like may be said of the Holy Spirit This shews also how these Three distinct Persons are each of them God and yet are all but One God Each Person is God for each Person has the whole and entire Perfections of the Godhead having by this mutual consciousness the other Persons in himself that each Person is in some sense the whole Trinity The Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son and the Holy Spirit in Father and Son and Father and Son in the Holy Spirit and therefore if the whole Trinity be God the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost God they being all mutually in each other and yet this is a plain demonstration that they are not Three Gods but One God because neither of them are the One Supreme God but as thus intimately united to all the rest and then they can be all Three but One Supreme God This gives an intelligible account of one of the most difficult Problems in all School-Divinity which the Master of the Sentences borrowed from St. Austin as he has done most of his other Distinctions that the whole Trinity is not greater than any One Person in the Trinity This sounds very harshly at first hearing and yet if we consider it we must confess it to be true unless we will say that there is a greater and less in God or that the Three Persons in the Trinity make One God as Three parts make a whole each of which parts must be less than the whole and yet I cannot see any possible way to understand this matter but only this That the whole Trinity by a mutual consciousness is in each person and therefore no Person is less than the whole Trinity And this is the only possible way of understanding the different Modi subsistendi of which the Schools speak That the Three Divine Persons have One numerical Essence and are One God but are distinguished from each other by a distinct manner of Subsistence proper to each Person It is plain the Schoolmen were no Sabellians they did not think the Three Divine Persons to be only Three Names of the same infinite Being but acknowledged each Person to be really distinct from one another and each of them to have the same numerical Essence and to be truly and properly God and not to be Three Modes of the same infinite God which is little better than Three Names of One God And what are these Modi subsistendi by which the Divine Persons are distinguished from each other Now they are no other than the proper and distinguishing Characters of each Person that the Father is of himself or without any cause that the Son is begotten of the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son Which proves that by these Modi subsistendi they did not mean as some mistake them that the Three Divine Persons are Three Modes of the Deity or only modally distinguished for there are no Modes no more than there are Qualities and Accidents in the Deity much less can a Mode be a God To be sure all Men must grant that the Father is not a Mode of the Deity but essentially God and yet he has his Modus subsistendi as well as the Son and the Holy Ghost and no Man can think that the Father begat only a Modus and called it his Son whereas a Son signifies a real Person of the same Nature but distinct from his Father All then that can possibly be meant by these Modes of Subsistence is this that the same numerical Essence is whole and entire in each Divine Person but in a different manner the Son and Holy Ghost are in the Father as the One is begotten the other proceeds from him and yet both remain in him an intimate consciousness and thus you have often heard all Three Persons are in each other and therefore are numerically One the Father has the Son and Holy Ghost in himself as the Fountain of the Deity the Son begotten of the Father the Holy Ghost Proceeding from Father and Son That is there are Three infinite Minds which are distinguished from each other by the relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost the Father begets the Son is begotten the Holy Ghost proceeds which are there different Modes of subsisting but each of these infinite Minds has the other Two in himself by an intimate and mutual consciousness and that makes all Three Persons numerically One Divine Essence or One God for when the whole Trinity is in each distinct Person each Person is the same One numerical God and all of them but One God If the Father for instance have his own personal Wisdom and by an internal consciousness all the Wisdom of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and the Son have his own personal Wisdom and by the same consciousness all the Wisdom of the Father and the Holy Ghost and in like manner the Holy Ghost have his own personal Wisdom and all the Wisdom of Father and Son this infinite Wisdom which is in Father Son and Holy Ghost is identically the same for from which Person soever you begin to reckon this Union it is the same Father Son and Holy Ghost still which are thus intimately united into One and therefore it is the same numerical and identical Wisdom which is in each of them and the same in all To add no more This Notion gives a plain account too of that Maxim of the Schools That all the Operations of the Trinity ad extra are common to all Three Persons for it cannot possibly be otherwise when they are thus intimately united by a mutual consciousness for they can no more act than they can subsist separately when the Wisdom Goodness Justice Power of the whole Trinity is entire in each Person and the same in all every Person of the Trinity must be equally concerned saving the Natural Order and Subordination of Persons in all the external Effects and Operations of the Divine Wisdom Justice Goodness and Power Thus I have endeavoured to explain this Great and Venerable Mystery of a Trinity in Unity and this I may say that I have given not only a very possible and a very intelligible Notion of it but such also as is very agreeable to the phrase and expressions of Scripture such as preserves the Majesty of the Article and solves all the Difficulties of it there may be a great deal more in this Mystery than we can fathom but thus much we can understand of it and that is enough to reconcile us to this belief and to shame and silence the profane Scoffers at a Trinity in Unity as I have in part shewn already and will do now more fully by proceeding to answer those many Absurdities and Contradictions charged on it by the Brief Notes To proceed then where I left off There is One Person of the Father another of the Son another of the Holy Ghost Then the Son is not the Father
