received this Doctrine from the Apostles it being the Faith of those Churches which were planted by the Apostles received their Faith from them and always lived in Communion with them 2. This makes it reasonable to believe that this very Faith is contained in the Writings of the New Testament for I suppose no man questions but that the Apostles taught the same Faith by Writing which they did by Preaching and then this is a Demonstration against all such Interpretations of Scripture as contradict the Catholick Faith whatever fine Colours Wit and Criticism may give them Nay 3. It is a certain Proof That these Primitive Christians who received these Inspired Writings from the Apostles which now make up the Canon of the New Testament did believe that the same Faith which the Apostles and Apostolical men had taught them by Word of Mouth was contained in their Writings for they could not possibly have believed both what the Apostles taught and what they writ if their Preaching and Writings had contradicted each other We know what the Faith of the Primitive Church was and we know they received these Apostolical Writings with the profoundest Veneration as an Inspired Rule of Faith and had we no other presumption of it but this we might safely conclude That they found the same Faith in these Writings which the Apostles had before taught them by Word of Mouth But besides this we find that all the Catholick Writers appeal to the Scriptures and prove their Faith from them and the Authority of such men who were so near the Fountain of Apostolick Tradition must be very Venerable 4. I shall only add this That since we know what the Catholick Faith was and how the Catholick Fathers expounded Scripture if the Words of Scripture will naturally and easily admit that Sense much more if they will not admit any other Sense without great force and violence let any man judge which is most safe and reasonable to expound Scripture as the Catholick Faith and Catholick Fathers expound it and as the Scripture most easily and naturally expounds it self or to force New Senses and Old Heresies upon Scripture which the Catholick Church has always rejected and condemned This I hope may satisfy our Considerer that he did very ill in rejecting a Traditionary Faith and venturing to expound Scripture by his Natural Sentiments which is a very Unsafe Rule in Matters of Pure Revelation of which mere Natural Reason is no competent Judge SECT III. What is sufficient to be believed concerning the Trinity THus far I fear our Considerer has been a little unfortunate or if it do not prove a Misfortune to him in forming his Notion of a Trinity his Luck is better than his Choice Let us proceed to his next Enquiry What is sufficient for Christians to believe concerning the Trinity or which is all one in this case what is necessary to be believed What the meaning of this Question is I can't well tell nor why he makes sufficient and necessary all one for at least they are not always so That is sufficient which is enough for any man to believe that is strictly necessary which every man must believe But let him take his own way he quits the Term sufficient and enquires what is necessary to be believed whereas in many cases that which is absolutely necessary for all may not be sufficient for some I should much rather have enquired how much may be known concerning this Glorious Mystery than how little will serve the turn which argues no great Zeal for it Well What is necessary to be believed concerning the Trinity He answers Nothing but 1. What 's possible to be believed And 2. What 's plainly revealed Here we begin to see what the effect is of consulting nothing but Scripture and Natural Sentiments I hope he meant honestly in this but if he did he expressed himself very incautiously for these two Conditions are very ill put together when applied to matters of Revelation Plainly revealed had been enough in all reason unless he would insinuate that what is plainly revealed may be impossible to be believed and that how plain soever the Revelation be men must judge of the possibility of the thing by their own Natural Sentiments before they are bound to believe it which makes Natural Reason not Scripture the final Judge of Controversies But we must follow him where he leads us and thus he divides his whole Work 1. To consider how far it is possible to believe a Trinity 2. What the Scripture requires us to believe in this matter As for the first he tells us There are two requisites to make it possible for us to believe a thing 1. That we know the Terms of what we are to assent to 2. That it imply no Contradiction to our former Knowledge Such Knowledge I mean as is accompanied with Certainty and Evidence This in some sense may be true but as it is thus loosely and generally expressed it is very like the Socinian Cant and Sophistry By knowing the Terms he means having distinct Natural Ideas of what is signified by such Terms as he himself explains it I can believe it no farther than the Terms of which it is made up are known and understood and the Ideas signified by them consistent So that all Divine Mysteries must be examined by our Natural Ideas and what we have no Natural Ideas of we cannot we must not believe And this once for all condemns all Supernatural Faith or the belief of Supernatural Objects though never so plainly revealed for we have no Natural Ideas of Supernatural Objects And though Revelation may furnish us from the Resemblances and Analogies in Nature with some Artificial Ideas this will not serve the turn for though they know what such Terms signify when applied to Natural they know not what they signify when applied to Supernatural Objects nor have they any Ideas to answer them As for Instance We know what Father and Son signify when applied to Men but when we say God is not only Eternal himself but an Eternal Father who begot an Eternal Son these Terms of Father and Son begetting and being begotten must signify quite otherwise than they do among men something which we have no Idea of and therefore say the Socinians All this is unintelligible and impossible to be believed unless we can believe without understanding the Terms This Considerer asserts the Premises he had best consider again how he will avoid the Conclusion Another Socinian Topick is Contradiction and this our Considerer makes another requisite to the possibility of believing That the thing do not imply a Contradiction to our former knowledge that is to any Natural Ideas And here he learnedly disputes against believing Contradictions and that it is not consistent with the Wisdom Iustice and Goodness of God to require us to believe Contradictions But if instead of all this he had only said That God cannot reveal such plain and evident
