           )
           I
           cannot
           but
           own
           and
           declare
           ,
           that
           many
           wise
           and
           good
           Men
           ,
           and
           hearty
           Lovers
           of
           our
           Church
           (
           to
           my
           Knowledge
           )
           are
           of
           Opinion
           ,
           That
           ,
           this
           Important
           and
           Fundamental
           Point
           ,
           has
           been
           sufficiently
           argued
           ,
           and
           the
           truth
           effectually
           proved
           against
           this
           Innovator
           (
           whom
           I
           have
           been
           hitherto
           dealing
           with
           )
           already
           ;
           and
           that
           the
           properest
           way
           of
           proceeding
           against
           him
           for
           the
           future
           ,
           is
           not
           by
           Argame●●
           ,
           but
           Authority
           .
           And
           that
           his
           Bishop
           would
           admonish
           him
           of
           his
           Heresy
           once
           and
           again
           ,
           and
           if
           he
           persists
           in
           it
           ,
           resolutely
           Excommunicate
           him
           ;
           and
           that
           all
           sober
           
           Christians
           ,
           (
           who
           make
           Conscience
           of
           their
           Duty
           ,
           and
           their
           Holy
           Christ●●n
           Profession
           )
           would
           thereupon
           shun
           and
           abandon
           ,
           and
           refuse
           all
           converse
           with
           him
           ,
           according
           to
           the
           Rule
           of
           Scripture
           ,
           and
           the
           practice
           of
           the
           Primitive
           Church
           towards
           Persons
           obstinately
           persisting
           in
           any
           Heresy
           ,
           and
           Excommunicated
           thereupon
           .
           In
           the
           mean
           time
           ,
           let
           him
           and
           his
           Partisan●
           put
           the
           best
           Face
           they
           can
           upon
           the
           matter
           ,
           yet
           I
           know
           no
           true
           Sons
           of
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           ,
           who
           account
           of
           him
           otherwise
           in
           his
           present
           station
           and
           condition
           ,
           than
           as
           of
           a
           
             Flag
             of
             Defiance
          
           to
           our
           old
           established
           Religion
           .
           Nor
           could
           I
           ever
           imagine
           from
           the
           very
           first
           ,
           what
           his
           design
           could
           be
           in
           writing
           that
           wretched
           Book
           ,
           and
           of
           others
           in
           approving
           it
           ,
           but
           to
           confound
           and
           embroil
           that
           great
           Article
           of
           our
           Faith
           ,
           in
           order
           to
           the
           laying
           in
           quite
           aside
           .
           And
           most
           certainly
           ,
           it
           cannot
           be
           for
           nothing
           ,
           that
           even
           the
           Socinians
           themselves
           (
           as
           great
           an
           opposition
           as
           they
           profess
           to
           Tritheism
           )
           are
           yet
           so
           very
           fond
           of
           ,
           and
           zealous
           for
           this
           Tritheist
           ,
           that
           (
           as
           it
           has
           been
           shewn
           )
           they
           could
           almost
           tear
           the
           Animadverter
           in
           pieces
           ,
           for
           having
           wrote
           against
           him
           .
        
         
           He
           tells
           us
           at
           the
           latter
           end
           of
           the
           Preface
           to
           his
           former
           Book
           called
           his
           Vindication
           ,
           &c.
           
           
             That
             his
             New
             Hypothesis
             of
             the
             Trinity
             cost
             him
             many
             thoughts
             ,
             and
             that
             it
             must
             cost
             others
             many
             too
             ,
             if
             they
             will
             understand
             it
             .
          
           And
           I
           must
           confess
           ,
           that
           it
           has
           cost
           me
           several
           Thoughts
           also
           .
           But
           since
           it
           is
           certain
           that
           a
           Man
           may
           throw
           away
           his
           Thoughts
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           his
           money
           upon
           that
           which
           will
           never
           quit
           Costs
           ,
           I
           must
           profess
           likewise
           ,
           that
           I
           grudge
           every
           Thought
           ,
           which
           I
           have
           spent
           upon
           it
           .
           For
           to
           hear
           ones
           Brains
           upon
           such
           a
           dull
           ,
           senceless
           Hypothesis
           (
           having
           nothing
           to
           recommend
           it
           but
           it's
           Novelty
           )
           is
           but
           just
           as
           if
           a
           Man
           should
           beat
           his
           head
           
           against
           a
           Post
           ;
           which
           being
           
             a
             dry
             ,
             wooden
             ,
             hard
             Thing
          
           (
           and
           upon
           that
           account
           
             a
             lively
          
           ,
           though
           not
           
             living
             Image
          
           of
           this
           Man's
           work
           )
           may
           break
           one's
           head
           indeed
           ,
           but
           can
           never
           improve
           it
           :
           And
           therefore
           ,
           did
           not
           my
           duty
           to
           ,
           and
           concern
           for
           our
           Excellent
           ,
           and
           now
           suffering
           Church
           ,
           oblige
           me
           to
           serve
           her
           even
           in
           the
           lowest
           (
           if
           lawful
           )
           Offices
           ,
           I
           would
           never
           trouble
           my
           thoughts
           with
           his
           Heretical
           stuff
           more
           ;
           especially
           since
           I
           can
           truly
           say
           of
           this
           New
           Hypothesis
           ,
           (
           what
           a
           certain
           Divine
           of
           a
           very
           
             voluble
             Conscience
          
           (
           and
           known
           to
           this
           Man
           as
           well
           as
           he
           knows
           Himself
           )
           said
           of
           the
           
             New
             Oath
          
           before
           he
           took
           it
           ,
           )
           
             The
             more
             I
             think
             on
             't
             ,
             the
             worse
             I
             like
             it
             .
          