though not separate from the other Divine Persons then at least the Godhead of each Person must be as distinct as their Persons are and we must acknowledge three distinct though not separate Gods I answer by no means We must allow each Person to be a God but each distinct Person is not a distinct God there is but One Godhead which can no more be distinguished then it can be divided from it self There is but One God and each Divine Person is this One numerical God has the whole entire Godhead in himself and the same One numerical Godhead is in them all thus each Divine Person is God and all of them but the same One God as I explained it before This One Supream God is Father Son and Holy Ghost a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God Now Father Son and Holy Ghost with all their Divine Attributes and Perfections excepting their personal Properties which the Schools call the Modi subsistendi that One is the Father the other the Son the other the Holy Ghost which cannot be communicated to each other are whole and entire in each Person by a mutual consciousness each Person feels the other Persons in himself all their essential Wisdom Power Goodness Justice as he feels himself and this makes them essentially One as I have proved at large Now if the whole Trinity be in each Divine Person by such an intimate and essential Union we must confess each Person to be God if the whole Trinity be God and yet there being but One Trinity One Father Son and Holy Ghost who are essentially One by a mutual consciousness it is certain all these Three Divine Persons can be but One God for where-ever you begin to reckon there are but Three and these Three are One If we consider the Father and Holy Ghost in the Son by this mutual consciousness we truly affirm the Son to be God as having all the Divine Perfections of the whole Trinity in himself if we consider the Father and the Son in the Holy Ghost for the same reason we affirm the Holy Ghost to be God but the natural Order of the Trinity is to reckon from the Father as the Fountain of the Deity that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God for the Son and Holy Spirit are in the Father not only by a mutual consciousness as the Father and the Son are in the Holy Ghost but as in their Cause if I may so speak and the Ancient Fathers were not afraid to speak so as in their Root their Origine their Fountain from whence they receive the communications of the Divine Essence and Godhead the Son by Eternal Generation being God of God Light of Light the Holy Ghost by Eternal Procession from the Father and the Son Thus all these Divine Persons are naturally united in the Father who is the Fountain of the Deity and all essentially in each other by a mutual consciousness which makes each Person God and all One and the same God without any shew of Contradiction SECT V. The Doctrine of the Fathers and of the Schools concerning the Distinction of Persons and the Vnity of Essence in the Ever Blessed Trinity considered and reconciled to the foregoing Explication of it THis Notion of the Union of the Divine Persons in One numerical Essence by a mutual consciousness to each other is so very plain and gives so easie and intelligible an account both of the Phrases of Scripture and all other Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Trinity that this alone is sufficient to reconcile any Man to it but I am very sensible how afraid Men are and not without reason of any new Explications of so Venerable a Mystery and such a Fundamental Doctrine of Christianity as this is and therefore I must ward this blow as well as I can and remove the prejudice of Novelty and Innovation Now if it appear that I have advanced no new Proposition but have confined myself to the received Faith and Doctrine of the Catholick Church if that Explication I have given of it contain nothing new but what is universally acknowledged though possibly not in express terms applied to that purpose I use it for if that explication I have given be very consistent with nay be the true interpretation of that account the Ancients give of a Trinity in Unity I hope it will not be thought an unpardonable Novelty if I have expressed the same thing in other words which give us a more clear and distinct apprehension of it and to satisfie all men that it is so I shall compare what I have now said concerning the Distinction of Persons and the Unity of Essence in the Ever Blessed Trinity with the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Schools I. To begin then with the distinction of Persons I have not indeed troubled my Readers with the different signification of Essence and Hypostasis Substance Subsistence Person Existence Nature c. which are terms very differently used by Greek and Latin Fathers in this Dispute and have very much obscured this Doctrine instead of explaining it but I plainly assert That as the Father is an eternal and infinite Mind so the Son is an eternal and infinite Mind distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost is an eternal and infinite Mind distinct both from Father and Son which every body can understand without any skill in Logick or Metaphysicks And this is no new Notion but the constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and Schools Three Persons signifie Three who are infinite in Knowledge and Wisdom and all other Perfections which belong to a Mind Now no Man who acknowledges a Trinity of Persons ever denied that the Son and the Holy Spirit were intelligent Beings or Minds When they tell us which is their common Language that the Son is the substantial Word and Wisdom of the Father what is this else but to say that he is an intelligent Being or infinite Mind Greg. Nyssen calls the Son or Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind or Intellect Athanasius observes from our Saviour's words I and my Father are One that are signifies two or the distinction of Persons as One signifies the Unity of Essence for he does not say I and my Father am but are One. And therefore if the Father be an eternal Mind and Wisdom the Son also is an eternal but begotten Mind and Wisdom as the Nicene Creed tells us That he is God of God Light of Light very God of very God St. Austin in his Sixth Book of the Trinity takes notice of a common argument used by the Orthodox Fathers against the Arians to prove the coeternity of the Son with the Father that if the Son be the Wisdom and Power of God as St. Paul teaches 1 Cor. 1. and God was never without his Wisdom and Power the Son must be coeternal with the Father for it is distraction to say that the Father was ever without his Wisdom or Power was
there the Effect is as early as its Cause because the Cause cannot subsist without its Effect as the Sun cannot be a Sun without Light and Fire cannot be Fire without Heat And this is the Case here the Son is begotten by the Father and is God of God Light of Light the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son but Father Son and Holy Ghost are essentially but One God and therefore unless the same One God can be afore and after himself in the Trinity there can be no afore or after but all Three Persons are Coeternal because they are essentially One Eternal God and it is in vain to confound our Minds with conceiving an Eternal Generation for that is as intelligible as an Eternal Being we can see the necessity of both but cannot comprehend either no more than we can Eternity It is demonstrable something must be Eternal and it is as certain that an Eternal Mind eternally knows it self and loves it self for there can be no infinite Mind without a reflex Knowledge of himself which is his Eternal Son nor without the love of himself and his One Image which is the Holy Spirit of which I have sufficiently discoursed already And thus we are come to the last part of our Task what concerns the Incarnation of Christ which after all that has been said to prove Christ to be the Eternal Son of God incarnate will take up no great time for what ever difficulties there may be in the Philosophy of the Incarnation or how God and Man is united into One Person it will not shake my