and what is the Rule of Faith are two very distinct Questions and to apply what is said of the Catholick Faith to the Rule of Faith becomes the Wit and understanding of an Heretick This is the very Argument which the Papists use against our Authors Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Scriptures that they do not contain all things necessary to Salvation because they do not prove the great Fundamental of the Protestant Faith that the Canon of Scripture which we receive is the Word of God now what Answer he would give to Papists with reference to the sufficiency of Scripture let him suppose I give him the same Answer in Vindication of the Catholick Faith of the Athanasian Creed and we are right again But his parting blow is worth some little observation That if the Scriptures be a compleat Rule of Faith then this Creed of Athanasius is at least an unnecessary Rule of Faith But why did he not say the same thing of the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed or any other Creeds as well as of the Athanasian Creed for it seems a Creed as a Creed for there is no other sense to be made of it is a very unnecessary thing if the Scripture be a compleat Rule of Faith And thus both Catholicks and Hereticks even his dear Arians and Socinians have troubled themselves and the World to no purpose in drawing up Creeds and Confessions of Faith But this Author ought to be sent to School to learn the difference between a Creed and a Rule of Faith A Rule of Faith is a divinely inspired Writing which contains all matters to be believed and upon the Authority of which we do believe a Creed is a Summary of Faith or a Collection of such Articles as we ought to believe the Truth of which we must examine by some other Rule the sum then of our Author's Argument is this That because the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and contains all things necessary to be believed therefore it is very unnecessary to collect out of the Scripture such Propositions as are necessary for all Christians explicitely to believe He might as well have proved from the Scriptures being a compleat Rule of Faith that therefore there is no necessity of Commentators or Sermons or Catechisms as that there is no necessity of Creeds But as senseless as this is there is a very deep fetch in it for he would have no other Creed but that the Scripture is the Divine Infallible Compleat Rule of Faith which makes all other Creeds unnecessary and then he can make what he pleases of Scripture as all other Hereticks have done before him But let me ask this Author whether to believe in general that the Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith without an explicite belief of what is contained in Scripture will carry a Man to Heaven There seems to me no great difference between this general Faith in the Scriptures without particularly knowing and believing what they teach and believing as the Church believes We suppose then he will grant us the necessity of an explicite belief of all things contained in the Scripture necessary to Salvation and ought not the Church then to instruct People what these necessary Articles of Faith are and what is the true sense of Scripture about them Especially when there are a great many damnable Heresies taught in the Church by Men of perverse Minds who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction and does not this shew the necessity of Orthodox Creeds and Formularies of Faith And this puts me in mind of the great usefulness of ancient Creeds though the Holy Scripture be the only Divine and Infallible Rule of Faith viz. That they are a kind of secondary Rule as containing the Traditionary Faith of the Church It is no hard matter for witty Men to put very perverse senses on Scripture to favour their heretical Doctrines and to defend them with such Sophistry as shall easily impose upon unlearned and unthinking Men and the best way in this case is to have recourse to the ancient Faith of the Christian Church to learn from thence how these Articles were understood and professed by them for we cannot but think that those who conversed with the Apostles and did not only receive the Scriptures but the sense and interpretation of them from the Apostles or Apostolical Men understood the true Christian Faith much better than those at a farther remove and therefore as long as we can reasonably suppose this Tradition to be preserved in the Church their Authority is very Venerable and this gives so great and venerable Authority to some of the first General Councils and therefore we find Tertullian himself confuting the Hereticks of his days by this argument from Prescription or the constant Tradition of all Apostolick Churches which was certain and unquestionable at that time and as much as Papists pretend to Tradition we appeal to Tradition for the first Three or Four Centuries and if the Doctrine of the Athanasian Creed have as good a Tradition as this as certainly it has it is no unnecessary Rule though we do not make it a primary and uncontroulable Rule as the Holy Scripture is where there are two different Senses put on Scripture it is certainly the safest to embrace that sense if the words will bear it which is most agreeable to the received Doctrine of the Primitive Church contained in the Writings of her Doctors or Ancient Creeds or such Creeds as are conformed to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church Then for taking ought from this Creed the whole Greek Church diffused through so many Provinces rejects as Heretical that Period of it The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son contending that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only which also they clearly and demonstratively prove as we shall see in its proper place