Socinians and I was glad to find them censured and rejected but wonder'd how they came to be numbred among those men who have laboured in this good design of explaining the Trinity and reconciling the Disputes about it Well All these Methods have proved ineffectual let us then to omit other matters enquire what Course our Considerer took to make himself a fit and competent Judge of this Controversy Take the account of it in his own words I have endeavoured to deliver my self from Prejudice and Confusion of Terms and to speak justly and intelligibly And not being yet prepossess'd in favour of any particular Explication the better to preserve my freedom of examining the Subject in hand I have purposely forborn to search the Fathers Schoolmen or Fratres Poloni or read over any later Treatises concerning this Controversy while I was composing the present Essay resolving to consult nothing but Scripture and my own Natural Sentiments and draw all my Reflections from thence taking only such which easily and without constraint offered themselves Thus Des Cartes made a New Philosophy and this is the best way that can be thought of to make a New Faith This has an appearance of great Indifferency and Impartiality but it is a great mistake when men boast in this as a virtue and attainment and an excellent disposition of mind for the Examination of Matters of Faith I never in my life yet saw any one example to the contrary but that when men who had been educated in the Christian Faith and tolerably instructed in the meaning and the reasons of it could persuade themselves to be thus perfectly indifferent whether it were true or false but this indifference was owing to a secret byass and inclination to Infidelity or Heresy It is in vain to pretend such an absolute freedom of Judgment without being perfectly indifferent which side is true or false For if we wish and desire to find one side of the question true and the other false this is a Byass and our Judgment is not equally poiz'd And certainly in matters of such vast consequence as the Christian Faith and especially that great Fundamental Article of the Holy Trinity such an Indifferency as this is can never recommend either an Author or his Writings to sober Christians Will this Considerer then own that it was indifferent to him when he undertook this design whether the Doctrine of the Trinity should upon Examination appear true or false If it were not the Socinians will tell him that he had not preserved a Freedom of Judgment and then he did well in not consulting the Fratres Poloni for he had condemn'd them without hearing or if he were persuaded concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity Was it indifferent to him whether the Sabellian or Arian or True Catholick Notion of a Trinity contained in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were the True Faith That is Was it indifferent to him whether the Ancient Heresies condemn'd by the Catholick Church or that Faith which the Catholick Church has always own'd and professed be the True Faith For my part I confess I am not thus indifferent I will never shut my eyes against plain Conviction which is all the Freedom of judging which is allowable but my Prejudices are and I hope always will be on the side of the Catholick Faith No wise man can be thus indifferent And we shall find this Considerer was not so very indifferent for the main Principles he reasons on are some Popular Mistakes and Prejudices which he seems to have espoused without due Consideration But let us allow him to be as free and unprejudic'd as he pleases I cannot think that he took a good method to understand this Sacred Mystery He laid aside Fathers Schoolmen and other later Treatises concerning this Controversy and consulted nothing but Scripture and his own natural Sentiments To consult Scripture is indeed a very good way and absolutely necessary in matters of pure Revelation which can be certainly known no other way but the Fathers at least are very good Guides and have very great Authority in expounding Scripture and our Natural Sentiments otherwise called Natural Reason is a very bad a very dangerous Expositor of Scripture in such Supernatural Mysteries and has no Authority in these mattters and how our Considerer has been misled by his Natural Sentiments will soon appear A few words might serve for an Answer to the Considerer but since this is the great Pretence of Socinians and other Hereticks to set up Scripture and Natural Reason against Scripture and the Traditionary Faith of the Catholick Church and our Considerer and some other unwary Writers chime in with them it will be very necessary to shew how this betrays the Catholick Faith and makes Reason and Criticism the Supreme Judge of Controversy and then men may dispute on without end and believe at last as they please The Considerer tells us I take it for granted in a Protestant Countrey that Scripture is the only Standard of all necessâ—ry Revealed Truths Neither in the present Case is there any room for a Traditionary Faith For besides that all the Fathers and Ancient Writers ground their Exposition of the Trinity wholly upon Scripture I cannot conceive that the Subject is capable of a plainer Revelation as I shall endeavour to shew more fully in the following Discourse What this last Clause means we shall understand better hereafter but his denying a Traditionary Faith is very extraordinary for if we can prove from the most Authentick Records what the constant belief of the Catholick Chuâ—ch has been especially in the first and purest Ages of it This I take to be a Traditionary Faith nor is it the less Traditionary because the Fathers and Ancient Writers sound their Expositions of the Trinity wholly upon Scripture For if this be true then we have a Traditionary Faith of the Trinity and a Traditionary Exposition of the Scripture for the Reason and Proof of that Faith both in one which I take to be a greater Authority and safer Guide than mere Scripture and our Natural Sentiments And though Protestants allow Scripture to be the only Standard of Faith yet he might have remembred that the Church of England requires us to expound Scripture as the Ancient Fathers expound it But this Wholly is a Mistake for the Primitive Fathers pleaded Tradition as well as Scripture against the Ancient Hereticks as two distinct but agreeing Testimonies as this Author might have known would he have been pleased to have consulted Irenaeus and Tertullian de praescriptionibus with divers others What he means by a plainer Revelation I cannot tell it makes it somewhat plainer to know what the Catholick Faith has always been and what the Catholick Interpretation of Scripture has always been which is the plainest and strongest Answer to Wit and Criticism and Natural Sentiments when they contradict this Traditionary Faith But to discourse this matter more particularly I shall
the Son to be a distinct Substantial Person this Dispute we hear nothing of but the only Dispute was concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and that proves that they did own the Son to be a Substantial Person for were he not in a true proper sense a Person and a Substantial Person he could not be Consubstantial with the Father Nay St Austin expresly tells us That Arius agreed with the Catholicks against the Sabellians in making the Son a distinct Person from the Father and if so the Catholicks taught That the Son was as distinct a Person as Arius did though not a Separate and Created Person as he did Now when Arius would have reduced Christ into the number of Creatures though he made him the first and most excellent Creature created before the World and God's Minister in making the World as like to God as a Creature can possibly be but not of the same Nature with God the Catholick Church would not bear this but in a most Venerable Synod collected from most parts of the Christian World condemn this as contrary to the Faith always received and owned in their several Churches Thus far at least the Tradition of the Church was Sacred and Venerable and the concurrent Testimony of all these several Churches was a more certain Proof of the Apostolick Faith than all the Wit and Subtilty of Arius For Wit may patronize New Errors but cannot prove That to be the Ancient Apostolick Faith which the Church had never received from the Apostles nor ever heard of before This I take to be a very sensible Proof what the Faith of the Christian Church