Sabellians did nor Two different Substances as the Arians did For when God is born of God this Divine Nativity will neither admit a Unity of Person nor a Diversity of Nature For Father and Son he who begets and he who is begotten must be Two Persons and the Son who is begotten of the Substance of his Father must be consubstantial with him It were easy to multiply Quotations to this purpose both out of these and numerous other Ancient Writers but this is Proof enough that the Primitive Fathers would not be frighted out of the true Catholick Faith of a Real and Substantial Trinity by the loud Clamours of Tritheism but rejected such a Notion of One God as confined the Godhead to One Single Solitary Person as Iudaism and an Anti-trinitarian Heresy For we know in what sense the Iews owned but One God viz. in the very sense that the Socinians and all Anti-trinitarians do that is That there is but One who is God but One Divine Person and in this sense these Ancient Fathers rejected it But besides these general Sayings they industriously confute this Notion of the Unity of the Godhead which confines it to one single Person that the One God is so One that there is and can be but One Divine Person who is true and perfect God The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament do expresly teach that there is but one God This the Ancient Hereticks perpetually objected against the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity And St. Hilary observes what danger there is in answering this Objection if it be not done with great caution For it may be equally impious to deny or to affirm it For the True Catholick Faith of One God lies between two such contrary Heresies as are ready to take advantage one way or other whatever Answer you give If you own that there is but One God without taking notice that this One God has an only begotten Son who is True and Perfect God the Arians take advantage of this against the Eternal Godhead of the Son If you say That the Father is God and the Son God and yet there is but One God the Sabellians hence conclude That Father and Son are but One Person as they are One God But in opposition to both these Heresies he tells us That though the Catholick Church did not deny One God yet they taught God and God and denied the Unity of the Godhead both in the Arian and Sabellian Notion of One God And consequently That they professed to believe God and God and God though not Three Gods but One God yet in that very sense which both Ancient and Modern Hereticks call Tritheism There is no dispute but the Scripture does very fully and expresly teach us That there is but One God Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord 6. Deut. 4. which our Saviour himself approves 12. Mark 29. and the Scribe expounds 32. Well master Thou hast said the truth for there is One God and there is none other but He And this is often confirmed both in the Old and New Testament But then the Fathers think that they have an unanswerable Argument to prove That by One God is not meant that there is but One who is God because the same Holy Scriptures which teach us that there is but One God do attribute the Name and Dignity and Power and all the Natural Perfections of God to more than One. St. Hilary explains this Argument at large the sum of which in short is this That we must learn the knowledge of God from Divine Revelation for Humane Understandings which are accustomed to Corporeal and Bodily Images are too weak of themselves to discern and contemplate Divine things nor is there any thing in our selves or in Created Nature that can give us an adequate notion and conception of the Nature and Unity of God We must believe God concerning himself and his own Nature and yield a ready assent to what he reveals to us For we must either deny him to be God as the Heathens do if we reject his Testimony or if we believe him to be God we must conceive no otherwise of him than as he himself hath taught us This is very reasonable if we believe upon God's Authority To believe all that God reveals and to expound the Revelation by it self not to put such a sense upon one part of the Revelation as shall contradict another but to put such a sense upon the words as makes the whole consistent with it self As in the present Dispute concerning the Unity of God The Scripture assures us that there is but One God and we believe that there is but One God Excepting the Valentinians and such kind of Hereticks all Christians both Catholicks and Hereticks agree in this Profession But the Question is In what sense the Scripture teaches that there is but One God Whether this One God signifies One single Divine Person or One God with his Only begotten Son and Eternal Spirit who have the same Nature and Divinity The Arians and Socinians embrace the first Sense of the words That One God is One Divine Person and for this reason will not own Christ or the Holy Spirit to be True and Perfect God because there is but One God and Three Divine Persons they say are Three Gods Now unless we will pretend to understand the Divine Nature and the Divine Unity better than God himself does we must refer this Dispute to Scripture and if we have the same Authority to believe more Divine Persons than One that we have to believe but One God then the Unity of God in the Scripture-notion of it is no Tritheism nor any objection against the belief of a Trinity for there may be but One only God and yet Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the same Godhead This is St. Hilary's Argument and it is a very good one That Moses himself who has taught us that there is but One God has taught us to confess God and God that we have the same Authority to believe the Son of God to be God that we have to believe One God And therefore though we do and must believe One God we must not so believe One God as to deny the Son of God to be God for this is to contradict Moses and the Prophets This Argument he prosecutes at large throughout the IV th and V th Books of the Trinity and alledges all those Old Testament Proofs for the plurality of Divine Persons and for the Divinity of Christ which whatever opinion some Modern Wits and Criticks have of them have been applied to that purpose by all Christian Writers from the beginning of Christianity and were that my present Business might be easily vindicated from the Cavils and Exceptions of Hereticks St. Paul tells us That there is One God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and One Iesus Christ
own it who assert but One singular Substance of the Deity for if there be but One Substance in the sense of Singularity the Son if he have any Substance must be the Substance of the Father he who is begotten must be the Substance of him who is unbegotten Thus much I think is certain That if St. Basil was in his wits he would never have used this Argument had he believed that Father and Son are but One singular Substance and yet elsewhere he expresly tells us That the Nicene Fathers distinguished the Hypostates of Father and Son when they called the Son Light of Light for the Light which begets is not the Light which is begotten though their Nature is the same they being Light and Light Once more to prevent if it be possible all manner of Evasions since some Moderns distinguish between the generation of the Son and of his Substance and will allow that the Son is begotten but not his Substance I observe that St. Basil rejects this distinction between the Son and his Substance Eunomius durst not say that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made or created out of nothing this being so expresly condemned by the Nicene Council which the generality of Christians received as the Rule of their Faith and therefore he endeavoured to cheat them into it before they were aware by a new form of speech He says That the Substance of the Son was begotten having no Being before its own proper subsistence and was begotten before all things by the Will of God This was very craftily expressed to insinuate that there was a time when the Substance of the Son did not exist for it could not be before it was begotten and had a proper subsistence of its own St. Basil exposes this Sophistry at large and shews that by the same Argument they might prove that there was a time when the Father's Substance was not for that could not be older than its own subsistence But if the Father be Eternal though his Substance could not be before its subsistence so may the Son be also by an Eternal generation and subsistence But that which I would take notice of is that St. Basil observes the vain Sophistry of this way of speaking that when he durst not say that the Son was of nothing or that there was a time when he was not he insinuates the same thing concerning the Substance of the Son as if the Son and the Substance of the Son were two things Now if the Son and the Substance of the Son be the same then if the Son is begotten the Substance of the Son is begotten if the Son be not the Father the Substance of the Son is not the Substance of the Father And yet all the Philosophy of the ancient Fathers not excepting St. Austin himself would not allow of any difference between the Person of the Father and his Being Essence Substance Subsistence