And for the menace here of Athanasius that they shall perish everlastingly they laugh at it and say He was drunk when he made that Creed Gennad Schol. Arch Bishop of Constantin This Addition of the Filioque or the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and from the Son which was disputed between the Greek and Latin Church is no corruption of the Essentials of the Christian Faith about the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as I observed before nor does Athanasius deny Salvation to those who do not believe it For he that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity does not relate to every particular Word and Phrase but to that Doctrine which immediately proceeds That the Trinity in Vnity and Vnity in Trinity is to be Worshipped which the Greeks acknowledged as well as the Latins and therefore agreed in the Substantials of Faith necessary to Salvation And that I havereason for what I say appears from this that after the Latins were perswaded that the Holy Ghost did proceed from the Son they were far enough from denying Salvation to those who
Imperial Palace to countenance and promote their proceedings and having bespattered Athanasius with all the ill things they had formerly charged him with and tried in vain to delay the Sentence of the Western Bishops they proceeded Synodically to condemn and depose him together with several other principal Bishops of the Catholick Party of all which they published an Encyclical or Decretal Epistle wherein they gave a large account of their whole proceeding The Western Bishops in the mean time after a large and particular Examination of Athanasius's Case and all Matters of Fact relating to him acquitted and restored him and having heard the Complaints made to the Synod from all parts concerning the Grievances they lay under from the Arian Faction they particularly condemned and deposed the chief Heads of that Party and banished them from the Communion of the Faithful publishing an account of what they had done in several Synodical Letters Thus far it was pretty well with Athanasius for all the Churches of God did not condemn him if he were condemned by the Eastern Bishops in a Schismatical Conventicle he was absolved by the Western Council if he was condemned by the Arians he was absolved by the Catholicks but still his Faith was no matter of the Dispute But now the Zeal of Constantius reduced Athanasius to greater extremity for he lying at Arles in France Anno 353 a Synod was held there where all Arts were used to procure the condemnation of Athanasius at least by refusing to hold Communion with him to which most of the Bishops yielded and Vincentius of Capua himself the Pope's chief Legate subscribed the Condemnation Paulinus of Triers for his honest courage and constancy in refusing it being driven into Banishment Not contented with this as if poor Athanasius could never be often enough condemned Anno 355 Constantius going to Milan another Synod was called there and the Catholick Bishops were strictly required to subscribe the Condemnation of Athanasius and the Emperor himself being present in the Synod drew his Sword and fiercely told them That it must be so that he himself accused Athanasius and that his Testimony ought to be believed And for refusing to comply Eusebius Vercellensis Lucifer Caralitanus and several others were sent into Banishment This is the Council which as our Author tells us consisted of Three hundred Bishops but the Emperor was more than all the rest and it was he that extorted the Condemnation of Athanasius and let him make his best of this The like Violence was used in other Synods as in that of Syrmium Anno 357 where a Confession of Faith was drawn up which Hosius of Corduba was forced to subscribe and as some say to condemn Athanasius Anno 359 was his other great Council at Ariminum of Five hundred and fifty Bishops where they were so managed by the subtilty and importunity of some few Arian Bishops and so wearied out by Taurus the Prefect and that by the command of the Emperor that they generally yielded several of them being even starved into compliance and this is the time of which St. Ierom speaks that the whole World wondered to see itself Arian By such Councils and by such Arts as these Athanasius was condemned though he was never accused nor condemned for his Faith and that veneration the whole Christian World has had ever since for the Name of Athasius is a sufficient Vindication of his Person and Faith notwithstanding the ill usage he met with under an Arian Emperor As for his next Paragraph wherein he appeals to the late Arian Historian Chr. Sandius I shall only refer the Reader to Dr. Bull 's Answer and I think I am more than even with him and whoever will read and consider what that learned Man has irrefragably proved that those Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice were yet of the same Faith with the Nicene Fathers as to the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity will see that a very modest Man may call this the Catholick Faith even in his sense of the word Catholick as it signifies the common Faith of Christians in all Ages since the Preaching of the Gospel in the World And that it requires both Forehead and Forgery to deny it And if in that Age Athanasius were the only Man who durst openly and boldly defend the Catholick Faith against a prevailing Faction supported by a Court Interest and grown formidable by Lies and Calumnies and the most barbarous Cruelties it is for his immortal Honour and will always be thought so by the Churches of Christ. And now I come to answer his terrible Objections against the several Articles of this Creed which he has endeavoured to ridicule and when I have done so I hope he will think it time to consider