was from the Times of the Apostles till the Council of Nice and consequently what that Faith was which the Church received from the Apostles And this abundantly satisfies me That whatever loose Expressions we may meet with in some of the Fathers before the Arian Controversy was started and managed with great Art and Subtilty though I know of none but what are capable of a very Orthodox Sense it is certain that they were not Arians nor intended any such thing in what they said For had Arianism been the Traditionary Faith of the Church it must have been known to be so and then how came the Church to be so strangely alarm'd at the first news of it Or what shall we think of those Venerable Fathers and Confessors in that Great Council who either did not know the Faith of the Church or did so horribly prevaricate in the Condemnation of Arius when they had no other apparent Interest or Temptation to do so but a Warm and Hearty Zeal for the Truly Ancient and Apostolick Faith It is certain Arius never pretended Catholick Tradition for his Opinion but undertook to reform the Catholick Faith by the Principles of Philosophy and to reconcile it to Scripture by new-coin'd Interpretations though in this he fail'd and found the Great Athanasius an over-match for him It is not with Faith as it is with Arts and Sciences of Human Invention which may be improved in every Age by greater Wits or new Observations but Faith depends upon Revelation not Invention and we can no more make a New Catholick Faith by the power of Wit and Reason than we can write a True History of what the Apostles did and taught out of our own Invention without the Authority of any Ancient Records Men may do such things if they please but one will be Heresy and the other a Romance And yet this is the bold and brave Attempt of Secinus and his Disciples They are so modest indeed as not to pretend Antiquity to be on their side they can find no other Antiquity for themselves but in Cerinthus and Ebion who separated from the Catholick Church and were rejected by them and it does not seem very modest to set up such men as these against the Universal Consent of the first and purest Ages of the Church The Socinians who know very well what the Charge of Novelty signifies in matters of Religion That a New Faith is but another Name for New Heresies Though they reject the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Catholick Tradition of the Faith from the Apostolick Age yet they appeal to Scripture and Natural Sentiments as the greatest and best Antiquity in opposition to Apostolick Tradition This is our Considerer's way which he prefers before a Traditionary Faith and by the same reason the Socinians may oppose it to a Traditionary Faith And if we must always expound Scripture by our Natural Sentiments this Author had best consider whether he can prove a Trinity by Natural Reason or fairly reconcile the Natural Notion of One God with the Catholick Faith of the Trinity or of Three each of whom is True and Pâ—rfect God from the mere Principles of Natural Reason for if he can't he must not in his way find a Trinity in Scripture But of this more hereafter 3. Let us now in opposition to this pretence consider of what Authority the Traditionary Faith of the Catholick Church ought to be in expounding Scripture The Holy Scripture at least in pretence is allowed on all hands to be a Compleat and Authentick Rule of Faith but the question is since men differ so much in expounding Scripture What is the safest Rule to expound Scripture by whether the Traditionary Faith of the Church or our Natural Sentiments or Natural Reason I do not mean that we must learn the Critical Sense of every Text from Catholick Tradition for we have not in all points such a Traditionary Exposition of Scripture though even in this respect we shall find that the Catholick Fathers have unanimously agreed in the Interpretation of the most material Texts relating to the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ. They sometimes indeed alledge such Texts especially out of the Old Testament as our Modern Criticks will not allow to be proper and apposite but even this shews what their Faith was and yet these very Expositions which have been so anciently and unanimously received though they may appear at this distance of time too forc'd and mystical have too Sacred and Venerable an Authority to be wantonly rejected We may learn from Christ and his Apostles what mysterious and hidden Senses were contain'd in the Writings of the Old Testament such as it is very probable we should never have found in them had not Christ and his Apostles explained their meaning And the nearer any Writers were to the Apostolick Age the more they were addicted to these Mystical Interpretations which is a good reason to believe that they learnt it from the Apostles themselves But this is not what I now intend my present Argument reaches no farther than this That if we can learn what the Doctrine of the Catholick Church concerning the Holy Trinity and the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ has always been Then 1. It is very reasonable to conclude That they
and Son to the Eternal Spirit and all Three are Infinite in Wisdom Power and Goodness and all other Divine Perfections This is but One Divinity One Godhead for there is not a Second and Third Divinity in the Son and in the Holy Spirit but the One Divinity of the Father But yet we must confess that here is Number Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three and how can that Divinity which is perfectly and distinctly in Three be One Individual Nature One Numerically One as Human Nature in every particular Man is One Now this must be resolved into the second Notion of Essential for Essential Productions for all Essential Productions in the Unity of Nature though they may be distinguished and numbred among themselves are but One Individual Nature It will be in vain to seek for an Example of this in Created Nature and I believe the reason of it will be evident without it An Eternal Self-originated Mind is True and Perfect God the First Supreme Cause of all things and has all the Perfections of the Divinity wholly in it self is the One and only True God But if it be essential to an Eternal Mind to have an Eternal Living Subsisting Word and Spirit by an Eternal Generation and Procession then this Eternal Word and Spirit are essential to an Eternal Mind not as Essential Perfections or Essential Parts but as Essential Productions or Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature Thus the Scripture represents this Mystery That there is One God who has an Eternal Word and an Eternal Spirit and the Catholick Fathers as I have already observed insist on this as a natural Demonstration of a Trinity That the Eternal Mind must have its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit Now if the Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit are essential to the Eternal Mind it is certain that Father Son and Holy Ghost the Eternal Mind its Word and Spirit are but One Individual Divinity every thing that is essential is included in the Notion of an Individual Nature for that is not a Compleat and Perfect Nature nor an adequate notion of Nature that wants any thing that is essential Now though we may have a general Notion and Idea of a God That he is an Absolutely Perfect Being which Includes all the Divine Attributes and Perfections without knowing any thing of the Son or Holy Ghost yet if we consider this Absolutely Perfect Being as Eternal Self-originated Mind with its Eternal Word and Spirit as essential