Nature nor between the Person of the Son and his Being Subsistence Nature c. and therefore the Son is as distinct from the Father in Nature Being Life Substance as in Person and Subsistence But to proceed There was no dispute between the Catholicks and the Arians about the singularity of the Divine Substance they both rejected that as Sabellianism and asserted Father and Son to be as distinct in Nature and Substance as they are in Person and therefore this Objection de ingenito genito concerning the unbegotten and the begotten Nature was intended not to prove a numerical distinction which it effectually does but a specifick difference and diversity of Nature between Father and Son that the Son is no more consubstantial to the Father than to be unbegotten and to be begotten are the same The whole Controversy turned upon this one Point Whether unbegotten and begotten were Names of Nature and consequently whether to be unbegotten and to be begotten made a specifick difference of Natures This the Catholick Fathers unanimously denied and not to take notice of all they say on this Argument there is one Answer which they all give very observable to my present purpose and that is this That to be unbegotten or begotten makes no specifick difference in created Natures and therefore there is no reason to say that it makes any such diversity in the Divine Nature and they all give the Example of Adam Seth and Eve who all had the same human Nature and yet Adam was unbegotten as being immediately formed by God Seth was begotten as being Adam's Son Eve was not begotten but made of one of Adam's Ribs But this makes no diversity of Nature but only distinguishes them by their manner of Existence or coming into Being and there is no imaginable reason why the same specifick Nature considered in its Individuals may not have very different Beginnings without any alteration of Nature Nay as Damascen observes thus it is in all the several species of Creatures for the first in every kind is unbegotten And though the Divine Nature in all Three Divine Persons is Eternal without any Beginning yet if to be unbegotten or to be begotten make no diversity of Nature in Creatures there is no reason to say that it makes any such difference in the Divine Nature This is so plain and express that I need add nothing to shew how this overthrows the Opinion of Singularity and owns a Specifick Unity and Sameness of the Divine Nature That though the Father be unbegotten and the Son begotten yet they are Consubstantial or of the same Nature not with the Sameness of Singularity which is impossible but with such a Sameness of Nature as is between two of the same kind and species as the Example of Adam and Seth proves And I need not prove that a Specifick Sameness of Nature supposes a real distinction of Persons who agree in this One same Nature SECT V. That by the Homoousion or One Substance the Nicene Fathers did not meerly understand a Specifick but a Natural Unity and Sameness of Substance between Father and Son BUT yet after all this the Catholick Fathers did not allow the Divine Nature in a strict and proper Notion to be a species which is only a notional and logical Unity and Sameness of Nature for the Divine Nature which is perfect Essence is not logically but essentially One though it subsists distinctly in Three Persons and this was the Faith of the Catholick Fathers On this one Point the whole Controversy turns concerning the Singularity of the Divine Nature or the Plurality of Divine Natures multiplied with the Persons and consequently that great Controversy of all whether a Trinity of true real substantial Persons be essentially One or Three Gods To represent this as plainly as possibly I can we must consider the difference between a Specifick and a Natural Unity between being One in Notion and One in Nature The first is when from that agreement which we observe in the Natures of
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
evident from what I have already discours'd The Fathers in opposition to Sabellius universally rejected One singular solitary Nature and Substance as destroying a Trinity of Real Persons for in their Philosophy One singular Substance is but One Person and therefore Three Persons each of which is by himself True and Perfect Substance can't be One singular Substance which is Proof enough that when they explain the Unity of the Divine Substance by its Sameness and Identity they could not by this Sameness and Identity mean Singularity but such a Sameness as is between Real Distinct Subsisting Substantial Persons who are every way alike without the least Change or Variation Which the Greek Fathers commonly call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Fathers as St. Hilary especially Indifferens Indissimilis Natura That this is the True Notion of this Sameness and Identity of Nature appears from those Representations which the Catholick Fathers make of it viz. That it is such a Sameness and Identity as there is between a Perfect Living Subsisting Word and that Perfect Mind whose Word it is such a Sameness as is between Father and Son between the Prototype and the Image between the Seal and the Impression between Life of Life Wisdom of Wisdom Power of Power c. neither of which is the other and yet both are the same That God hath an Eternal Word which was in the Beginning was with God and was God that this Eternal Word was the Son of God and this Son the Perfect Likeness and Image of his Father the Brightness of his Glory and the Express Character of his Substance is the known Doctrine of the Scripture and Fathers That this Word is not like the Word of a Man but the Substantial Essential Living Subsisting Omnipotent Word and this Son a True Natural Genuine Son and this Image a Substantial Living Image and a Living Substantial Character of the Father that this Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Distinct Person from him whose Word he is that the Son is not the Father nor the Father the Son but that they are alius alius that the Image is not the Prototype nor the Prototype the Image nor the Chararacter and Impression that whose Character it is I have already proved to be the Received Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers against the Sabellians and were there any occasion for it I could confirm it with innumerable Testimonies The only Question then is What this Sameness and Identity of Nature is And if we will allow for that difference there is between God and Creatures we may learn as the Fathers teach us what this Sameness of Nature between the Divine Persons is from the Sameness and Identity between a Mind and its Word between Father and Son between the Prototype and the Image the Seal and its Character and Impression Now what this Sameness and Identity is is so visible that a few words will explain it It is not the Sameness of Singularity for the Mind and its Word a Father and Son the Prototype and its Image the Seal and its Impression are visibly Two Nor is it the Sameness of meer Likeness and Similitude how Exact and Perfect soever we conceive that Likeness to be for every one must confess that there is a vast difference between the Perfect Likeness of Two Minds Two Men Two Originals and Two Seals and that Sameness which is between a Mind and its own Word a Father and his own Son a Prototype and its own Natural Image and the Seal and the Impression which is made by it just as much difference as there is between Similitude and Nature or between a perfect Likeness of Nature and Identity And therefore the complete and adequate Notion of Sâ—meness and Identity between Two who are really distinct in Subsistence and Personality and are not each other must be this That an Eternal Unproduced Person produces another in his own Nature Whole Perfect Entire without the least Conceivable or Possible Difference or Diversity excepting this That One Produces and the Other is Produced For Two such who distinctly subsist are really Two Persons in One and the Same Individual Nature Thus it is with a Perfect Mind and its Perfect Living Subsisting Word which is perfectly it self as its own Perfect Natural Image Two in Number but One in Re in Nature Thus it is with a Father and such a Son as is Whole of Whole they are Two and the Same the Son the Natural Living Image of the Father in whom the Father sees Himself and is seen in Him as Christ tells us He that hath seen me hath seen the Father Which is agreeable to the common Forms of Speech to call the King's Picture or Image the King as the Catholick Writers frequently observe which would be exactly and philosophically true were it a Perfect Natural Living Inseparable Image And this is what the Catholick Fathers call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness or Identity of Nature as might easily be proved by numerous Citations But I will content my self with a few The Nicene Fathers taught That the Father and the Son were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Nature and Substance This as I observed before they explain by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Perfect Invariable Likeness and Similitude without the least Difference and Diversity and this is what they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness and Identity of Nature which cannot be the Sameness of Singularity but the Sameness of Indifference and Indiversity such a Sameness as is between Two which are perfectly alike and differ in nothing from each other Athanasius gives this account why the Nicene Fathers taught That the Son was Homoousios of the same Substance with the Father that they might signifie that the Son was not only like the Father but so of the Father as to be the same in Likeness Now the Sameness and Identity of Likeness cannot be the Sameness of Singularity and yet this he calls the Sameness and Identity with his Father That the Son is the Natural Genuine Son of the Father and the Word God's own proper Word and the invariable Likeness between the Light and it's Splendor the Unity of Nature and the Identity of Light With several Expressions noted in the Margin which signifie the most perfect Sameness in Nature Thus the Son is the Image of God the Character of his Substance Nature and Essence which is the Language of Scripture and the constant Doctrine of the Fathers And from hence they conclude the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature between Father and Son or a perfect Likeness and Similitude By which Argument they prove That he is no Creature but that he is Eternal and Omnipotent and all that his Father is because this is the Nature of a Perfect Living Image to be perfectly all and the same that the Prototype is
there should be Three such distinct incommunicable Persons in the same undivided undistinguished Divinity Why we may not call Three Divine Persons who have each of them the whole Divine Nature distinctly and incommunicably Three Divinities as well as Three Divine Persons when a Divine Person is nothing else but the Divinity And then Three distinct Persons must be Three distinct Divinities This Unity and Distinction in the Godhead has always been acknowledged by the Catholick Fathers to be a Great and Inexplicable Mystery a wonderful Union and wonderful Distinction Damascen as I observed above tells us That the Divine Nature though subsisting in Three Persons is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really and actually One not merely notionally One as Human Nature is which subsists only in Individuals and has a particular distinct separate Subsistence in every particular Man and therefore can be One in its Individuals in no other sense but only as the same common Notion and Definition of Humanity belongs to them all that is Human Nature is One in all the Men in the World not by a Real Subsisting but by a Specifick Notional Unity But the Divine Nature is One with a Real Subsisting Unity being perfectly the same in Three without any Division or Separation And an indivisible inseparable undiversified Same is really and actually One according to the most simple Notions we can form of Unity But what room then does this leave for a Real Trinity of Persons in this One Simple Uncompounded Indivisible Inseparable Nature To this he answers That this Real Distinction of Persons in the perfect Unity and Simplicity of Nature may be known and understood by Reason though there be nothing in Nature to distinguish them Father Son and Holy Ghost are upon all accounts perfectly One excepting this That one is Unbegotten the other Begotten and the third Proceeds We acknowledge One God distinguished only by these Personal Properties of Paternity Filiation and Procession as a Cause and that which is caused and as each of them has a compleat perfect Hypostasis distinguish'd only by these different Modes of Subsistence This proves a Real Distinction without any Diversity Division or Separation and therefore a Real Distinction in perfect Unity The Divine Nature is Infinite and Uncircumscribed and therefore the Divine Persons cannot be divided and separated from each other but are perfectly in each other without Confusion The Divine Nature is perfectly One in Three by the Unity of Sameness and Identity and therefore there can be no diversity or division of Will or Counsel or Operation or Power Now a Nature which is perfectly the same and undivided must be perfectly One. But then Father Son and Holy Ghost are certainly Three for He who begets is not He who is begotten for nothing begets it self To beget and to be begotten and to proceed are the Characters of Persons and can belong only to True Real Substantial Persons He who begets must be a Person and so must He who is begotten and He who proceeds they have each of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatever makes a compleat and perfect Person but then these Three can never meet in the same Person and consequently must distinguish Persons for the same Person can't be unbegotten begotten and proceed can 't be the Cause and that which is caused This is demonstratively certain That a begotten and unbegotten Person and consequently a begotten and unbegotten Nature a Divine Person being nothing else but the Divine Nature are and must be Two and never can be each other and therefore this distinguishes Persons though it makes no distinction or diversity in the Divine Essence as the Catholick Fathers proved against the Arians that to be unbegotten and to be begotten does not But to be unbegotten to be begotten and to proceed whatever you will call them whether Personal Properties or Modes of Subsistence though they do not make the Persons that is are not the formal Notion of a Person yet they certainly distinguish them or prove them to be as distinct and incommunicable as Unbegotten Begotten and Proceeding for if these Terms or Characters can never signify each other then the Persons characterized by them can never be each other And this is all the distinction that can be in an undistinguished undiversified undivided Essence Well but still the difficulty remains how to distinguish between Essence and Person in God for if Person be Nature and Essence and each Person distinctly in himself be the whole Divine Essence or the whole Divinity how can we avoid acknowledging Three Essences and Three Divinities as well as Three Persons in the Trinity Now the account of this must be taken from the nature of that Distinction and Unity which is in God for such a Distinction as does not destroy the Unity can't multiply Natures though it distinguishes Persons Each Person is the Divine Nature but without any diversity division or separation of the Divinity and what is Identically and Indivisibly the same is but One. The Divine Nature as self-originated and unbegotten is the Person of the Father as communicated by Generation is the Person of the Son as proceeding is the Person of the Holy Ghost and these are Three but the Son is begotten of the Substance of his Father and the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son without any diversity division or separation of Substance and therefore the Divinity is but One. The Divine Nature subsists distinctly and incommunicably in Three according to their distinct Characters of Unbegotten Begotten and Proceeding and these we call Persons because they bear some Analogy to Individuals in created Beings which in an Intelligent Nature are called Persons but they are not Three Divinities because the Divine Nature though it be distinct yet is undiversified and undivided in Three and therefore is but One in Three This seems to me a very intelligible Account of a Trinity in Unity and the difference between Person and Essence though a Divine Person is the Divine Essence When we distinguish between Person and Essence and say there are Three Persons and One Essence by Essence we mean an undistinguished undivided Divinity which is but One by Three Persons we mean the Divine Essence unbegotten and communicated by Generation and Procession which are really distinct Persons and subsist distinctly but i◠the Unity of an undistinguished and undivided Divinity which makes them really and actually Three and One the same without diversity and distinct without division And this seems to be the reason why the Catholick Fathers tho they called the Divine Persons Tres Res and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Tres Subsistentes Three Things and Three that subsist yet were more cautious in calling them Three Natures or Essences or Substances though there are some Examples of this kind because though the Divine Essence subsists distinctly in Father Son and Holy Ghost which makes them Three Distinct Real Subsisting Persons yet the Divine Nature is not