what it is to ridicule the Christian Faith A modest Man would not affront the general Faith of Christians at least of that Church in which he lives and a cautious Man whatever his private Opinion were would not ridicule so venerable a Mystery lest it should prove true which is the same Argument we use to make Atheists modest not to laugh at the Notion of a God lest he should find the God whom he has so impudently affronted when he comes into the other World SECT IV. The Catholick Doctrine of a Trinity in Vnity and Vnity in Trinity explained and vindicated from all pretended Absurdities and Contradictions THE Catholick Faith is this That we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity He means here That we must so worship the One True God as to remember he is Three Persons and so worship the Three Persons as to bear in mind they are but One Substance or Godhead or God So the Author explains himself in the Three next Articles which are these Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance for there is One Person of the Father another of the Son another of the Holy Ghost but the Godhead of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One. Therefore all these Articles make indeed but One Article which is this The One true God is Three distinct Persons and Three distinct Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are the One true God Thus far I agree with this Author and indeed this is the whole of the Creed as far as relates to the Doctrine of the Trinity that there are Three Persons and One God all the rest being only a more particular explication of this and therefore I would desire the Reader to observe for the understanding this Creed what belongs to the Persons and what to the One Eternal undivided Substance or Godhead which will answer all the seeming Contradictions which are charged on this Doctrine But he proceeds Plainly as if a Man should say Peter Iames and Iohn being Three Persons are One Man and One Man is these Three Persons Peter Iames and Iohn Is it not now a ridiculous attempt as well as a barbarous Indignity to
the essences of things cannot be known but only their properties and qualities The World is divided into Matter and Spirit and we know no more what the substance of Matter than what the substance of a Spirit is though we think we know one much better than the other We know thus much of Matter that it is an extended substance which fills a space and has distinct parts which may be separated from each other that it is susceptible of very different qualities that it is hot or cold hard or soft c. but what the substance of Matter is we know not And thus we know the essential properties of a Spirit that it is a thinking substance with the Faculties of Understanding and Will and is capable of different Vertues or Vices as Matter is of sensible qualities but what the substance of a Spirit is we know no more than what the substance of matter is Thus as for the essential properties operations and powers of Matter Sense Experience and Observation will tell us what they are and what causes constantly produce such effects and this is all we do or can know of it and he who will not believe that Matter is extended that the Fire burns that Water may be condensed by Frost into a firm and solid Pavement that Seed sown in the Earth will produce its own kind again that a Body can move from one place to another that a Stone falls to the ground and Vapours ascend and thicken into Clouds and fall down again to the Earth in gentle Showers c. I say he who will not believe these things till he can give a Philosophical account of them must deny his Senses in complement to his Understanding and he who thinks that he does understand these matters would make a Man question whether he has any Sense Thus it is also with reference to a Spirit We feel within ourselves that we can think and reason that we can choose and refuse that we can love and hate and desire and fear but what these natural powers and passions are we know not how thoughts rise in our minds and how one thought begets another how a thought can move our Bodies or fix them in their Seat how the Body can raise thoughts and passions in the Soul or the thoughts and passions of the Soul can affect the Body The Properties and Operations both of Bodies and Spirits are great Secrets and Mysteries in Nature which we understand nothing of nor are concerned to understand them no more than it is our business to understand how to make either a Body or a Spirit which we have no power to do if we did understand it and therefore it would be an useless piece of Knowledge which would serve no end but Curiosity and that is reason enough why our wise Maker should not communicate this knowledge to us were we capable of it because it does not belong to our Natures as no Knowledge does which we can make no use of the perfect Notions and Idea's of Things are proper only to that Almighty Mind which can give being to them Now this plainly shews what the Natural Boundaries of Humane Knowledge are how far we may attain to a certain Knowledge and where we must give off our Enquiries unless we have a mind to impose upon our Understandings with some uncertain and fanciful Conjectures or to perplex our selves with inexplicable Difficulties 1. As first We have certain ways of discovering the being of Things which fall within the compass of our Knowledge this our Senses Reason or Revelation will acquaint us with and therefore we may know what Things there are in the World as far as they fall under the notice of Sense or are discovered by Reason or Revelation 2. We may know what Things are or what their essential Properties Qualities Operations and Powers are whereby we can distinguish one sort of Beings from another as suppose a Body from