Productions or Processions we can consider them no otherwise but as One Individual Divinity this Eternal Word and Spirit being essential Processions of the Eternal Mind which can never be separated from it For such essential Processions are not only coeval and consubstantial with the Nature from whence they proceed as the Sun its Light and Heat by which Argument the Catholick Fathers proved the Coeternity and Consubstantiality of the Son and Holy Spirit with the Eternal Father but whatever distinction there is between them they are One Individual Nature if all that be One Individual Nature which is essential to such a Being and such all essential Processions are as well as essential Perfections These are two very different Questions and of a very different consideration What God is and Who this God is In an answer to the first we form the Idea and Notion of all Divine Perfections or of an absolutely Perfect Being which is the true notion of the Divinity and whoever has all these Divine Perfections is True and Perfect God and this is our natural notion of God as that signifies the Divinity which gives no notice of any distinction in the Divinity for there can be no diversity in Absolute Perfections and therefore no distinction or number according to the Philosophy of the Fathers But when we consider who God is or what is the Subject of all these Divine Perfections we can form no other Idea of it but an Eternal Infinite Self originated Mind this the Wisest Philosophers as well as Christians are agreed in That God is an Infinite Mind and this rightly explained may teach us some distinction in the Divinity for all Men must grant what they feel in themselves that every Mind has its Word and Spirit and cannot be conceived without them and therefore the Eternal Mind must have its Eternal word and Spirit too and the reason why this did not lead all Mankind into the natural belief of a Trinity of Persons Mind Word and Spirit in the Unity of the Godhead was plainly this Because they found that their own Word and Spirit were not permanent subsisting Persons but were the perishing Creatures of the Mind which were no sooner produced but died and vanished as our Thoughts do and thus they conceived it was with the Divine Mind which is one kind of Sabellianism as I observed above But yet the Catholick Fathers thought this natural belief That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Divinity or Divine Mind is not without its Word a very proper Medium to prove a real subsisting Word in the Divinity for an Infinite Perfect Mind which is all Life Being Substance if it begets its own Word as every Mind does must beget a Living Substantial Subsisting Word the perfect Image and Character of its own Life and Infinite Being However thus much I think we must own That since every Mind must have its Word and Spirit in the Individual Unity of its own Nature and the Holy Scripture assures us that God who is the most perfect Mind has his Word and Spirit and that this Divine Word and Spirit is an Eternal Living Subsisting Word and Spirit this is a very good foundation for the belief of a Real Trinity both from Reason and Scripture The natural Notion and Idea of a Mind teaches us this distinction in the Divinity and Natural Reason strongly infers from the perfect Productions of an infinitely perfect Mind that the Divine Word and Spirit must be an Eternal Living Infinite Word and Spirit and the Holy Scripture confirms all this And therefore Scripture and Reason are so far from contradicting each other in this Article that the Belief of the Trinity though it be ultimately resolved into the Authority of Revelation yet has Reason on its side as far as it can judge of such matters Which proves a considerable Authority when the obscure and imperfect Conjectures of Reason are explained and confirmed by Revelation For though the Notion of an absolutely perfect Being which is the Natural Idea of the Divinity teaches no such distinction yet the Idea of an Infinitely Perfect and Self-originated Mind which is as natural a Notion of God does Thus Damascen teaches us to distinguish between the Divinity and in what the Divinity is or to speak more accurately what is the Divinity and that which proceeds eternally from this First Cause that is the Hypostases of the Son and Holy Spirit the first teaches us
foundation of this Sameness and Consubstantiality of Nature in the Eternal Generation of the Son of the Substance of the Father 184 To which they added That the Son receives his whole Substance from the whole Substance of the Father totus ex toto 186 Concerning this mysterious and ineffable Generation Whole of Whole 187 St. Austin teaches That the Divine Nature and Essence must not be considered either as a Genus or Species nor the Divine Persons as Individuals 194 What Medium there is between the Vnity of Singularity and a specifick Vnity of Nature 195 The difference between Three Divine Persons and Three Individual Human Persons 199 SECT VI. A more particular Inquiry what the Catholick Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness and Identity of Substance in the Holy Trinity 207 Petavius's attempt to prove that both the Greek and Latin Fathers taught the Singularity of the Divine Nature Ibid. His Notion of Singularity Considered 208 His Apology for the Fathers who as he says taught a specifick Vnity rejected 211 His Authorities for the Singularity of the Divine Nature Examined 213 By the Sameness and Identity of Nature the Fathers did not mean Singularity but such a Sameness as is between Three real subsisting Persons without the least Change and Variation 217 That the Fathers resolved the Vnity of God into this Sameness and Identity of Nature 221 Some Examples in Nature of the distinction betweeen alius and aliud 227 How the Fathers proved the Vnity of God in opposition to Polytheism from the Sameness and Identity of Nature 230 That these Arguments do not conclude against a Trinity of Divine Persons 232 Gregory Nyssen vindicated from Tritheism and his Answer to Ablabius Explained 236 The Philosophy of the Ancients about Numbers 243 The distinction between the Vnity of Number and the Vnity of Nature opposed to the Charge of Tritheism and a Confutation of a Sabellian Singularity 246 In what sense the Schools asserted the Singularity of the Divine Substanâ—e 248 SECT VII Concerning the Distinction of Persons in the Vnity and Identity of the Divâ—ne Essence The general Account of this 254 That both the Fathers and Schools by a Divine Person understood the Divine Essence and Substance and nothing else 260 This proved from that Ambiguity with which the Fathers are charged in the use of these Terms Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis c. 261 That these Terms Essence c. are distinctly applied to each Person of the Holy Trinity 264 And all those Terms which are more peculiarly appropriated to signify the Divine Persons were always used by Catholick Writers in the Notion of Substance and never thought Catholick in any other sense as Person Hypostasis Suppositum c. 265 That a Divine Person is nothing else but the Divine Nature proved from the Absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature which admits of no Composition as both Fathers and Schoolmen own 272 According to the Doctrine both of Fathers and Schools the Divine Essence and Substance as subsisting distinctly in Three is proper and peculiar to each and incommunicable to one another 273 Whether the Divine Essence either begets or is begotten and how the Fathers and Schools may be reconciled 274 SECT VIII Concerning the Divine Relations 