Eternal Self-Originated Being who had no beginning of Being and received his being from no other and that there is no other Self Originated Being but himself This is the Notion which all Mankind have of One God That there is one Infinite Eternal Self-Originated Being or Nature and if there be as it is certain there is but one such Nature and Divinity there can be but One God And this is Established in the Christian Faith which owns but One God the Father who is therefore in Scripture in a peculiar manner called the One God and the Only True God Thus fâ—r all Christians are agreed but here our Arian and Socinian Adversaries stop For how can the Son be God and the Holy Ghost be God if the Father be the only Self-Originated Being and the One True God Now the very Notion of a Son Answers this difficulty or at least proves that so it is however it may exceed our finite Comprehension It is Essential to the Notion of a Son to be of another of him whom we call his Father and to receive the same Nature from him Man begets a Man and God begets God but there is an infinite distance between these two as there is between God and Creatures When Man begets a Man he does not Communicate his own whole entire numerical Nature to his Son but with part of his own Substance Communicates the same specifick Nature to him or a Nature of the same kind and therefore a Man and his Son are two Men as having two particular Natures though specifically the same But if we believe that God has a Son begotten by him of himself I say not created out of nothing nor made of any other prae-existent Nature or Substance but eternally begotten of himself we must acknowledge that the Father and the Son are perfectly One excepting that one is the Father and the other the Son All men who know any thing of the Divine Nature know that God is the most Pure Simple Uncompounded Being and if God who has no parts and cannot be divided into any begets a Son he must Communicate his Whole Undivided Nature to him For to beget a Son is to Communicate his own Nature to him and if he have no parts he cannot Communicate a part but must Communicate the Whole that is he must Communicate his whole self and be a second self in his Son Now a Whole and a Whole of a Whole are certainly two but not two Natures but one Nature not meerly Specifically but Identically One for it is impossible that a Whole which is Communicated without Division or Separation should have the least imaginable diversity from it self so as to become another Nature from it self for a Whole of a Whole must be perfectly and identically the same with that Whole of which it is for a Whole can be but One. This is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sameness and Identity of Nature which the Fathers assert and whereon they found the Unity of the Godhead And this is the meaning of that distinction of the Schools between unum numero and re numerata one in number and in the thing numbred Two must always be allowed to be Two in number as Father and Son are though they are but One in re numeratâ in the Sameness and Identity of Nature as Christ tells us I and my Father are One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Neuter-Gender which must relate to Nature not to Number To distinguish or multiply Natures there must be some real or notional diversity and alterity between them as Boetius observes But a Whole can never differ in the least from the whole of which it is no more than the same Whole can differ from it self and it is this Sameness and Identity which is called a Numerical Unity of Nature and is peculiar to the Divine Nature there being nothing like it in Creatures Not that the Divine Nature considered as in the Father is the same in number with the Divine Nature as communicated to and subsisting distinctly in the Son for then the Father and the Son can't be two for the Person of the Father and his Divinity or Divine Nature is the same and the Person of the Son and his Divine Nature is the same and if this Oneness relate to number there can be but One Person as there is but One Nature but a Numerical Unity of Nature does not exclude a Number of Persons each of whom has the whole Divine Nature Perfectly and Distinctly in himself it does not exclude the actual and perfect communication of the same Divine Nature to more than one but only excludes all imaginable diversity and alterity and what is not aliud is unum that which is not another thing another different Nature is but One That is the Divine Nature is numerically One in opposition to any other Absolute Self-originated Divinity not in opposition to the Eternal Communications of its self to the Son and Holy Spirit If the Divine Nature as actually and distinctly subsisting in Three be as perfectly One as the Idea of God is One as any specifick Notion suppose of Human Nature is One then it is Identically and Numerically one and the same And indeed this is the true reason why the Catholick Fathers so often represent the Unity of the Divine Nature by Allusions and Metaphors signifying a specifick Unity because the Divine Nature as subsisting in Father Son and Holy Ghost is as perfectâ—y one and the same as the specifick Notion and Idea of any Nature is which abstracts from all the diversities and differences which are found in Individuals Which one Observation will help us to expound several disputed passages in the Fathers as I could easily shew were that my present business Father Son and Holy Ghost though they have one undistinguished undiversified Nature and therefore are One in Nature yet are Three in Number because they have this one undivided undistinguished undiversified Nature after a different manner which the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner of Existence or the manner how they come to be which though it sounds very harshly when applied to that which has no beginning of Being as most other expressions do when applied to God and Criticized on by perverse and Comical Wits must be allowed in such a qualified sense as is proper to an Eternal Being or we must deny Eternal Generation and Procession which is though not the beginning yet a Communication of Being And thus the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Mode or manner of Existence and Being is that he is Self-originated and receives his Being from no other the Son 's is that he is Eternally Begotten of the Father and receives his Nature and Being without any beginning from the Father the Holy Ghost's is that he Eternally Proceeds from Father and Son and this is all the distinction that is between them They have but one undivided undiversified Nature but these opposite Relations
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
diversifying Properties make them Three Men. Could Human Nature subsist as perfectly and indivisibly the same in Three as the perfect Idea of Humanity their Persons might be distinguished but their Nature would be as perfectly One as the Idea of Humanity is one and the same in distinct Minds and in this Case as far as this perfect Sameness of Nature can make them one which as I have observed is not the compleat Notion of the Divine Unity though it be essential to it they might be called Three Human Persons but not Three Men But such peculiar Properties as diversify and thereby distinguish the same common Nature into Particulars make the Number Which is one reason why we must not say Three Gods as we do Three Men though the same Divinity be common to Father Son and Holy Ghost because this same One Divinity subsists whole and perfect without the least Change Diversity or Alteration in Three That though their Persons are distinct the Divinity is perfectly One and the Same in All and therefore they are but One God So that these Fathers do not insist on a mere Specifick Unity but on the Sameness and Identity of the Divine Nature in Three as the reason why we must not say that there are Three Gods for the same One undiversified Divinity can be but One God And therefore having answered that Popular Objection That Peter Iames and Iohn are allowed to be called Three Men upon account of the same common Nature by shewing that it is a great Popular Mistake that merely the same One Common Nature makes them Three Men or will justify their being called so this Father proceeds to shew That there is such an Unity between Father Son and Holy Ghost as is not and cannot be between any Three Creatures though they partake of the same Common Nature Such an Unity as makes Father Son and Holy Ghost essentially One God though Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men. Nay such an Unity as even a perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature cannot make between Creatures who have an absolute and separate Subsistence This gives a reasonable Account of this whole Argument and vindicates it from those Absurdities which are charged on it It was necessary to lay the Foundation of the Divine Unity in the perfect and invariable Sameness and Identity of Nature For if the Divine Nature in Three is not perfectly the same it cannot be One for Diversity and Alterity makes a Number But if it subsist as perfectly the same in Three as its Idea is the same it must be as perfectly one as its Idea is one No say these Arians the same Nature subsisting in Three becomes Three Individual Natures of the same Species and the name of Nature must be multiplied with the Individuals as all allow it must be as to Men who partake of the same Common Nature For Peter Iames and Iohn are acknowledged to be Three Men though they have but one common Humanity and by the same reason Father Son and Holy Ghost must be Three Gods if they have the same common Divinity To which St. Gregory Nyssen answers That it is not the common Humanity which makes them Three Men for that which is but one and the same in all can't distinguish or multiply them and therefore in strict and accurate speaking as Man signifies pure and abstracted Humanity we cannot properly say Three Men because there are not Three Humanities and accordingly the name Man