        
         
           FINIS
           .
        
      
    
     
       
         
           Advertisement
           .
        
         
           ANimadversions
           upon
           Dr.
           
           Sherlock's
           Book
           ,
           Entituled
           A
           
             Vindication
             of
             the
             Doctrine
             of
             the
             Holy
             and
             ever
             Blessed
             Trinity
             ,
          
           &c.
           
           Together
           with
           a
           more
           Necessary
           Vindication
           of
           that
           Sacred
           ,
           and
           Prime
           Article
           of
           the
           
             Christian
             Faith
          
           ,
           from
           his
           New
           Notions
           and
           false
           Explications
           of
           it
           .
           Humbly
           offered
           to
           his
           Admirers
           ,
           and
           to
           Himself
           the
           Chief
           of
           them
           .
           By
           a
           Divine
           of
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           .
           The
           Second
           Edition
           with
           Additions
           .
        
         
      
       
         Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
         
           Notes for div A60953-e11220
           
             The
             Objection
             about
             the
             derivation
             of
             a
             Mystery
             ,
             prov'd
             only
             a
             Blunder
             of
             the
             Objector
             .
          
           
             See
             the
             Preface
             to
             the
             Animadvers
             .
             p.
             7.
             
          
           
             See
             a
             Pamphlet
             Entitled
             ,
             
               The
               Trinity
               set
               in
               its
               true
               Light
               ,
            
             p.
             5.
             lin
             .
             28.
             
          
           
             
               Non
               accipienda
               est
               processio
               secundùm
               quod
               est
               in
               Corporalibus
               ,
               vel
               per
               motum
               localem
               ,
               vel
               per
               actionem
               aliquam
               causae
               in
               exteriorem
               effectum
               ▪
               ut
               calor
               à
               calefaciente
               in
               calefactum
               .
               Sed
               secundùm
               Emanationem
               intelligibilem
               ,
               u●po●e
            
             Verbi
             
               intelligibilis
               à
            
             Dicente
             
               quod
               manet
               in
               ipso
               :
               &
               sic
               fides
               Catholica
               processionem
               ponit
               in
               divinis
               .
            
             Aquinas
             ,
             1●
             .
             P.
             Q.
             27.
             
             Art.
             1.
             
               in
               C.
            
             
          
           
             Answer
             to
             the
             Antapology
             ,
             p.
             19.
             l.
             6.
             
          
           
             Argum.
             1.
             
          
           
             Arg.
             2.
             
          
           
             Arg.
             3.
             
          
           
             Arg.
             1.
             
          
           
             Arg.
             2.
             
          
           
             Arg.
             3.
             
          
           
             Arg.
             4.
             
          
           
             Arg.
             ●
             .
          
           
             Arg.
             2.
             
          
           
             Arg.
             3.
             
          
           
             Arg.
             4.
             
          
           
             The
             state
             of
             the
             Question
             concerning
             Self-consciousness
             and
             
               mutual
               Consciousness
            
             ,
             with
             reference
             to
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             changed
             and
             falsified
             by
             the
             Defender
             from
             what
             it
             is
             ,
             as
             deliver'd
             by
             Dr.
             Skerlock
             ,
             in
             his
             
               Vindication
               ,
               &c.
            
             
          
           
             The
             true
             state
             of
             the
             Question
             concerning
             Self-consciousness
             and
             
               mutual
               Consciousness
            
             ,
             with
             reference
             to
             the
             Divine
             Persons
             ,
             taken
             from
             Dr.
             
             Sherlock's
             own
             words
             in
             his
             
               Vindication
               ,
               &c.
            
             
          
           
             Arg.
             2.
             
          
           
             Arg.
             3.
             
          
           
             Arg.
             4.
             
          
           
             The
             wonderful
             Vertues
             of
             a
             skillfully
             managed
             [
             meaning
             .
             ]
          
           
             *
             Dr.
             W.
             
          
           
             *
             See
             the
             meaning
             of
             these
             extraordinary
             words
             in
             Chap.
             10
             of
             the
             Animadversions
             .
          
           
             A
             Specimen
             of
             the
             
               Friendship
               of
               the
               Socinians
            
             to
             the
             Animadverter
             objected
             to
             him
             by
             this
             Defender
             ,
             together
             with
             some
             remarks
             upon
             a
             Socinian
             .
             Tract
             ,
             Entituled
             ,
             
               Considerations
               on
               the
               Explications
               of
               the
               Doctrine
               of
               the
               Trinity
               ,
            
             &c.
             
             So
             far
             as
             they
             concern
             the
             Animadverter
             .
          
           
             See
             the
             Animadv
             .
             p.
             329
             ,
             330.
             
          
           
             ☞
             See
             Serm.
             on
             Ps.
             39.9
             .
             p.
             17.
             l.
             11.
             
          
           
             ☞
             
          
           
             A
             Remark
             or
             Two
             upon
             the
             Little
             Oxford-Excommunicate
             ,
             who
             also
             has
             had
             a
             Fling
             at
             the
             Animadverter
             .
          
           
             The
             Conclusion
             .