Trinity as an impossible and contradictious thing and they would believe nothing of which they could not give some intelligible Account a great Fault I confess when we speak of a Divine that is a confessedly infinite and incomprehensible Subject but not so great as theirs who make new difficulties to avoid the old and to escape one Mystery run into another and that so strangely freakish and so palpably ridiculous that it is a great dishonour and disparagement to the Scriptures to be thought to have imposed such whimsies upon the World for Articles of Faith and the most Sacred Mysteries of Religion For the Doctrine of Sabellianism was no other than this they are the Words of Your Neighbour Dr. Cudworth in his Intellectual System p. 605. That there was but one Hypostasis or singular individual Essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and consequently that they were indeed but three several Names or Notions or Modes of one and the self-same thing From whence such Absurdities as these would follow That the Fathers begetting the Son was nothing but one Name or Notion or Mode of the Deity 's begetting another or else the same Deity under one Notion begetting it self under another Notion And when again the Son or Word and not the Father is said to have been incarnated and to have suffered Death for us upon the Cross That it was nothing but a meer Logical Notion or Mode of the Deity that was incarnate and suffered or else the whole of the Deity under one particular Notion or Mode only It would have been very well si sic omnia dixisset although in this very Citation there be sufficient matter for a very just Reprehension For by the Dr's Favour the Sabellian Doctrine is by no means a Consequence of this Proposition That there is but one Hypostasis or singular individual Essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost so far as the Divinity of all the Three Persons is concerned for the divine Nature in them all is to use his own way of Expression singularly individually numerically the same as I shall now immediately shew and yet for all that the Sabellian Doctrine still continues to be as false and as absurd as ever But so extremely cautious was the Orthodox Doctor of running into the Heresie of Sabellius That he not only denys the Three Persons of the Trinity to have One singular existent Essence but to avoid an Assertion which to him seems to be so full of absurdity and the more effectually to baffle Atheism which says there is no God he tells us if we will believe him That there are Three They are his own Words let him speak for himself pag. 604. It is evident from hence that these reputed Orthodox Fathers who were not a few were far from thinking the Three Hypostases of the Trinity to have the same singular existent Essence they supposing them to have no otherwise one and the same Essence of the Godhead in them nor to be one God than three individual Men have one common specifical Essence of Manhood in them and are all one Man But as this Trinity came afterwards to be decryed for Tritheistic so in the room thereof started there up that other of Persons Numerically the same or having all one and the same singular existent Essence a Doctrine which seemeth not to have been owned by any publick Authority in the Christian Church save that of the Lateran Council only In which words it is as plain as Words can express it that he represents the Orthodox Fathers asserting the Belief of Three Gods as much as Three Men are Three Men numerically distinct though having a specifical Identity with one another and this I think is to assert Three Gods if the Father Son and Holy Ghost be as distinct from one another as Paul and Apollos and Cephas for no man doubts but they were three several and distinct Men nay he owns the thing to save us the trouble and the charge of proving it For in the Running-Title of that very Page he calls this Trinity of these reputed Orthodox Fathers a Tritheistic Trinity and afterwards when he condemns the Doctrine of a singular existent Essence of Novelty and by consequence disallows and disapproves it as he had done deservedly the Sabellian Doctrine before we must either conclude him to be himself a Tritheistic a Sect for which I believe he may have a kindness because he loves hard Words or something else without either stick or trick which I will not name because his Book pretends to be written against it Neither was he barely content to have insinuated thus much under the Covert of the reputed Orthodox Fathers but p. 605. He is at it again being wonderful zealous to expose and baffle this Lateran Popish Doctrine of a singular existent Essence The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he as was before insinuated by Petavius was never used by Greek Writers otherwise then to signifie the agreement of things numerically different from one another in some common nature or universal essence or their having a generical Vnity or Identity of which sundry Instances might be given nor indeed is it likely that the Greek Tongue should have any Name for