does not and cannot distinguish one Man from another nor is ever used to that purpose but that which multiplies Nature and the name of Nature are those peculiar Properties which distinguish and diversify Nature as well as Persons and thus the common Nature with diversifying Properties 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is distinguish'd and multiplied by a kind of Composition for the same Nature with one peculiar diversifying Property is distinguish'd from the same Nature with other Properties and thus the same Nature divided and distinguish'd with these Properties makes a Number and gives the name of Nature to each Individual Person and thus it is in all Creatures But where the same Nature subsists in Three without any thing to distinguish or diversify Nature as it is in the Blessed Trinity though the Persons may be distinguish'd the Nature and the name of Nature can be but One Which is the reason why Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One God because they have but One undistinguish'd undiversified Nature though their Persons are distinct This is the true Account of this Matter which is so far from such a mere Specifick Unity of Nature as is between Three Men that it is that very Sameness and Identity of Nature which the Catholick Fathers make essential to the Unity of the Godhead And the better to understand this we must consider their Philosophy about Numbers for according to them nothing properly but Alterity and Diversity makes a Number What is perfectly the same is but One as Boetius tells us not by a Singularity but by a perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature In this sense it is that Greg. Nazianzen St. Basil and others teach That God is One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in Number but Nature whereby they do not mean that there are more Gods in Number than One but that the Unity of the Godhead does not consist in the Unity of Number but of Nature and that the Unity of Nature consists in the invariable Sameness and Identity of it and therefore where the Divinity is perfectly the same there is but One God Thus Greg. Nyssen tells us That the same Divinity may be numbred and yet rejects all Number that is the Divinity may be numbred with the Persons as when we say the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God but the Divine Nature being perfectly the same in all that can't be numbred that we must not say there are Three Gods or Three Divinities Boetius has given the best Account of this according to the Philosophy of the Ancients by distinguishing between Numbers for he says Number is twofold that by which we number and that which is in the things numbred As to the first the repetition of Units makes a Number for One and One and One are Three and both the Catholick Fathers and Schools reject this kind of Number which is a Species of Quantity from the Divinity for God is under no Predicament and therefore the Unity of God not reducible to the Predicament of Quantity for God is before and above all Unity as he is above Substance above Essence above every thing which we have any Notion or Conception of as Dionysius the Areopagite speaks But as to the things numbred the Repetition of Units does not multiply or make a Number in things where the Nature is perfectly the same for it is not a Repetition of Units but Alterity and Diversity which multiplies Natures To say God and God and God does not
suis velut limitibus circumsepta But not so as if these Three were distinguished and separated by Nature and Qualities or as if each of them had their own Separate and Circumscribed Bounds and Limits This is the Account Estius gives us of Unity and Number in God dist 24. sect 1. which perfectly agrees with that Account I have already given of this matter from St. Basil That an Infinite Undiversified Indivisible Nature as the Eternal Divinity is is neither One nor Three in the same Sense and for the same Reasons which give these Denominations to any Created Beings And therefore there are no Arguments in Nature to confute the Unity of the Godhead from a Trinity of proper Subsisting Persons nor a Trinity of Persons from the Unity of the Godhead because Three and One in God do not signify what they do in Creatures This appeared a great difficulty to the Master of the Sentences That since we neither allow of Diversity nor Singularity Multiplicity nor Solitude in the Trinity what should be the meaning of One and Two and Three of Trinity and Plurality and Distinction as when we say One God Two Persons Three Persons more Persons distinct Persons or a distinction of Persons Plurality of Persons a Trinity of Persons which seems to ascribe a Numerical Quantity a Multitude and Multiplicity to God To this the Master answers That these words when applied to God are rather intended to remove every thing from God which is inconsistent with the Perfect Simplicity of the Divine Nature than positively to affirm any thing of him This Answer does not please Estius because it seems to imply that God is not in a true and proper Sense One and Three but this is his own Mistake For Peter Lombard meant no more but this That though God be in the most perfect sense One and Three yet those positive Ideas which we have of One or Two or Three of Distinction and Trinity when applied to Creatures do not belong to the Divine Nature and therefore we must conceive of them in God rather by way of Negation than by any positive Ideas by denying such things of God as are inconsistent with the Perfect Simplicity of his Nature which is true of most other Divine Perfections that we have rather a negative than positive conception of them as attributed to God for Wisdom and Power and Goodness in God are no more reducible under the Predicament of Quality as they are in Creatures than the Unity of God is reducible to the Predicament of Quantity Thus he tells us when we say One God we thereby exclude more Gods but do not attribute the quantity of Number to God that is we do not mean that there is One God in that Notion of One as it is the beginning of Number which is a Species of Quantity for so nothing can be One but what has Quantity which God has not Thus when we say One Father and One Son the meaning is that there are not many Fathers nor many Sons When we say there are more Persons we exclude Singularity and Solitude but do not introduce Diversity or Multiplicity into the Divine Nature Thus Three Persons does not signify the Quantity of Number or any Diversity as it is in Creatures but only determines our Thoughts to Father Son and Holy Ghost that each of these Persons is in the Godhead and none else Distinct Persons or Distinction of Persons excludes Confusion and Mixture signifies that they are Another and Another without any Diversity or Sabellian Confusion The meaning of which is That we must not form such a Notion of One God as we have of One Man nor of Three Persons as of Three Men but must acknowledge One God in opposition to more Gods or more Divinities and Three Persons in opposition to Singularity and Solitude in the Divinity All which resolves it self into the Unity of Identity which excludes both all manner of Diversity and Singularity and Solitude SECT VII Concerning the Distinction of Persons in the Unity and Identity of the Divine Essence THIS fairly brings me to the Third Enquiry I proposed concerning the Real Distinction of the Divine Persons in the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature how we can distinguish Father Son and Holy Ghost when their Nature is perfectly One by the Unity of Identity and Sameness This is the Seat of most of those nice distinctions which we meet with both in the Fathers and Schools and therefore it deserves to be carefully examined for a sensible Account of this Matter would answer many great Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Trinity And to this purpose I shall first give a general Account of it according to those Principles which I have now laid down and then more particularly explain what the Fathers and Schools say of it which will appear to be no such Mysterious Nonsense as the Adversaries of our Holy Faith would represent it to be 1. The general Account of this is very short The Catholick Fathers universally teach That Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them by himself in his own proper Person True and Perfect God That the same One Whole Undivided Divinity subsists distinctly in each of them That the Person of the Father as he is True and Perfect God is the whole Divinity That the Person of the Son as True and Perfect God is also the same One Whole Divinity and so of the Holy Ghost That this Divinity is One and the Same not by an Unity of Singularity and Solitude which is irreconcilable with the Notion of a Real Trinity for One Singular Divinity can be but One Single Divine Person but by the Unity of Sameness and Identity which admits of a Trinity of subsisting Persons in the same undiversified Nature That whatever the Father is That the Son is and that the Holy Ghost is That a Divine Person is nothing but the Divine Nature and Essence for the perfect absolute Simplicity of God admits of no imaginable Composition not so much as of Nature and Suppositum or that which is the subject of all Natural Powers as it is in Created Beings This makes it very evident that these Divine Persons are not distinguished by Nature for there is nothing in Nature to distinguish them it being perfectly and invariably the same in all and where there is no distinction there can be no Number for which reason they will not allow that the Divine Essence is multiplied with the Persons there being but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one and the same Divinity in them all They agree farther That the Divine Persons are incommunicable That the Person of the Father is not and can never be the Person of the Son nor the Person of the Son the Person of the Father nor the Person of the Holy Ghost the Person either of Father or Son But then this seems to make the difficulty insuperable That if a Divine Person be nothing else but the Divine Nature how