Faith who see a thousand things every day which I can give no Philosophical Account of and which a little Philosophy would teach considering men not to pretend to give any account of and yet we believe our Eyes without understanding the Philosophy of things and why we should not believe a Divine Revelation to without it I know not But let 's hear what he has to say The right Faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God is both God and Man Then the Lord Christ is two Persons for as he is God he is a Person Very right And as he is a Man he is a Person that we deny that he is a distinct Person from the Godhead when united to God But a rational Soul vitally united to a Human Body is a Person Right when it is by it self and so a Soul without a vital Union to a Human Body is a Person and a Beast which has no reasonable Soul but only an Animal Life as a Man has together with a Human Soul is a Person or a Suppositum or what he will please to call it but it is a distinct living subsisting Being by it self but when the Rational and the Animal Life are united in Man he is not two Persons a Rational and an Animal Person but one Person and therefore we neither need own Christ to be two Persons with Nestorius which yet is much more innocent than to deny his Godhead nor deny him either to be God or Man for he is God-Man in one Person as a Man is a Reasonable and Animal Creature united into One Person though we may find the reasonable and animal life subsisting apart and when they do so they are two and but one when united This is explained in the Creed by the Union of Soul and Body for as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is One Man so God and Man is One Christ which he says vainly enough is the only offer at Reason that is to be found in the whole Creed Well! we are glad any thing will pass with him though it be but for an offer at reason and let us hear how he confutes it 1. He says In the Personal Vnion of a Soul with a Body the Vnion is between Two finite things but in the pretended Personal Vnion of God to Man and Man to God the Vnion is between finite and infinite which on the Principles of the Trinitarians I wish he had told us what those Principles are is impossible For we must either suppose that finite and infinite are commensurate that is equal which every one knows is false or that the finite is united but to some part of the infinite and is disjoyned from the rest which all Trinitarians deny and abhor I beg your pardon Sir they were never so silly as to think of it but they abhor to see such Sacred Mysteries treated with so much Ignorance and Impudence Since he is for confuting the Doctrine of the Trinity by raising Difficulties about the manner of this Union how God and Man are united into One Person I desire he would first try his skill in inferior things and tell me how the parts of Matter hang together which though every Body thinks he knows I doubt no Body does Then I would desire to know how Soul and Body are united how a Spirit can be fastened to a Body that it can no way release it self though never so desirous of it till the vital Union which no Body knows what it is is dissolved Why the Soul can leave the Body when the Body is disabled to perform the Offices of Life but cannot leave it before The Soul I say which we Trinitarians believe to be a Spirit which can pass through Matter which cannot be touched or handled or held by Matter and yet feels the impressions of Matter is pleased or afflicted with them and sympathizes with the Body as if it could be cut by a Knife or burnt with a Fever or torn by wild Beasts as the Body is And since he apprehends there can be no Union without Commensuration and therefore a finite and infinite Being cannot be united because they are not Commensurate I desire to know whether he thinks the Soul and Body are Commensurate whether the Soul have parts as the Body has which answer to every part of the Body and touch in every Point These will be very new Discoveries if he can say any thing to them if he can't it is his best way to deny the Union of Soul and Body because he cannot understand it to assert that man has no Soul but only a Body because it is impossible that Matter and Spirit should ever be united into one Person and Life which is to the full as unreasonable as to deny the Personal Union of God and Man because he cannot understand how finite and infinite which are not Commensurate nor can be because neither a finite nor infinite Spirit have any parts to be measured can be united But in great good Nature he has found out a Salvo for the Trinitarians That God indeed is infinite and every Soul and Body even that of Christ finite yet the whole God and the whole Man are united because as the whole Eternity of God doth Coexist to a moment of time so the whole Immensity of God is in every Mathematical point of place
only in the superior and governing Nature as it ought to be because in that the Natures are united into One Person and that must govern and take care of the whole Thus the Mind in man is conscious to the whole man and to all that is in man to all the motions of Reason and Sense but Sense is not conscious to all the Actings of Reason which is the superior Faculty though it is conscious as far as is necessary to receive the Commands and Directions of Reason for the Body moves at the command of the Will and it is so far conscious to its Commands Thus in the Person of Christ who is God-man the Divine Word is conscious to his whole Person not only to himself as the Divine Word but to his whole Humane Nature not by such Knowledge as God knows all men and all things but by such a Consciousness as every Person has of himself But it does not hence follow that the Humane Nature is conscious to all that is in the Word for that destroys Humane Nature by making it Omniscient which Humane Nature cannot be and its being united to the Person of the Word does not require it should be for an inferior Nature is not conscious to all that is in the superior Nature in the same Person This Union of Natures does require that the inferior Nature be conscious to the superior as far as its Nature is capable and as far as the Personal Union requires for so Sense is in some degree conscious to Reason and it cannot be one Person without it And therefore the Human Nature in Christ is in some measure in such a degree as Human Nature can be conscious to the Word feels its Union to God and knows the Mind of the Word not by External Revelations as Prophets do but by an Inward Sensation as every man feels his own Thoughts and Reason but yet the Human Nature of Christ may be ignorant of some things notwithstanding its Personal Union to the Divine Word because it is an inferior and subject Nature And this I take to be the true account of what our Saviour speaks about the Day of Judgment Of that day and hour knoweth no man no not the Angels in Heaven but my Father only where our Saviour speaks of himself as a man and as a man he did not at that time know the Day of Judgment though personally united to the Divine Word who did know it for as he is the Divine Word so our Saviour tells us That he seeth all that the Father doth and therefore what the Father knows the Eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father must know also But yet the Human Nature of Christ was