281 The true Notion of Relative Substances or Subsisting Relations explained from the Doctrine of the Schools Ibid. These Divine Relations secure the perfect Vnity of the Divine Essence 287 What is meant by an Absolute Substance and what by Relative Substance Ibid. This applied to the Doctrine of the Trinity 288 Three Absolute Substances are always distinctly and separately Three Three Relative Substances may be essentially One in the same One Individual Nature 289 This account the Fathers give of the Vnity of the Divine Essence 290 Concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they do not signify Personal Relative Substances but singular Absolute Substances 293 The Divine Relations prove the Sameness and Identity of Nature in Three 298 These Divine Relations give us an intelligible Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inseparable Vnion of the Divine Persons and their mutual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inexistence in each other 300 This mutual inbeing can be understood only between the Relatives of the same Individual Essence and Substance 305 And this gives an Account of the Vnity of Operation 308 Concerning the Mutual Consciousness of the Divine Persons 313 The Doctrine of Relations necessary to give us a sensible Notion of a Trinity in Vnity 326 SECT IX A more particular Inquiry into the difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Nature and Person with an Account of some Catholick Forms of Speech relating to the ever Blessed Trinity 334 The Faith and the Philosophy of the Ancients of a different Consideration Ibid. All the Heresies relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation attributed to this one mistake that Essence and Hypostasis are the same 336 This by some charg'd upon Aristotle's Notion of a first Substance Ibid. The Distinction of Nature and Person in Creatures considered 338 Aristotle's first Substance and what the Fathers call Hypostasis is in Creatures the same thing 339 What the Fathers mean by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Hypostasis 340 No real difference between Aristotle and the Fathers in this Matter Ibid. The Fathers by a Common Nature did not mean One Numerical Subsisting Nature common to all the Individuals 341 For what reason they reject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particular singular Nature 343 Hypostasis is Nature with its peculiar Accidents subsisting by it self that these Accidents and Personal Properties do not make but only distinguish Persons 345 The Hypostasis or Person is the common Nature subsisting by it self This proved from the Humanity of our Saviour 346 How improper all these Terms are to explain the Trinity in Vnity 350 How the Catholick Fathers accommodated these Names of Essence and Person to the Explication of this Mystery 352 The Common Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity is the Divinity of the Father common to the Son and Spirit by a perfect Communication whole of whole 354 The true Notion of One Individual Nature Ibid. Essential Internal Productions are in the Individual Vnity of Nature 356 The Distinction between Nature and Persons for that is the true State of the Question not how Nature and Person is distinguished in each Single Divine Person but how One Individual Nature is distinguished from Three Persons in the Individual Vnity of Nature 360 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 362 This applied at large for the Explication and Vindication of several Catholick Forms of Speech concerning the Trinity in Vnity 365 c. The Conclusion with a short Application to the Socinians 385 ERRATA PAge 6. l. 31. d. all p. 9. marg r. quae p. 15. l. 3. r. enow p 86. l. 8 9. r expressions p. 180. l.
by whom are all things and we by him 1 Cor. 8.6 St. Hilary finds this God of whom are all things and this Lord by whom are all things in the Mosaical History of the Creation And God said Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters and God made the firmament and divided the waters c. 1. Gen. 6 7. Where as he applies it the Father commands and the Son his Almighty Word makes all things So the Psalmist tells us of the Father He spake and it was done he commanded and it stood fast 33. Psal. 9. Or as it is in the 148 th Psal. 5. He commanded and they were created And by whom they were created St. Iohn tells us In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made 1 Joh. 1 2. This he thinks proves a plain distinction of jubentis Dei facientis Dei God that commands and God that does for common sense will not allow that they should be one single Solitary Person much more reason have we to distinguish them when both the Old and New Testament distinguish them But whatever dispute this may admit that Account Moses gives of the Creation of Man he takes to be an unexceptionable Proof of a Plurality of Divine Persons And God said Let us make man in our image after our likeness So God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him 1. Gen. 26.27 Now if we understand these words as spoken by God in the same sense as we should and ought to understand them had they been spoken by men which St. Hilary lays down as a Principle That God speaks to us as we speak to one another and expects to be understood by us according to the common use and acceptation of such forms of speech then let Vs make man in Our Image after Our Likeness cannot signify a singular and solitary Person for such a form of speech naturally imports a Plurality of Persons and a common Nature and Likeness No single solitary Person speaks to himself to do any thing but only wills and chuses what to do and execâ—â—es his own purposes much less does he speak to himself in the Plural Number which in common use signifies some Companions and Partners in the work Let Vs make cannot signify One single Person nor can Our Image admit Two Persons of an unlike and different Nature when the Image is but one and the same and therefore this must prove that there are more Divine Persons than One and that they have all the same Divine Nature Were God but one single and solitary Person this would be a most unaccountable form of speech and there can be no pretence to put such a harsh sense on the words unless we certainly knew that there was no other Divine Person but he who spoke but then if instead of knowing this we certainly know the contrary that when God made the World he was not alone but had his Eternal Substantial Wisdom the Person of the Eternal Word with him by whom he made the world this puts the matter out of doubt And this St. Hilary proves frâ—m that account which Solomon gives of Wisdom 8 Prov. 22 c. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was Then I was by him as one brought up with him rejoicing always before him And therefore the Father was not alone and did not speak to himself when he made the world his own Wisdom a Divine Eternal Person co-operating with him and rejoicing in the Perfection of his Works But besides this he proves at large that the Angel which so often appeared to Abraham Hagar Iacob to Moses in a Burning Bush and is in express terms called God the Judge of the world the God of Abraham and Isaac and Iacob was not a Created Angel nor God the Father and yet was True and Perfect God even the Son of God who in the fulness of time became Man and adds several Passages in the Psalms and Prophets which plainly own a Divine Person distinct from God the Father to be True and Perfect God I need not tell those who are acquainted with the Writings of the Ancient Fathers that they all insist on the same Arguments to prove the same thing that there is not in any one point a more universal Consent amongst them which is too Venerable an Authority to be over-ruled by Criticism it being no less than a Traditionary Exposition of Scripture from the Apostolick Age. But I am no further concerned in this at present than to shew what Notion the Catholick Fathers had about the Unity of God These Fathers did not fence against the Objection of Tritheism by distinguishing away the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit by making the Son God ex accidenti secundum quid for they knew nothing of an accidental or secundum quid God which I must own sounds to me very like Blasphemy and Contradiction that when this Name God signifies the most necessary and absolutely Perfect Being any Person to whom this Name does naturally and essentially belong should be God by Accident or only in a limited and qualified sense But without fearing the Charge of Tritheism they with Moses and the Prophets own another Divine Person distinct from the Father but as Real and Substantial a Person and as truly and perfectly God as the Father is Insomuch that Tertullian when he had alledgâ—d that Tâ—xt 45. Psal. 6 7. which the Apostle to the Hebrews applies to Christ 1. Heb. Thy throne O Gâ—d is for ever and ever the scepter of thy Kingdom is a right scepter Therefore God thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows was not aâ—raid to add Ecce Duos Deos Behold Two Gods That is Two Divine Pâ—rsons each of whom is by himself truly and essentially God for notwithstanding this he would not say there are Two or Three Gods and gives his reason for it He owned a Plurality of Gods even Tritheism it self in that sense of the word Tritheism which the Arians and Sabellians objected against the Faith of the Trinity as Three Gods signify no more than Three Divine Substantial Persons each of whom is truly and perfectly God as having distinctly in himself the whole and perfect Divine Nature but this he and the other Fathers deny to be Tritheism they are God and God and God but not Three Gods And they think it a sufficient proof as any man would who believes the Scripture that this is not the Scripture-Notion of Tritheism because the same Scripture which teaches us that there is but One God attributes
be Three Gods but when there is but One Eternal Father though he have an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit there can be but One God Now what is the meaning of this Is it because none is or can be God True and Perfect God but he who is God of himself Self-originated and Unbegotten This would destroy the Perfect Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and answer the Objection of Tritheism by denying the Trinity And it is certain this could not be their meaning because they owned the Sameness and Equality of Nature of Majesty and Glory of Wisdom and Power in Father Son and Holy Ghost only allowed the Prerogative of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the name and relation of Father And when the Arians woul◠prove the diversity of Nature between Father and Son by this Argument That the Father is unbegotten and the Son begotten they denied that this inferred the least difference or inequality of Nature Now if the Divine Essence be God and there be a perfect equality of Nature between Father Son and Holy Ghost though the Father be unbegotten the Son begotten and the Holy Ghost proceeds from both I desire to know Why Three Persons each of which is True and Perfect God though one be unbegotten another begotten and a third proceeds be not as much Three Gods as Three that are unbegotten are Three Gods The natural Notion of God is an Eternal Unmade Uncreated Essence which gives being to all Creatures but neither Begotten nor Unbegotten belongs to the natural Notion of God but is matter of pure Revelation and therefore Three that are Eternal as to the natural Notion of God are as much Three Gods as Three that are Unbegotten The true Account of it then is this That One Father who is unbegotten himself but begets a Son is but One eternal Divine Essence which he eternally communicates whole and undivided to the Son and therefore is but One Divine Essence still and therefore but One God whereas Three Unbegottens who do not communicate in each other and neither give to nor receive from any other must be Three absolute independent Divine Essences and therefore Three Gods And therefore they do not call the Father the One God merely because he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unbegotten but as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Fountain of the Deity who communicates his own whole Divine Nature and Essence to the Son and Holy Spirit For this reason Athanasius condemns Sabellius for saying that there is but One only God in the Iewish Notion of One God not meaning thereby that there is but One only who is unbegotten and who only is the Fountain of the Deity but that there is but One God as having no Son nor living Word or true Wisdom It were easy to enlarge here and to improve this Observation for the Explication of several difficult Passages in the Fathers but this may satisfy us that the Catholick Fathers by One Substance did not mean a meer specifick but a natural and essential Unity SECT VI. A more particular Inquiry what the Catholick Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness and Identity of Substance in the Holy Trinity WHat I have discoursed in the last Section concerning the Homoousion and One Substance of the Godhead will receive a new Light if we consider what the Catholick Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness Identity and Inseparability of Essence and Substance whereby they explain the Unity of the Divine Substance and the Unity of the Godhead The Learned Jesuit Petavius has two large Chapters to prove that both the Greek and Latin Fathers did assert the Singularity and Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature and Substance And I freely grant That as Singularity is opposed to a mere specifick Unity he has unanswerably proved it but why he or the Schools should chuse a word to represent the Sense of the Catholick Fathers by concerning the Unity of the Divine Substance which they themselves rejected as Sabellianism I can't account for for singularis solitarius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Singularity of Nature and Substance were rejected as suspected terms at least though they allowed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness and Identity of Nature the Vnitas but not Vnio the Unity but not Union which St. Hilary so often calls impia Vnio a wicked Union as destroying the real distinction of Persons and consequently the true Faith of Father Son and Holy Ghost And to do Petavius right he rejects such a notion of singularity as denies the Divinity to be a Common Nature as if it could subsist only in One Person or Hypostasis which he owns to be Sabellianism and that for this reason some of the Fathers he might have said most if not all the Ancient Fathers did reject the use of such words and taught That the Divine Nature is One as any other Nature is which is common to more than one And acknowledges that St. Hilary St. Ambrose St. Austin and others do expresly deny that God is a singular Being and reject the Notion of singularity from the Divine Essence Now such a singularity as this as admits of a real and substantial Communication of the Divine Nature whole of whole to the Son and Holy Spirit is certainly the Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers and what they meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness or Identity of Nature in Father Son and Holy Ghost in which they placed the Unity of the Godhead That there must be this Sameness and Identy of Nature in all Three Divine Persons is evident from the last Section for a whole of a whole must be identically the same Whole not so the same as one singular Whole is the same with it self but as the same Whole which thrice subsists without the least conceivable difference is the same with it self in Three And that this is what the Fathers meant by that Sameness of Nature wherein they placed the Unity of the Godhead it were easy to prove by numerous Authorities but some few may serve in so plain a Case One St. Hilary will furnish us with Testimonies enow of this nature He places the Sameness of Nature between Father and Son in this That the Son has by his Eternal Nativity the Nature of the Father without the least dissimilitude or diversity indifferens indissimilis indiscreta Natura and this makes the Father and Son One God But then at the same time he carefully and expresly rejects the Notion of Singularity Solitude and Union Petavius quotes several Passages out of St. Hilary to prove this Singularity of the Divine Essence but all that they amount to and all that he pretends to prove by them is That the Unity between Father and Son is greater than a Specifick Unity or a Communion in the same Specifick Nature
and this I readily grant and he might if he had pleased have transcribed half St. Hilary de Trinitate de Synodis to the same purpose And this is so universally the Doctrine of all the Greek and Latin Fathers that there was no difficulty in multiplying Authorities to this purpose And I dare appeal to any man who is competently skill'd in these Matters and will impartially examine the Testimonies Petavius has produced for the Singularity of the Divine Essence Whether the most pertinent of them all prove any more than this That the Nature of the Father without the least alteration or diversity is communicated whole and perfect without any division or separation of Substance to the Son of which more presently not that the same singular Nature and Substance which is the Person of the Father is also the Person of the Son which makes the Father and Son to be but One Person as well as One Nature and Substance but so One that the One Nature Substance and Divinity which is the Father is wholly and perfectly the same in the Son excepting this That one is the Father and the other the Son Which is not the Unity of Singularity which is properly the Unity of a Person but the Unity of Identity and Sameness which is the Unity of One Individual Nature which is common to more than one I don't intend to transcribe all the Quotations of Petavius which he has alledged to this purpose but yet I will give such a general View of them as may satisfy any impartial Reader as to this Point not to confute Petavius who as I have already observed rejects the Sabellian Singularity but to undeceive those who mistake Petavius and the Schools too as will appear more hereafter I shall only premise That it had become the Learning and Acuteness of Petavius to have reconciled the Fathers with themselves for they were Wise Men and true Reasoners and knew very well what a Contradiction meant and therefore we ought not easily to believe that they perpetually contradicted themselves He acknowledges and proves That the Catholick Fathers did teach a Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature That Father Son and Holy Ghost have One Divinity as Peter Iames and Iohn have one Human Nature and he alledges the Authorities of the same Fathers to prove the Singularity of the Divine Nature That it is an exact perfect indivisible Monad And this also they do plainly teach But then he should have considered how to have reconciled these two for it is certain that if the Divine Nature be an indivisible Monad it can't be a Species in the common Notion of a Species and if it have any thing anolagous to a Species it can't be a singular Monad because it must be a common Nature which subsists in more than one and Singularity is properly the Unity of a Person not of a common Nature Petavius was very sensible how inconsistent these two kinds of Unity are and yet that the Fathers did most commonly explain the Unity of the Divine Nature by a Specifick Unity and did more cautiously mention the Unity of Singularity he might have said did absolutely reject it as St. Hilary does in a hundred places And was not this a much better reason so to qualify the Notions of a Specifick Unity and Singularity of Nature as to reconcile them to each other than to make the Fathers contradict themselves which destroys three parts of their Reasoning about the Unity of the Godhead and very much weakens the Authoity of all the rest The Apology which Petavius makes for the Fathers will by no means salve this matter He tells us That if we speak of God according to the exact Rules of Philosophy the Three Divine Persons are not so of One Substance or Homoousion as Peter Paul and Iohn and so far he is in the Right as I have already shewn But then what he adds is a very heavy Charge upon the Catholick Fathers That they taught this almost in every Dispute they had with the Arians Now if this be true what Apology can be made for them for it seems they confuted the Arians upon false and dangerous Principles and were either ignorant themselves of the true Catholick Faith or did prevaricate in it But let us hear what Excuse he makes for them He says They are not to be blamed for this nor accused of Ignorance as if they understood nothing of the Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence and owned no other Unity but what is like the Unity of Human Nature for they did know the first but very prudently used the Specifick Unity as an Example whereby to represent the Divine Unity But if there be nothing in the Divine Nature which is analogous to this Specifick Unity and may be truly and properly represented by it as the best Image we have in Nature I cannot understand either the Prudence or Honesty of this Yes he says they were to take Care so to oppose Arianism as to avoid Sabellianism which otherwise they might easily slip into And therefore so tempered their Style as to speak more sparingly of that highest Unity and Conjunction which Gregory Nyssen calls a Perfect Monad lest they should seem to favour a Sabellian Solitude and Singularity but did more freely use the Examples of a Specifick Unity which was sufficient to confute the Arians who asserted the Diversity and Dissimilitude of Nature between Father and Son which cannot be between those of the same Kind and Species and yet at the same time shewed how far they were from Sabellianism That this is a very false account of the matter appears from the former Sections of this Chapter and will appear more fully from what is to follow but if it were true it would be a very scandalous account for the sum of it is this That to oppose Sabellianism and Arianism the ancient Fathers advanced a false Notion of the Divine Unity and dissembled the true one Which is no great commendation of the Catholick Faith that it needs such Arts nor of the Catholick Fathers to use them when both these sorts of Hereticks as I have often observed charged the Catholick Faith with Tritheism and made that the very Reason of their Heresies Can any man think it prudent in these Fathers to conceal or very cautiously mention the true Notion of the Divine Unity and to insist on a Specifick Unity which if we believe Petavius is no better than Tritheism which would rather have confirmed them in their Heresies than have confuted them These two Heresies being in two extreams the Catholick Faith must be in the middle and the only true Medium between them is a real distinction of Persons without the least diversity of Nature and this is what they meant both by their Monad and Specifick Unity the perfect Sameness and Identity of Essence actually indivisibly inseparably subsisting in Three a thrice subsisting Monad or Individual Essence or Substance but not