Whole must be the same Whole and in this Unity of Nature consists the Unity of the Godhead I grant a Whole of a Whole is very unconceivable to us and so is the Notion of an Eternal self-originated Being and of Creation to the full as unconceivable as the Eternal Generation of a Whole from a Whole But this is a difficulty in the Notion of an Eternal Generation not of a Trinity in Unity If God begets a Son as the Scripture assures us he has an only begotten Son he must communicate his own Nature to him and besides the Testimony of Scripture That all the Father has is the Son 's his whole Nature and Divinity Reason assures us that God being a pure simple Being without composition or parts if he communicate his Nature to his Son he must communicate it whole and entire without division or separation and if this be so it is certain that Father and Son he who begets and he who is begotten are Two and it is as certain that the same whole Divinity communicated by the Father to the Son is but the same One Divinity and One Divinity though actually subsisting in Three can be but One God not Three Gods It is certain this is the most perfect Unity that can be between Three who are truly and really the same and yet distinct for they can nâ—ver be more One than to be Three Same 's and Three Wholes for the Communication of a Whole may make a Number but cannot distinguish or multiply Nature SECT VI. Concerning the Unity of God BUT our Socinian Adversaries and some who would not be thought Socinians have espoused such a Notion of One God as makes the Faith of a Trinity absolutely irreconcilable with the Faith of One God By One God they mean One who is God but the Faith of the Trinity owns Three each of whom is by himself True and Perfect God and I grant it is as absolutely impossible to reconcile these two as it is to reconcile Contradictions for to say that there is but One who is God and to say that there are Three each of whom is God is a manifest Contradiction and yet without saying this last we must deny a Trinity It is in vain to think to solve this with Words without Sense If there is but One who is God we must either make Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Names or Modes or Manifestations of the same One Numerical Divine Person which was the ancient exploded anathematized Heresy of Noetus and Sabellius or we must make the Son and Holy Spirit to be mere Creatures if we allow any Personality to them as Arius Macedonius Paulus Samosatenus and such like Hereticks and our Modern Socinians do But we with the Scriptures and the Catholick Church reject this Notion of the Unity of God which is to assert the Unity but to deny a Trinity And because this seems to be so prevailing a Notion at this time I shall shelter my self as well as I can under the Authority of the Catholick Fathers and the Catholick Church That there is but One God was always the Faith of the Catholick Church as appears from all the Ancient Creeds but then they did not believe in One God as One God signifies One Divine Separate Person which is never expressed in any Christian Creed but in One God the Father who has an only begotten Son and an Eternal Spirit in the Unity of the same Godhead There is no Christian Creed which teaches the Belief of One God who is not a Father and if the One God be a Father he must have a Son of his own Nature and Substance and the Son of God consubstantial with God the Father must be God the Son This is what Tertullian tells us That there is One God with his Oeconomy that is with his only begotten Son and Eternal Spirit The Catholick Church so believed in One God as to acknowledge Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost each of which is truly and really God as they must necessarily do if they believed a Trinity And upon this account they were charged with Tritheism or with asserting Three Gods because they owned a Trinity of Divine Substantial Persons really distinct from each other each of which is truly and perfectly God So that this is no new Charge against the Asserters of a Real and Substantial Trinity and the Ancient Christians had no regard to it for Tritheism in this Objection signified no more than the Bâ—lief of the Trinity or of Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead which is the true Christian Faith As to shew this briefly In answer to this Objection against the belief of a Real Substantial Trinity from the Unity of God they tell us it is Judaism and Heresy to place the Unity of the Godhead in the Unity of a Person to teach that there is but One Divine Person as there is but One God We may find enough to this purpose in Tertullian against Praxeas and Athanasius against the Sabellians in St. Hilary St. Austin and many others Athanasius commends the Iews for opposing the Polytheism and Idolatry of the Gentiles But then he charges them with as great Impiety themselves in denying the Son of God by whom all things were made and in accusing those of Polytheism who worship the Father by the Son And he exhorts his Readers to separate themselves from those Iudaizers who corrupt Christianity with Iudaism who deny God of God and teach One God in the Iewish Notion of it In which he taxes the Sabellians who taught that the Word of God is like the Word and Wisdom of a Man within him in his Heart and Soul and therefore that God and his Word are but One Person St. Hilary frequently takes notice of this Corruption of the Evangelical Faith as he calls it under the Pious Profession of One God to deny the Only begotten God to deny Christ to be born God or to be True God but only a Powerful Creature thereby to preserve the Faith of One God which they think the Birth of God does overthrow In which he distinctly charges the Sabellians and Arians the first for making God but One Person for fear of introducing a Trinity of Gods with a Trinity of Persons the other for making Christ a mere Creature though the first and most powerful Creature for fear of making a Second God should they have owned him to be God of God of the same Substance with the Father In opposition to this he tells us what the true Faith is which they have learned from Divine Revelation Neither to preach Two Gods nor One Solitary Divine Person for so solus must signify in this place and undertakes to prove both from the Evangelists and Prophets That when we profess our Faith in God the Father and God the Son we must neither own God the Father and God the Son to be One Person as the
in the Notion of Singularity which is One in Number not in the Sameness and Identity of Nature Would they have insisted on that distinction of Units in Number and Units in Nature that the first multiplies the second does not had they believed that there are no Units in the Divinity not One and One and One but only One Singular Divinity At least could Boetius who so particularly explains and urges this distinction intend to prove by it the Singularity of the Divine Essence when at the same time he defines a Person to be the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature and assigns this distinction as the Reason why though we number Three in the same Divinity yet there are not Three Divinities or Three Divine Natures or Essences because the Repetition of Units in the thing to be numbred where there is a perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature makes no Number In this sense it was that the Schools asserted the Singularity of the Divine Substance because the Divine Substance by reason of its perfect Sameness and Identity can't be numbred and what can't be numbred they call a Singular Substance But they expresly reject as the Catholick Fathers did Singularity in the sense of Solitude as it signifies one alone by himself without any Communion or Fellowship consortium with any other in the same Divine Essence And therefore the Master of the Sentences expresly distinguishes between Diversity Singularity or Solitude and Unity and Trinity Distinction and Identity Now let any man judge what that Unity is which is not Singularity or Solitude but a Unity in Trinity and what that Distinction is which is perfect Identity without any Diversity For my part I can make nothing of it but this perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature in Three which numbers Persons but not Natures Estius takes notice of that Objection against the Trinity That the Father is God and the