conscious to all the actings of the Divine Word in it as we may see in the Story of the Woman having an Issue of Blood twelve years who in the midst of a great Crowd of People came behind him and touched his Garment and was immediately healed our Saviour presently asked who touched him and when all denied it and Peter wondered he should ask that Question when the Multitude thronged him and pressed him Iesus said some body hath touched me for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me he felt the miraculous Power of the Divine Word working in him as a man feels what is done in himself This I think gives some account how God and Man may be united into One Person which though it be a great Mystery which we cannot fully comprehend yet is not wholly unintelligible much less so absurd and contradictious as this Author pretends As for what he adds about believing and professing this Faith let him apply it to Christ's being the Messias or any other Article of the Creed and see what Answer he will give to it for what if men can't believe it are we obliged under the penalty of the loss of Salvation to believe it whether we can or no doth God require of any man an impossible Condition in order to Salvation No! but if it be credible and what a wise man may believe and what he has sufficient Evidence to believe he shall be damned not because he can't but won't believe it But what if it be against a mans Conscience to profess it if he profess against his Conscience he sins and if notwithstanding this a man must either profess or be damned then God requires some men to sin in order to their Salvation God requires no man to profess against his Conscience but he shall be damned for not believing it not for not professing what he does not believe it looks like a Judgment upon these men that while they can talk of nothing less than the severest Reason they impose upon themselves or hope to impose upon the World by the most Childish Sophistry and Nonsense And now I shall leave our Note-maker to harangue by himself and perswade Fools if he can that the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation is nothing but Popery or must be parted with for the sake of Iews or be made a Complement to the Morocco Ambassador and his admired Mahomet or must be sacrificed to Peace and Unity and to secure men from damnation who will not believe I will not envy him the satisfaction of such Harangues it being all the Comfort he has for I am pretty confident he will never be able to Reason to any purpose in this Cause again Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be World without end Amen THE END ADVERTISEMENT A Preservative against Popery in two Parts with a Vindication in Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran a Jesuit 4 o. A Discourse concerning the Nature Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church 4 o. A Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor Novemb. 4. 1688. 4 o. A Practical Discourse concerning Death The Fifth Edition 8 o. The Case of the Allegiance due to Soveraign Powers stated and resolved according Scripture and Reason and the Principles of the Church of England with a more particular Respect to the Oath lately enjoyned of Allegiance to Their Present Majesties K. William and Q. Mary The Fifth Edition 4 o. By William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Printed for W. Rogers The Creed Brief Notes Answer Notes Answer Notes Answer Notes Answer Vossius de tribus Symbel dissert 3 Cap. 29 30. Cap. 31. Ibid. Cap. 48. Ibid. Ibid. Cap. 44. Dissert 2. c. 1. Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Answer Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Aug. lib. contra Serm. Arrian c. 16. Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Creed Notes Answer Creed Notes Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. Cont. Arium Disput. Tom. 1. p. 116. Paris 1627. Quae ratiocinatio ad id cogit ut dicamus Deum Patrem non esse sapientem nisi habendo sapientiam quam genuit non existendo per se pater sapientia Deinde si ita est filius quoque ipse
Knowledge which took the Patterns of things for the new World and gave Being to them and therefore God made the World by his Son and begotten Wisdom who doth all things by seeing what the Father doth as the Father doth all things by seeing himself in his reflex and begotten Wisdom for the Father and the Son are one single Energie and Operation This is that eternal Word and Reason that true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world which communicates the light of Reason and the eternal Idea's of Truth to Mankind This is that Son who reveals the Father to us and acquaints us with his secret Counsels for the Salvation of Sinners This is that Word which became Flesh and dwelt among us who hath undertaken the Work of our Redemption and is become the Wisdom of God and the Power of God to Salvation to them that believe for all the natural Communications of Wisdom and Reason all the new Discoveries of the Divine Wisdom whatever the Divine Wisdom immediately does must be done by this begotten Wisdom that is by a reflex Wisdom which is the Principle of Action and Execution and therefore as God made the World by his Word so also he redeems the World by his Incarnate Word this being as immediate an effect of the Divine Wisdom and Counsel as his Creation of the World As for the Holy Ghost whose Nature is represented to be Love I do not indeed find in Scripture that it is any where said that the Holy Ghost is that mutual love wherewith Father and Son love each other but this we know that there is a mutual love between Father and Son The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hands And the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things that himself doth And our Saviour himself tells us I love the Father And I shewed before that love is a distinct Act and therefore in God must be a Person for there are no Accidents nor Faculties in God And that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person is sufficiently evident in Scripture for he is the Spirit of God who knows what is in God as the Spirit of Man knows what is in Man and he is the Spirit of Christ who receiveth of the things of Christ and his peculiar Character in Scripture is love which shews us what he is in his own Nature as well as what he is in his Effects and Operations for Nature and Energy is the same in God It is by the Holy Spirit that the Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts 5 Rom. 5. The Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us For this Spirit is the essential love of God and therefore both inspires us with the love of God and gives us a feeling sense of God's love to us He is the Spirit of the Son the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry Abba Father and which cries in our hearts Abba Father The Spirit of the Son that is of the eternal and only begotten Son that very spirit whereby the eternal Son calls God Father whereby the Father owns the Son and the Son the Father that is that essential Love which is between Father and Son and therefore wherever this Spirit of the Son is it will call God Father will cry Abba Father that is is a Spirit of Adoption in us for the eternal Spirit of the Son dwells only in Sons by our Union to Christ who is the eternal Son