that which neither is a thing in Nature nor falls under human Conception viz. several things having one and the same singular Essence So that it is plain according to him having already refuted and blasted the Sabellian Doctrine that if there be indeed a Trinity of Divine Persons it consists of Three several Natures numerically different although they have a specifical sameness or Identity with one another that is in plain English there are Three Gods let Nature and the Scripture say what they please for they do both of them assure us there is but One but in regard he hath no where declared for any Trinity at all as it is his Custom to lye close in a difficult Point only hath made it his business in a multitude of Words to expose the Trinity of the reputed Orthodox Fathers therefore the most that Charity it self can allow him if it were to step forth and speak his most favourable Character to the World is That he is an Arian a Socinian or a Deist and therefore he will oblige us very much in the close of the next Volume which is expected to come out upon the last day of the last Platonic Term for the Intellectual Vniverse like the mundus aspectabilis is to consist of Two Globes of which the Celestial that is the biggest is yet to come among which of all these reputed Orthodox Divines he hath enroll'd and listed himself Nay not yet satisfyed with having a Man would think sufficiently betray'd the most sublime and sacred Mystery of the Christian Faith he confirms and inculcates the same thing by new Arguments and fresh Examples in what he saith afterwards p. 611. of the Orthodox Fathers condemning and disallowing the use of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
to what Profession or Sect soever they belong in Fur or in Silk in a Cowl or a Cassock with Ribbands up to the Pocket holes or in a Coller-band and a yea and nay pinner but if you do but get to Heaven at last it is no matter for the Road you take though you were to pass through Purgatory it self which is by much the furthest way about Petavius was a Jesuite every inch of him and these Jesuites are mightily given to sham the World with Equivocations and Mental Reservations and such like Loioliteish and Ignatian Tricks as you will see particularly in this Instance in the Sequel of my Story for I did my self the Honour to'ther day to make him a visit and to procure a more easie admittance and a more kind reception I thought it best to make use of the Doctor 's Name and I told him in as civil Language as I could that I had Service to give him from Christ's College and that it run mightily in the Head of his humble Servant and faithful Transcriber as if he had intimated something that look'd that way or let fall some words accidentally to that purpose that the word Homoousios was never used otherwise by Greek Writers then to signifie an agreement of things Numerically different in the same common Nature or Vniversal Essence and I desired him that he would be plain in the business and let us know whither we might report this in Company as from himself to be his opinion Why truly said the Jesuite after a little pause and he put on me thought a very intimating look that had as much obliging Rhetorick as would have held a Sheet and that would have sold for a Guiney had his Worship been to Transcribe it from his Countenance and Translate it out of red and white into white and black truly said he it is no small comfort and satisfaction to me to find my Dogmata so pleasing to one that is given so extremely to dogmatize himself yet am I not pleased so much for mine own sake as for that of the Catholick Religion which I in that Book have maintained and asserted for it is manifest that this Gentleman hath not only read my Book but that he writ it too I do not mean so as if it were not mine but that he writ it after me so kind is he to any thing that bears my Name that he indulges and huggs it as if it were his own and then a smile unbent the severity of his brow a false Jesuitical intimating smile it was and was as much as if he should have said These Heretics are all of them Plagiaries and Transcribers but really Sir continued he as for what he charges me with and I perceive he pretends great intimacy with me as if I had made as if the word Homoousios had no other meaning then what you speak of in any Greek Writer believe me Sir I never said any such thing in all my life nor any thing that look'd with half an Eye that way he denied it with all the Asseveration of a Jesuite at the Gallows so that I knew not what to think but finding the Man grow warm in his own defence I was very weary of his Company and offered to take my leave making the best Apology I could for giving him this disturbance and it so happening just at that nick of time that there were other scruple-mongers rapping at the Door and in great haste to be resolved the Father was glad to take me at my word and referred me for my further satisfaction to his Book de Trinitate where he said I should soon be satisfied how much the Learned Heretic had misreported him and accordingly