Son is God therefore the Father is the Son which Consequence is resolved into that Maxim Quaecunque eadem sunt uni tertio eadem sunt inter se whatever things are the same with the same Third are the same with each other To which he answers That this Rule holds true only where the Third is a perfect Singular Deus autem non prorsus singulare nomen est but God is not upon all Accounts a name of Singularity that is does not signify One only who is God but signifies such a Singular Nature as is communicable to Three Significat enim Naturam Singularem sed quae communicari possit tribus suppositis That is It is not a Singular Nature with the Singularity of solitude because it is communicable and can subsist distinctly in Three but only with the Singularity of Identity as he explains it from St. Hilary Dist. 23. Sect. 4. to which he refers his Reader So that though the Schools did use this Phrase of a Singular Nature and Substance which the Catholick Fathers rejected as Sabellianism yet they did not use it in that Sense which the Father 's rejected for One Solitary Nature which can be but One Person and therefore Estius observes that Aquinas uses this name of Singularity when applied to the Divinity non simpliciter sed cum cautela not simply and absolutely but with caution and qualifies it with ut sic liceat loqui if I may have leave so to speak And he imitates this Caution himself Dist. 23. Sect. 1. when he tells us That the Divine Essence may quodam sensu in a certain sense be said to be individual as it neither is a Genus nor Species but res una numero ut it a dicamus singularis numerically One and if we may say so Singular though it be not individual in the sense that Boetius defines a Person to be an Individual Substance because it is not incommunicable This shews That though the Schools have in this Question changed the Ancient Catholick Language by teaching That the Divine Essence is Vna Numero Singularis One in Number and Singular whereas the Catholick Fathers denied that God was One in Number but only in Nature and denied the Singularity of the Divine Nature which Confusion and appearing Contradiction of Terms occasions great Mistakes yet they meant the very same thing and their Philosophy about Singularity and Number was the same For they taught a Communicable Singularity of Nature which is opposed to a Sabellian Solitude and rejected the numbring Number from the Divinity They universally deny That God is One in that sense of Unity which is the beginning of Number For Number is a Species of Quantity nascitur ex divisione continui is made by Division and to assert God to be One in this Sense is to ascribe Quantity to him for nothing can be thus One but what has Magnitude and Figure that is nothing but Body for Number as it is a Species of Quantity can belong to nothing but Body which has divisible Parts and Extensions and Magnitude which may be One or more This is certainly true as to that kind of Number which is a Species of Quantity for that can measure only such things as have Quantity But then they were sensible that other Beings are numbred besides Bodies even Incorporeal Spirits who have no Quantity Parts or Divisibility and yet these we number when we say a Hundred or Thousands or Millions of Angels This they own and call it a Transcendental Number that is such a Number as is not reduced to the Predicament of Quantity But that is little to the purpose if Spirits which have no Quantity may be numbred what is it that makes a Number in them And why may not Number then belong to the Divinity though it be not quantum have no Predicamental that is Corporeal Quantity To this they answer That this Transcendental Vnity adds no form to the thing but only signifies the thing it self as undivided from it self Well! But if this be all then God who is thus indivisible from himself may as properly be called One as One Angel is said to be One No say they For to entitle any thing even to this Transcendental Numerical Unity ratione rei subjectoe Naturam ejus designat ut limitatam atque extra res alias positam it must be considered to have a Finite and Limited Nature and to subsist separately from all other Beings and to be diversified from each other in Nature or Qualities Res una ab alia Natura vel qualitatibus discreta intelligitur But now Unity in God though it resemble this Transcendental Unity as adding no Form to God that is not supposing him to be Corporeal as the Predicamental Unity does yet it does not signify any thing limited and finite in God but only his Undivided Inseparable Being As Number in God that is the Trinity does signify the real distinction of Three Non ita tamen ut ea plura Natura vel Qualitatibus discreta intelligantur singula
a diversity and dissimilitude of Nature as Three Essences and Substances may signify and from a Sabellian Unity and Singularity they chose such words as signified a Real Perfect Subsisting Being but did not immediatly and formally signify Essence and Substance tho they did necessarily suppose and connote it Such among the Greeks are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Latins subsistentia suppositum res ens Existence Subsistence Subject Suppositum Thing Being which every one sees must signify something as real as Essence and Substance and must necessarily include Essence and Substance in their very notion and that thus they were used by the Catholick Fathers Petavius proves by numerous Quotations which the Reader may consult at his leisure And though some of these words are sometimes used singularly of all Three Divine Persons in the notion of a Common Essence and Substance as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 res in which sense St. Austin called the Trinity unam summam rem yet both Fathers and Schoolmen did without any scruple use them in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tres subsistentiae tres res tria supposita tria entia realia that the Divine Persons were Three Existences Three Subsistencies Three Suppositums Three Things Three Real Beings and why not then Three Essences and Three Substances since every suppositum every Thing every Real Being is Essence and Substance the reason of which is plainly this That Essence and Substance unless qualified with some limiting Adjuncts signify the formal Reasons of things and can't be multiplied without diversity whereas the other Terms signify nothing but Real and Actual Existence which does not diversify and therefore not multiply the Essence for Three Suppositums Three Subjects Three Things Three Real Beings may have One Essence Nature and Substance formally identically and invariably the same But there is some dispute about the use of those words Existence and Subsistence Petavius observes a great difference between the Ancient and Modern use of them That the Ancients used them in a Concrete Sense for Person and Substance that which does really exist and subsist as he proves by several Quotations but that the Schoolmen use them in an abstract Sense for the modifications of Substance which they call Modes which together with the Substance constitute what we call Persons of which more hereafter and this may be true as to some later Schoolmen but the more Ancient and many Modern Schoolmen retained the Old Catholick use of the words and Suarez could trace the Doctrine of Modes no higher than Durandus Peter Lombard is express in it That Three Persons are tres subsistentioe tres entes Three Subsistencies Three Beings and tres subsistentioe vel entes subsistentioe vel subsistentes Subsistencies or Beings Subsistencies or those that subsist Thus Tho. Aquinas tells us That Persons are res subsistentes subsisting things And in answer to that Objection against a plurality of Persons in the Godhead that a Person according to Boetius being rationalis naturoe individua substantia the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature if there be a plurality of Persons in the Godhead there must consequently be a plurality of Substances he tells us That Substance either signifies the Essence or the Suppositum that in this last sense it is used in the definition of a Person as appears by the addition of Individual which is what the Greeks call Hypostasis and therefore assert Three Hypostases Individual Substances as we do Three Persons but we don't use to say Three Substances by reason of the equivocal use of the word lest we should be thought to assert Three Essences in the Godhead From whence it is plain that by Three Subsistencies Tho. Aquinas understood Three that subsist Three Individual Substances in the Notion of Three distinct Suppâ—situms though not of Three different Essences for this is the true distinction he makes between Suppositum and Essence that they both signify Substance but the one signifies as Matter and the other as Form and therefore the Plurality of Suppositums of Subsistencies does not multiplâ—â—â—e Essence or Form for Three may be perfectly One in Nature and Essence but to multiply Essences to say there are Three Nâ—tures or Three Essences is to diversify them and to make Three Gods specifically and essentially different After this I need not add much concerning the Notion of Person The Ciceronian sense of this word too much in use of late wherein the same Man