of God we become his adopted Sons and as such the Spirit of the Son dwells in us And therefore the fruits and operations of the Spirit answer this Character For the fruit of the Spirit is love joy peace long-suffering gentleness goodness meekness which are the communications of the Spirit of Love This shews the difference between generation and procession between being a Son and the Spirit of God Generation as I observed before is a reflex Act whereby God begets his own Image and Likeness it is God's knowledge of himself which to be sure is his own perfect Image and the living essential Image of God is his Son for to be a Son is to be begotten of his Father's Substance in his own Likeness and Image But the Divine Spirit or this Eternal Love proceeds from God is not a reflex but a direct Act as all Thoughts and Passions are said to proceed out of the Heart a reflex Act turns upon it self and begets its own likeness but Love is a direct Act and comes out of the Heart and thus does this eternal Love proceed from God besides this eternal Love is not the Image of God but his eternal complacency in himself and his own Image and therefore is not a Son begotten of him but the eternal Spirit which proceeds from him It is true this eternal subsisting Love which is the third Person of the Trinity has all the Perfections of Father and Son in himself for Love must have the perfect Idea of what it loves and therefore this subsisting Love must have all those Perfections in himself which are the Eternal Object and Cause of this Eternal Love but his essential Character is Love and though Love has the whole Divine Perfections in it self yet it has them not as a Son not as the Image of God This gives a plain Account also how he is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son and according to the Profession of the Latin Church proceeds both from Father and Son for this Divine Love eternally proceeds from God's reflex Knowledge of himself or seeing himself in his own Image he loves himself in his Image and therefore the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son that is from the Original and the Image by one undivided Act as every man loves himself in that Idea and Image he has formed of himself in his own Mind And no man will wonder that the Creation of the World is ascribed to the Holy Spirit as well as to the Father and Son for it is Eternal Love which gives Being to all things which is the Author and Giver of Life without which Infinite Wisdom and Power produces no One Effect Original Wisdom contains the Ideas of all Things and begotten Wisdom can frame the Natures of Things according to the Original Ideas of the Divine Mind but it is Love which gives Being to them 6. From hence it is clear That these Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God as these Three Powers of Understanding Self-reflexion and Self-love are one Mind for what are meer Faculties and Powers in created Spirits are Persons in the Godhead really distinct from each other but as inseparably United into One as Three different Powers are essentially united in One Mind There is a vast difference indeed between them as there is between God and Creatures the Mind is but One the
believed otherwise Pope Leo III assented to the definition of the Council of Aquisgrane An. 809. concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and yet would by no means allow that it should be added to the Creed nor would he deny Salvation to those who believed otherwise but when that Question was asked him returned this Answer That whosoever has subtilty enough to attain to the Knowledge of this or knowing it will not believe it cannot be saved but there are many and this among the rest deep Misteries of the Holy Faith which all cannot reach to some by reason of Age others for want of understanding and therefore as we said before he that can and won't cannot be saved And therefore at the same time he commanded the Constantinopolitan Creed to be hung up at Rome in a Silver Table without the addition of the Filioque nor can any man tell when this was added to the Creed however we never read the Greeks were Anathematized upon this account till Pope Vrban II. 1097. and in the Council of Florence under Eugenius IV. 1438 9. Ioseph the Patriarch of Constantinople thought this Controversie between the two Churches might be reconciled and the Filioque added in a sense very consistent with the belief of the Greek Church As for what he adds that the Greek Church condemned this addition as Heretical I desire to know what Greek Council did this Vossius a very diligent Observer gives no account of it the quarrel of the Greeks with the Latins was That they undertook without the Authority of a General Council to add to the Creed of a General Council when the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon had Anathematized those who did so and therefore for this reason the Greeks Anathematized the Latin Church without declaring the Filioque to be Heretical and as that Learned Man observes this was the true cause of the Schism that the Greeks thought the Pope of Rome and a Western Synod took too much upon themselves to add to the Creed of a General Council by their own Authority without consulting the Eastern Church which was equally concerned in matters of Faith But the Comical part is still behind for he says The Greeks laugh at Athanasius 's menace and say he was drunk when he made the Creed and for this he refers us to Georgius Scholarius or Gennadius who was made Patriarch of Constantinople by Mahomet when he had taken that City I confess I have not read all that Gennadius has Writ and know not where to find this place and he has not thought fit to direct us but this I know that whether Gennadius says this himself or only reports it as the saying of some foolish Greeks for I cannot guess by our Author which it is whoever said it said more then is true for Athanasius neither made the Creed drunk nor sober for as most Learned Men agree he never made it at all though it bears his name but I wish I could see this place in Gennadius for I greatly suspect our Author Gennadius being a very unlikely Man to say any ill thing of Athanasius upon account of the Filioque who himself took the side of the Latin Church in this dispute and as Vossius relates gives Athanasius a very different and more honourable Character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great Athanasius the Preacher and Confessor of Truth But there is nothing smites me more than to hear this Arian or Socinian or whatever he is affirm That the Greeks have clearly and demonstratively proved that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only For that which is proved clearly and demonstratively I hope is true and then this alone is a confutation of his brief Notes for the Greeks taught and proved demonstratively as he says that the Holy Spirit so proceeds from the Father only as to be of the same Substance and One God with the Father And the Catholick Faith is this Catholick Faith is as much as to say in plain English the Faith of the whole Church now in what Age was this which here follows the Faith of the whole Church The Catholick Faith I grant is so called with relation to the Catholick Church whose Faith it is and the Catholick Church is the Universal Church or all the true