distinguished nor separated but is perfectly One Same Undivided Essence and therefore Vna Substantia though not Vnus Subsistens One Substance though not One but Three that subsist What I have thus briefly represented I hope I have proved in the First Chapter from the Authority of Scripture and Reason founded on Scripture And from what I have already discoursed of the Doctrine of the Fathers it may appear to careful and intelligent Readers who use such Application as this Argument deserves and requires that this is their Unanimous Sense also But yet as far as it is possible to clear this Matter more fully and vindicate the Fathers and Schools from those Obscurities Inconsistences and Contradictions which are generally charged on them in so concerning an Article I shall reassume this Matter and particularly shew 1. That what they call a Divine Person is the Divine Essence and Substance and nothing else 2. That this Divine Essence and Substance as constituting these Divine Persons is proper and peculiar to each and incommunicable to one another and therefore that this Divine Essence and Substance as subsisting distinctly in Three is no more numerically One than their Persons are One. 3. What difference they made between Nature and Essence and Hypostasis and Person 4. Whether the Catholick Faith of a Real and Substantial Trinity can be as reasonably and intelligibly explained by the Notion of One Singular Substance in the Divinity as by asserting Three Personal Substances or Suppositums And whether the Singularity of the Divine Essence in this Notion deliver the Asserters of it from any Inconveniences and Objections which the contrary Opinion is thought liable to 1. As for the first That a Divine Person is the Divine Essence it is and must be in some sense acknowledged by all who profess the Faith of a Real Trinity for there cannot be a Real Trinity of Divine Persons if each Person be not True and Perfect God that is the whole Divinity or Divine Nature and Essence And therefore those who assert in the strictest sense the Singularity of the Divine Essence yet assert That this One Singular Essence subsists distinctly in each Divine Person which whether it be to be understood or not yet is an acknowledgment that there is no conceiving a Divine Person without the Divine Essence But we need not be beholden to any man for this Concession for the thing is plain and evident in all Catholick Writers Petavius has very critically observed the different use of Words in Catholick Writers relating to this Venerable Mystery such as Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis Subsistence Person c. which sometimes occasioned great Misunderstandings between them and is to this day made a pretence of charging the Fathers with great Uncertainty and Obscurity and with contradicting each other and themselves This of late has been much insisted on in order to disparage the Authority of â— as Zealous Contentious Bigots who neither understood one another nor themselves nor the Catholick Faith but so confounded Terms that we can never certainly know what they meant or used such dangerous Terms that if we rely too much upon them we mâ—y easily mâ—stake Hâ—resy for the Catholick Faith Were this true our Case would be very bad but two or three Observations will set this matter in a clear light 1. That very Ambiguity which the Fathers are charged with in the use of Words does certainly prove that by a Divine Person they meant the Divine Essence Nature and Substance The plain Case is this The Catholick Fathers did universally own and profess a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God So that there was no difference in their Faith how different soever their words were The most common Terms whereby they exprest the Unity of the Godhead were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vna Esseâ—â—â—â— Vna Natura Vna Substantia One Essâ—nce One Nâ—ture One Substance and a Trinity they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostates and the Latins Three Persons but sometimes we meet in undoubted Catholick Writers wiâ—â— the direct contrary Expressions such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tres Substantiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances and One Hypostasis The usual way of reconciling this seeming Contradiction is by saying That when these Fathers use such Expressions as Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances they do not understand this of Three divers or specifically different Essences Natures Substances which is Arianism but of Three Persons and when they affirm that there is but One Hypostasis they do not by One Hypostasis mean One Person which is Sabellianism but One Nature Essence or Substance As we know this very Controversy about One or Three Hypostases was thus composed in the Alexandrian Synod where Athanasius presided And no doubt but this is the true Solution since those who were neither Arians nor Sabellians could not understand such Expressions in any other sense But then the Question still remains How this Ambiguity should happen or how it comes to pass that such contradictory Terms as One Essence and Three Essences One Substance and Three Substances One Hypostasis and Three Hypostases should both be Orthodox and Catholick Now the only Account I can give of this matter is this That these Terms Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis which originally signifies Substance of which more presently may signify as the Philosopher speaks either the First or Second Substance either the common Nature which has the same notion and definition common to the whole Kind as Humanity which is the same in all Men or a Singular Subsisting Nature and Substance which in Creatures we call Individuals and in reasonable Creatures Persons Now in analogy to this common Specifick Nature which is one and the same in all its Individuals the Catholick Fathers taught but One Essence Nature Substance and in this sense but One Hypostasis in the Godhead that is a Consubstantial Trinity in analogy to the several Individuals of the same Species in whom only this common Nature did really and actually subsist they ordinarily asserted Three Hypostases sometimes as we see Three Natures and Essences and Substances in the Trinity that is Three Real Substantial subsisting Persons and in this sense Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances was accounted Catholick Doctrine St. Hilary allows Tria in Substantia or Tres Subsâ—antias Three in Substance or Three Substances for Tres Subsistentium Personas Three Subsisting Persons And St. Greg. Nyssen in answer to Eunomius who asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Essences or Substances says That if he understood this distinction of Substances only in opposition to Sabellius who gave three Names to one Suppositum or Substance that not only he but all Catholick Christians assented to it His only fault being in this Case that he uses improper words Three Essences for Three Hypostases Now that which I observe from hence is this That had they not believed each Divine Person to