may be said to sustain several Persons according to his different Relations Offices and Quality has as I have observed before been rejected by all Catholick Writers as Sabellianism St. Austin generally speaking is the Text to the Master of the Sentences and He to the Schoolmen and that Father is express in it that Person is Essence and Substance that the Person of the Father is the Essence and Substance of the Father From whose Authority P. Lombard concludes That Person is used in the Notion of Substance That when we say the Father is a Person the sense is the Father is the Divine Essence He observes from the same Father that the Latins used Person in the same sense that the Greeks used Hypostasis which in Latin literally signifies Substance but yet they were very cautious of saying Three Substances as the Greeks did Three Hypostases because though the Greeks distinguished between Essence and Substance that Essence expressed the formal Nature of things Substance what in Creatures we call the Matter or Suppositum yet the Latins knew no such distinction and therefore Three Substances to them was the same with Three Essences which would assert a diversity in the Divine Nature And this he shews was the only Objection St. Hierom had against Three Substances or Three Hypostases which he allowed in the Notion of Tres Personas subsistentes Three subsisting Persons but not of Three Natures or Essences and this Solution he acquiesces in That Tres Personoe sunt Tres Substantioe scilicet Tres Entes pro quo Groeci dicunt Tres Hypostases That Three Persons are Three Substances that is Three Real Beings which the Greeks call Three Hypostases And though he observes that Person may sometimes signify that Personal Property whereby one Divine Person is distinguished from another yet he will not allow us to call Three Persons Three Properties but Three Subsistencies or Three Hypostases for the Property is not the Person but only distinguishes Persons of which more hereafter And he reduces the several acceptations of Person as used in the Doctrine of the Trinity to these three 1. That it sometimes signifies the Divine Essence as it does when we speak singularly of any One Person for the Person of the Father is the Divine Essence and so of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 2. Subsistencies and Hypostases as when we speak in the Plural Number Three Persons are Three Subsistencies Three Hypostases but unius Essentioe of one
and the same Essence 3. A Property as when we distinguish the Persons by their Personal Properties Thomas Aquinas and generally the Schools receive and vindicate that Definition which Boetius gives of a Person That it is the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature as I have already observed whereby they expresly tell us that they understand Aristotle's Substantia Prima or a Subsisting Individual St. Austin thought that the Greeks might as well have used Prosopon as Hypostasis for what the Latins called Person and why they rather said Hypostasis he could not tell unless perhaps the Propriety of their Language required it and this was the truth of the Case for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a very ambiguous word taken originally from the Stage as Persona also was and signified that Vizor which was put over the Face to represent the Person whom they intended to act and so was used to signify a mere Appearance and Representation not a Real Subsisting Person and therefore St. Basil tells us That the Sabellians who owned but One Essence and Hypostasis in God yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Scripture represented God under different Personal Appearances sometimes as the Father sometimes as the Son or Holy Spirit and adds That therefore those who affirm that Father Son and Holy Ghost are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One in Subject Hypostasis or Suppositum but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three perfect Persons or Prosopa or Appearances justify the Charge of Sabellianism imputed by the Arians to the Catholicks And in another place he tells us That those who say that Essence and Hypostasis are the same are forced to acknowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only different Prosopa oâ— Appearances and while they are afraid to own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostases they relapse into the Sabellian Heresy And therefore Petavius truly observes That though the Catholick Fathers did not scruple the use of this term Prosopon yet they used it in the sense of Hypostasis and the Notion of Hypostasis joined with Prosopon makes up the true Catholick Notion of a Person as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as he says proves that these Persons have not one simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Suppositum nor are merely different Functions and Energies of the same Individual Being but that the Diversity and Multiplicity is in the Subject it self and that there are Three truly and really distinct and that subsist distinctly This I hope is a sufficient Proof of the first thing proposed That a Divine Person is the Divine Essence and Substance but I added also That it is nothing else and I must speak something briefly to this The absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature which admits of no kind of Composition neither of Parts nor of Substance and Accident nor of Nature and Suppositum that which has and that which is had is the universal Doctrine both of the Catholick Fathers and Schools as I need not prove and the necessary Consequence of this is That a Divine Person can be nothing else but the Divine Nature Essence and Substance for were a Divine Person the Divine Nature and something else there must be a Composition in the Divine Nature something superadded to it to make it a Person The Unity of the Divine Nature in a Trinity of Persons as I have shewn at large is resolved into the perfect invariable Sâ—meness and Identity of Nature the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Three and therefore each Divine Person must be the whole Divine Nature and Essence and nothing else for otherwise the Divine Essence could not be perfectly one and the same in Three but would be distinguished and multiplied by some new Accidents and Modifications as Human Nature is in distinct Human Persons A Trinity of Persons is a known Objection against the absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature and the Answer to it is as well known That those Relations which distinguish Persons make no Composition in the Divine Nature and then a Person can be nothing else but the Divine Nature if there be no Composition to make a Person But of this more presently 2 dly The next thing I proposed was this That 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 This is so universally acknowledged by all who own real and substantial Persons that I need say little of it I have produced several express Testimonies already out of the Fathers to this purpose and indeed to say That the Substance of each Person is proper and incommunicable is no more than to say that their Persons are incommunicable that the Father is not and never can be the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son which is what they meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly and appropriately Father and Son that the Father never was nor can be a Son nor the Son a Father Thus their different Characters prove an incommunicable distinction between them The Son is the Image of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Living Substantial Image but the Image tho by an Identity of Nature it is the same with the Prototype yet it is not and never can be the Prototype not imaginale but imaginalis imago as Victorinus Afer speaks not the Person nor Personal Substance of the Father but the express Image of his Person and Substance In Boetius's Definition of a Person by individua substantia the Schools as far as I have observed universally understand incommunicabilis substantia an incommunicable Substance and therefore as I observed before though they assert the Divine Essence to be singularis yet it is singularis communicabilis a communicable Singular but a Person is substantia individua or singularis incommunicabilis a singular incommunicable Substance Now this started a great Difficulty How the Essence and Substance of the Father which is but One can be both communicable and incommunicable The Person of the Father which is his Divine Essence is incommunicable and yet the Father communicates his own Divine Nature and Essence to the Son and Holy Spirit without communicating his Person Of the same Nature is what the Schools teach concerning the Divine Generation and Procession They allow that the Father does truly and properly not metaphorically beget the Son and that the Son is truly and properly begotten and that the Father by Divine Generation communicates the Divine Essence to the Son and that the Son has all that he has from the Father and is all that the Father is excepting that he is not the Father but the Son And yet they will not allow that the Divine Essence either begets or is begotten or proceeds They have a great Authority against them in