Churches in the World which are all but one whole Church united in Christ their Head the Profession of the true Faith and Worship of Christ makes a true Church and all true Churches are the One Catholick Church whether they be spread over all the World or shut up in any one corner of it as at the first Preaching of the Gospel the Catholick Church was no where but in Iudaea Now as no Church is the Catholick Church of Christ how far soever it has spread it self over the World unless it profess the true Faith of Christ no more is any Faith the Catholick Faith how universally soever it be professed unless it be the true Faith of Christ nor does the true Christian Faith cease to be Catholick how few soever there be who sincerely profess it It is down-right Popery to judge of the Catholick Church by its multitudes or large extent or to judge of the Catholick Faith by the vast Numbers of its Professors were there but one true Church in the World that were the Catholick Church because it would be the whole Church of Christ on Earth and were the true Christian Faith professed but in one such Church it would be the Catholick Faith still for it is the Faith of the whole true Church of Christ the sincere belief and profession of which makes a Catholick Church Not in the Age of Athanasius himself who for this Faith and for Seditious Practices was banished from Alexandria in AEgypt where he was Bishop no less than four times whereof the first was by Constantine the Great What shall be done unto Thee thou lying Tongue What impudence is this to think to sham the World at this time a day with such stories as these when the Case of Athanasius is so well known or may be even to English Readers who will take the pains to read his Life written with great exactness and fidelity by the learned Dr. Cave But when he thinks a second time of it will he say that the Church of God in Athanasius's Age was not of the same Faith with him What thinks he of the Nicene Fathers who condemned Arius In which Council Athanasius himself was present and bore a considerable part and so provoked the Arian Faction by his Zeal for the Catholick Faith and his great skill and dexterity in managing that Cause as laid the Foundation of all his future Troubles Will he say that Constantine the Great who called the Council at Nice in the Cause of Arius and was so zealous an Asserter of the Nicene Faith banished Athanasius for this Faith No his greatest Enemies durst not make
neither wise nor powerful But this acute Father discovered a great inconvenience in this argument for it forces us to say that the Father is not wise but by that Wisdom which he begot not being himself Wisdom as the Father and then we must consider whether the Son himself as he is God of God and Light of Light may be said to be Wisdom of Wisdom if God the Father be not Wisdom but only begets Wisdom and by the same reason we may say that he begets his own Greatness and Goodness and Eternity and Omnipotency and is not himself his own Greatness or Goodness or Eternity or Omnipotency but is Great and Good Eternal and Omnipotent by the Greatness Goodness Eternity Omnipotency which is born of him as he is not his own Wisdom but is wise with that Wisdom which he begets The Master of the Sentences follows St. Austin exactly in this Point and urges this unanswerable Argument for it which he grounds upon St. Austin's Principle That in God to be and to be wise is the same thing and if it be he cannot be wise with the Wisdom he begets for then he would receive his Being from this begotten Wisdom not Wisdom from him for if the Wisdom he begets be the Cause of his being wise it is the Cause also that he is which must be either by begetting or by making him but no man will say that Wisdom is any way the Begetter or Maker of the Father which is the heighth of madness And in the next Chapter he teaches That the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten Wisdom so that according to St. Austin and the Master of the Sentences who is the Oracle of the Schools the Father is Eternal Wisdom or an Eternal Mind and the Son Eternal Wisdom and Mind though both are united into One Eternal Wisdom and if we confess this of Father and Son there can be no Dispute about the Holy Ghost who is Eternal Mind and Wisdom distinct both from Father and Son Nothing is more familiar with the Ancient Fathers than to represent Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Three as distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn are as every one knows who is at all versed in this Controversie and this is charged on them by some men as little better than Polytheism or a Trinity of Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are a Trinity of men but this must be true with reference to distinction of Persons if we will acknowledge a real distinction between them for if the distinction be real and not meerly nominal which was the Heresie of Sabellius their Persons must be as distinct as three humane Persons or three men are The Father is no more the Son or the Holy Ghost than Peter is Iames or Iohn but then they are not separated or divided from each other as Peter Iames and Iohn are for that indeed would make them three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are three men There is no Example in Nature of such a distinction and unity as is between the Three Persons in the Godhead and therefore the ancient Fathers made use of several Comparisons to different purposes which must carefully be confined to what they applied them for if we extend them farther we make Nonsense or Heresie of them There are three things to be considered in the ever blessed Trinity the Distinction of Persons the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature and their Essential Unity and the Fathers make use of different Comparisons to represent each of these by because no one can represent them all but inconsidering Persons seek for all in One and because they cannot find it they reject them all as impertinent dangerous or heretical and reproach the Fathers sometimes as ignorant of this great Mystery sometimes as bordering upon Heresie which I am sure does little service to the Doctrine it self and gives great countenance to false and corrupt Notions of it whence the Fathers themselves even those who were the most zealous Opposers of Arianism are thought Favourites of such Opinions I shall have occasion to take notice of several Instances of this as I go on at present I shall confine my self to the Distinction of Persons which cannot be more truly and aptly represented than by the distinction between three men for Father Son and Holy Ghost are as really distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn but whoever shall hence conclude That these Fathers thought that Father Son and Holy Ghost are no otherwise One also than Peter Iames and Iohn are greatly abuse them without any colourable pretence for it as will appear more presently but this Comparison of theirs shows what their sense was that these Three Divine Persons are Three Eternal and Infinite Minds as really distinct from each other as Three men are though essentially united into One Infinite and Eternal Mind or One God But I need not insist on this for the real distinction of Persons is so plainly taught by the ancient Fathers especially after the rise