notwithstanding that he was a rank Jesuite yet I found his words afterwards to be very true For he tells us plainly in his Fourth Book that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in use not only among the Orthodox but among the Manichean Heretics themselves long before the Nicene Council to express their Notion of the Trinity which did not consist of a specific Vnity but was taken up wholely in the Vnity of Integration and every part of that whole of which the Trinity was composed they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather Homoousion according to them signifyed the whole Substance taken together of which every single Person was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Part as our incomparable Bishop of Chester hath observed and withal corrected the Mistake of Petavius in this matter For whereas the Learned Jesuite speaking of St. Hilary's Translation of the Word Homoousion hath these Words Quod Hilarius ita Latine reddidit tanquam Homoousion id significaret quod partem substantiae habet ex toto resectam The Judicious Prelate observes that this was done by Petavius without reason for saith he St. Hillary clearly translates Homoousion barely unius Substantiae and it was in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he expressed by partem unius Substantiae from whence it is manifest in the Vsage of the Manichees who were as good Greeks as the Orthodox themselves that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyed a Part of that Substance whose whole was all of it of a similar and homogeneous Nature so Homoousion by it self signifyed that Substance which was numerically one with it self and not specifically one with another and yet this it seems was an ordinary and constant Vse of the Word among some Sort of Men and which Athanasius himself favoured in his comparison of the Vine before the Nicene Creed was known in the World or if we should allow that the whole could not so properly be said to be Homoousion as the Parts of which it consists yet this is only an Vnity of Integral Parts not a specific Vnity of several things that are consider'd as wholes by themselves and this is enough to destroy the Doctor 's Observation Nay this Interpretation of the Word Homoousios was so proper to the Manichees that as the same excellent Bishop observes Arius for this very reason pretended to reject the Name Homoousion lest hereby he should be thought to admit a real Composition or Division in the Deity and Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea refused to subscribe to the Creed of the Council of Nice till this Word was mollifyed by Interpretation so that he might be sure to take it in an Orthodox Sense But it is still more remarkable what Petavius observes concerning the Schisme that happened at Antioch about the Hypostases of the Blessed Trinity some would have it that in this Mystery there was but one Hypostasis or Divine Substance for that was it which in that Controversy they understood by the word Hypostasis others that there were three yet did the one endeavour so to explain their notion of Three Hypostases though that in Truth cannot be done as to avoid Polytheism and the other so to interpret the Doctrine of one Substance as to avoid the Heresies of Sabellius and
and Paulus and of the Disciples of Sabellius and Photinus for all these Heresies were owing more or less to the inconceivable obscurity and as they thought implicite Contradiction of this proposition that the Godhead being but One there were notwithstanding Three Personalties to be met with in it Again as the difficulty of explaining the Doctrine of the Trinity as to the manner wherein it was possible for Three Divine Persons to be really existent notwithstanding that there was but One Divine Substance occasioned as well the Heresie of the Arians themselves as all those other Heresies that have been mentioned so the constant Attestation of the Scripture to this Truth That there is but One God or One Divine Substance and that there were Three Persons that were truly and properly Divine did sometimes shake the confidence of the Arian Party and produced that Heresie which was called Semiarian which banished the Word Homoousion out of the Creed as may be seen in the Confession of the Selcucian Synod under Constantius and introduced that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of it which was received by some of the Catholicks themselves though in a different Sense as Petavius hath observed and indeed there was no reason why it should not equally have been received by all if they had looked upon the Vnity of the Blessed Trinity to be no more then Specifical for this is that which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does most properly signifie as Lucretius explains the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Anaxagoras to be a Specifical Identity of similar parts Furthermore as they acknowledged the Son to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-essential or Consubstantial with the Father tho' in a sense much beneath