of the Sabellian Heresie that there is more difficulty to understand how they unite them into One God then that they make them distinct Persons and what they say about the unity of the Godhead abundantly proves this distinction of Persons Secondly Let us therefore in the second place consider How they explain this great Mystery of a Trinity in Unity they all agree That there are Three distinct Persons and that these Three Persons are but One God and they seem to me to agree very well in that account they give of it though some late Writers are very free and I think very unjust in their Censures of some of them as scarcely Orthodox in this Point I shall only remind you that this being so great a Mystery of which we have no Example in Nature it is no wonder if it cannot be explained by any one kind of Natural Union and therefore it was necessary to use several Examples and to allude to several kinds of Union to form an adequate Notion of the Unity of the Godhead and we must carefully apply what they say to those Ends and Purposes for which they said it and not extend it beyond their Intension as I observed before and there are several steps they take towards the Explication of this great Mystery which I shall represent in short and show that taking them altogether they give a plain and intelligible Notion of this Unity in Trinity and indeed no other than what I have already given of it 1. The first thing then to be considered is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orCo-essentiallity of the Divine Persons That all Three Persons in the God-head have the same Nature which they signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now whereas the same Nature may signifie the same Numerical or the same Specifick Nature Petavius and after him Dr. Cudworth have abundantly proved that the Nicene Fathers did not understand this word of a
whence all Influences of Grace are derived into the Body and though this be not a personal Union it is next degree to it for we are Flesh of his Flesh and Bone of his Bone and a Personal Union makes no difference in the manner of Operation though it does in the Measures and Degrees the Divine Word acts by and in conjunction with the Holy Spirit and therefore sanctifies his own Human Nature as he does his mystical Body the Church by the Operations and Influenences of the Holy Ghost 10. And this Answers his next Argument That the Miracles of Christ are attributed to the Holy Ghost or to the Father dwelling in him for Father Son and Holy Ghost act together as Christ tells us My Father worketh hitherto and I work 11. His next Argument is Had our Lord been more than a Man the Prophesies of the Old Testament in which he is promised would not describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman the Seed of Abraham a Prophet like unto Moses the Servant and Missionary of God on whom God's Spirit should rest That our Saviour ought to have been thus described though he had been more than a Man is plain enough because he was to be all this the Seed of the Woman the Seed of Abraham a Prophet like unto Moses but a much greater Prophet for Moses was faithful in all his House as a Servant but Christ as a Son over his own House But what he insinuates that he is barely thus described shews That this Author will never loose a Cause by over-much Modesty for we with all the Christian Church and we have the Authority of Christ and his Apostles for it too say That he is described in the Old Testament also not only as the Seed of Abraham but as the Son of God Of which more presently His next Attempt is against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost but here is little that requires a distinct Answer it being only the Repetion of his old Fallacies 1. That the Holy Ghost or Spirit and the Power of God are spoken of as one and the same thing And what then His intended Conclusion I suppose is that the Holy Ghost is not a Person which is the Intention of his second Argument but this is so novel and ridiculous a Conceit too sensless for any of the ancient Hereticks that it ought not to be seriously confuted but despised for it is as easie to prove the Father and the Son to be no Persons as the Holy Spirit He is the Spirit of God which searcheth the deep things of God and he who knows all that is in God is a knowing Mind but to dream of Power and Inspiration in God distinct as he confesses from God and no Person is to attribute such Powers and Faculties to an infinite Mind as there are in created Minds to compound God of Mind and Intellectual Powers and Faculties which all Men of sense have scorned the thoughts of what are Faculties in us are Persons in God or else God is not a pure and simple Act as I showed above Which shows the vanity of his Pretence That the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a Person by the same figure of Speech that Charity is described as a Person 1 Cor. 13.4 5. and Wisdom 9 Prov. 11. For these natural or acquired Powers and Habits are said to do that which the Person who has them and acts by them does as Charity suffereth long and is kind because a charitable man does so c. And if we will allow such Habits and Powers in God the Case may be somewhat parallel for when we have compounded God of Substance or Essence or Faculties or Powers we may then find figurative Persons in God as there are in Men. This is certain all Personal Acts belong to a Person and therefore whatever has any Personal Acts ascribed to it we must conclude is a Person unless we know by some other means that it is no Person and then that proves the Expression to be figurative Thus we know Charity is no Person but a Grace or Vertue and therefore when Personal Acts are attributed to Charity as to suffer long and be kind c. we know this is a figure but it is ridiculous hence to conclude That the Holy Ghost who has Personal Acts ascribed to him to work Miracles to raise the Dead to comfort to convince to sanctifie the Church to dwell in the Church as in his Temple c. is yet no Person because Charity which we know to be no Person has Personal Acts ascribed to it which is as much as to say That because Personal Acts are sometimes used figuratively therefore they must never be properly expounded whereas on the other hand we must never expound any thing figuratively but where the subject will not admit of a proper sense If it were as known and certain that the Holy Ghost is no Person as that Charity is none then there would be reason to allow a figure but to prove that the Holy Ghost is no Person only because Personal Acts are sometimes figuratively attributed to that which is no Person is a maxim only in the Socinian Logick which is nothing else but a System of absurd and ridiculous Fallacies 2. His second Argument against the Spirit 's being God is this A manifest distinction is made as between God and Christ so also between God and the Holy Spirit or Power and Inspiration of God so that 't is impossible the Spirit should be God himself This has been answered already as to the distinction between God and Christ and the same Answer will serve for the Holy Spirit But this Confession of the Socinian confutes his whole Hypothesis and proves the Holy Spirit to be a Person and a God He says the Holy Spirit is distinct from God so distinct that 't is impossible he should be God himself then say I this Holy Spirit is either a Divine subsisting Person or nothing but a Name If this Spirit were a Divine Vertue and Power as he would have it then it is not distinct from God but is God himself as the Powers and Faculties of the Mind though they may be distinguished from each other yet they can't be any thing distinct from the Mind but are the Mind it self and therefore if the Spirit as he says be represented in Scripture as so distinct from God that 't is impossible he should be God himself then he must be a distinct Divine Person and not the meer Power of God which is not distinct from God himself If the Spirit be distinct from God and not God himself and yet have Personal Acts ascribed to him then he must be a distinct Person for Faculties Vertues and Powers have Personal Acts and Offices ascribed to them only upon account of their unity and sameness with the Mind in which they are which is a Person and acts by these Powers but a Power which is distinct from
and Mother God is his Father and the Virgin Mary his Mother and thus though they will not allow the Virgin to be the Mother they will allow her to be the Wife of God which is as honourable These are very fit men to make Addresses to a Morocco Ambassador for they are so far of Mahomet's mind that God cannot have a Son unless he have a Wife but Mahomet was the better Divine in this that he never dreamt of God's having a Woman for his Wife I am afraid this is Blasphemy I 'm sure we have always thought it so from the Mouth of a scoffing Atheist or Infidel for this is not his own but borrowed Wit For does our Author in earnest think that God cannot have a Son unless he begets him as one man begets another This is to dispute against God's begetting a Son as the Epicurean in Tully did against God's making a World that he wanted Ministers and Instruments for such a Work as if God made a World as a Carpenter builds a House Does a Son necessarily signifie one who is begotten of two Parents I thought the true Notion of a Son had been one who is produced out of the Substance of its Parent not out of nothing which we call Creation nor formed of any other Praeexistent Matter which we call making and that the true Notion of begetting is to produce its own Image and Likeness out of its own Substance by what means soever this is done and if one Parent can thus beget a Son of his own Substance this argues greater perfection in the Father and is a more perfect manner of Production than by two and methinks he might allow the most perfect Being to beget a Son in the most perfect manner And that an infinite Mind can and must beget his own likeness and image that is an Eternal Son by a reflex Knowledge of himself I have already shewn The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding His first quarrel against this is the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son the next is about the distinction between being begotten and proceeding which he says are the same thing and are now confessed to be so by the most learned Trinitarians who these are I know not but be they who they will it was no Argument of their Prudence or Learning to reject a distinction which both the reason of the thing requires and the Christian Church has always owned but this I have accounted for before and plainly shewn the distinction between Generation and Procession the first is a reflex Act whereby God knows himself and begets his own Likeness and Image Procession is a direct Act that Eternal Love whereby God loves himself and his own Image which proceeds from God as all Thoughts and Passions proceed out of the Heart And therefore there is but One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts The second Person is indeed the Son of the first but the third Person who proceeds from Father and Son is not the Son of either for to proceed is not to be begotten and therefore there are not two Sons nor two Fathers as this Author affirms much less are they Three Holy Ghosts though I grant as he says that they are Three Holy Spirits But this is a meer childish Fallacy and playing with words as as there is but One God so he is a holy Being and a pure Mind and Spirit as Spirit is opposed to Matter and thus all Three Divine Persons are holy Minds and Spirits essentially united into One infinite Mind and Spirit but the Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of the Father and the Son and a distinct Person in the Trinity is but One. In this Trinity none is before or after other none is greater or less than another Yet the Son himself saith the Father is greater than I 14 Joh. 28. And the Son himself saith I and the Father are One 10 Joh. 30. And therefore there can be no greater inequality between them than what is consistent with an Oneness and Identity of Essence that is not an inequality of Nature but Order as a Father is greater than the Son who is naturally subordinate to him though their Nature be equal and the same Though we know the ancient Fathers understood this of Christ as Man as it is also expressed in this Creed Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead inferiour to the Father as touching his Manhood He proceeds As for the other Clause None is afore or after other 't is just as true as that there is no difference between afore and after I ask whether the Son doth not as he is a Son derive both Life and Godhead from the Father All Trinitarians grant he does grounding themselves on the Nicene Creed which expresly calls the Son God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made But if the Father gave to the Son Life and Godhead he must have both before he could communicate or give either of them to the Son and consequently was afore the Son was No effect is so early as its Cause for if it were it should not have needed or had that for its Cause No Proposition in Euclid is more certain or evident than this I hope he will abate a little of his Mathematical Certainty before I have done with him and yet I shall quickly have done with him too I will begin with his Philosophy of Causes and Effects No Effect he says is so early as its Cause Did he never then hear of what we call Emanative Effects which coexist with their Causes Is not the Sun the Cause of Light and Fire of Heat and can he conceive a Sun without Light or Fire without Heat and if he cannot so much as in thought without absurdity and contradiction separate these Causes and Effects is it possible to separate them in time that the Cause should be before its Effect that is that the Sun should be without Light and the Fire without Heat and yet can Light be without the Sun or Heat without Fire What becomes then of his Reason which is as certain and evident as any Proposition in Euclid That if the Effect were as early as its Cause it should not have needed or had that for its Cause For Light needs the Sun and Heat the Fire for their Causes and yet are as early as their Causes But I perceive he is but a young Mathematician or Philosopher and therefore I would desire him to remember against the next time That plain Matter of Fact is as certain and evident as any Proposition in Euclid In all other Causes and Effects which subsist distinctly and separately his Maxim is good That the Cause must be before the Effect but when the Effect is essential to the Cause and the Cause cannot be without it