the Specifical so did they likewise call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of God but in so cold a sense that when the matter came to be examined to the bottom they differed scarce any thing from the Arians themselves as Epiphanius hath taken notice But when all is done Athanasius when he was not disputing with himself nor with the Arians or other Heretics and when he attended only to the declarations of the Scripture concerning this great Mystery of the Christian Faith the Doctrine of the Trinity he did believe and affirm plainly that there was but one Hypostasis or Substance in it and that the three Persons of which it was composed did all of them belong to use the Doctors Language to the same singular Existent Essence and yet notwithstanding he must be supposed all this while to subscribe heartily to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nicene Creed and by consequence did understand it after that manner in which the Intellectual Dogmatist asserts that it was never understood by him or by any other Greek Writer and because he is pleased to hold the World in hand that he speaks this by intimation from Petavius therefore I will prove what I have said to be true by the Authority of the same Writer who not only intimates but plainly affirms the contrary L. 4. de Trin. c. 13. where after having cited a passage out of Athanasius in his Fifth Oration to prove that he held but one Hypostasis or Divine Substance in the Trinity he adds this Comment upon the Citation Vbi quod Divinitate unum ait esse Patrem Filium de ea sola quae speciei convenit unitate non potest accipi alioqui non id adjungeret Filium a Patre sectum ac divisum non esse neque ab eo separari cum individua quaelibet sub eadem comprehensa specie ab iis unde propagata sunt divisa sint ac separata And at the end of another Citation out of this Exposition of Faith a very good place to Judg of Athanasius's opinion he hath these words Prorsus in tribus personis unam individuam substantiam ac naturam Athanasius agnoscit non cujusmodi in tribus est hominibus aut in Diis pluribus si Dei species esset ulla communis pluribus sed quem admodum una Fontis aqua est Fluvii quae continua cum sit neque interrupta non specie tantum sed numero aqua una censetur And that this was Petavius his setled opinion appears from L. 1. c. 13. S. 5. Where he hath these words referring to this Chapter in his Fourth Book at vero unam tantum Hypostasin Trinitatis Athanasius agnoscit ut Libro quarto demonstrabimus the Sum of all which is no more than this that the Systematical Compiler thinks Petavius to have intimated as much as if neither Athanasius nor any other Greek Writer understood the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any other sense then only to signifie a Specifical Agreement between things Numerically differing from each other and Petavius thinks he hath demonstrated the contrary not only out of Athanasius but other of the Fathers who did concur with him in the acknowledgement of a singular Essence as may be seen in that and other Chapters of that Book notwithstanding that they did all of them unquestionably subscribe to the word Homoousios in the Nicene Creed to all which it is still farther to be added that in the Antiochian Schism they which were the true occasion of it were not they who asserted one Hypostasis but the maintainers of three which gave such offence to the Assertors of one as tending to Polytheism that it occasioned a separation between them and this happening as it did though in the same Age yet somewhat after the Nicene Council it is manifest that those Fathers before this Schism happened did generally maintain the singular Existent Essence and by consequence that they understood the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that signification and so here is a publick and the greatest of all publick Authorities in the Church for the Numerical and Individual Essence long before the Lateran Council was thought of in the World if we will take the unquestionable Sentiments of the Nicene Fathers for a publick determination upon this question although they did not definitively declare their meaning in express words for the individual Essence which if they had done it would have been impossible for both parties in the Schism of Antioch to acquiesce in the Authority of that Council and mutually subscribe to their confession of Faith and indeed the signification of that word not having been definitively and scrupulously determined by the Council of Nice is a very strong Argument that all those Fathers were Unanimous for the singular Essence otherwise there would have been a division upon this account in the Council it self Antecedent to that of Antioch and this division would either have occasioned a mutual separation as afterwards it did or they would have explained their Sentiments concerning the Blessed Trinity in such terms of Latitude as both parties might well enough acquiesce in which would have rendred a Schism upon that score in a manner afterwards impossible Another thing which I