a Spirit Bread from Flesh and Wine from Blood and can Reason from Effects to Causes and from Causes to Effects with as great certainty as we understand what the Causes or Effects are 3. But the Essences of Things and the Philosophy of their Natures the Reasons of their Essential Properties and Powers which immediately result from their Natures the manner of their Production and the manner of their Operations are Mysteries to us and will be so do what we can and therefore here our Enquiries must cease if we enquire wisely for it is vain and absurd to perplex ourselves with such Questions which we can no more answer than we can make a World The sum is this when we charge any Doctrine with Absurdities and Contradictions we must be sure that we understand the thing for if it be such a thing as we do not and cannot understand the Nature of we may imagine a thousand Absurdities and Contradictions which are owing wholly to our Ignorance of Things SECT II. The Athanasian Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of the Trinity and Incarnation II. LET us now take a view of the Athanasian Creed which this prophane Author makes the Subject of his Drollery and Ridicule and examine whether there be any thing in it which a good Catholick Christian can reject without rejecting the Catholick Doctrines of the Holy and Ever Blessed TRINITY and the Mysterious Incarnation of the SON of GOD for if this Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to this belief and what every Christian who believes these Doctrines must profess then all these Scoffs which are cast upon the Athanasian Creed do indeed belong to the Christian Faith itself if the Trinity and Incarnation be Christian Doctrines As to begin with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity The Athanasian Creed tells us The Catholick Faith is this that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity that is that we worship One God and Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost and this all Christians grant to be the Catholick Faith except Arians Macedonians and Socinians and such like Hereticks And how we must worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity is explained in the next Paragraph Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance Which must be acknowledged if there be Three Persons and One God for if we confound the Persons by saying that they are all but One Person under Three different Names and Titles or Denominations then we destroy the Distinction of Persons if we divide the Substance by saying that every Person has a separate Divine Nature of his own as every Man has a separate Humane Nature then we make Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men which is to overthrow the Doctrine of One God and therefore the Creed adds For there is One Person of the Father another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost But the God-head of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One the
Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal This is so far from being a Nicity that it is no less than a Demonstration if we confess Three Persons and One God for if there be Three Persons then the Person of the Father the Person of the Son the Person of the Holy Ghost must be distinct Persons or they cannot be Three if there be but One God then the Godhead of all the Three Persons is but One for if the Godhead were more than One there must be more than One God for the Godhead makes the God and there must be as many Gods as there are Godheads as there must be as many Men as there are particular Humane Natures And if the Godhead be but One then with respect to the same One Godhead all Three Persons must have the same Glory and Majesty for there cannot be Three different Glories and Majesties of the same One Godhead and therefore as it follows Such as the Father is such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost The Father Vncreate the Son Vncreate and the Holy Ghost Vncreate The Father Incomprehensible the Son Incomprehensible the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible The Father Eternal the Son Eternal and the Holy Ghost Eternal And yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal As also there are not Three Incomprehensibles nor Three Vncreated but One Vncreated and One Incomprehensible So likewise the Father is Almighty the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty And yet there are not Three Almighties but One Almighty So the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God And yet there are not Three Gods but One God So likewise the Father is Lord the Son Lord and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there are Three Gods or Three Lords This is the sum of all that as the Catholick Religion both Natural Mosaical and Christian requires us to believe that there is but One God so especially the Christian Religion teaches us that there are Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost who are this One God Now if each Person with respect to the same Divine Nature be God then all the essential Attributes and Perfections of a God must be allowed to each Person that he is Uncreated Infinite or Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty God and Lord unless we will say that there may be a Created Finite Temporal Impotent God that is a God who is not in truth either God or Lord and yet though we must acknowledge each Person to be God and Lord we must not assert Three distinct Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty Gods which is the true sence of the Article of which more anon for that is to make not One but Three Gods and Lords which overthrows the Unity of the Godhead Now whatever difficulty there may be in conceiving this which I do not now dispute if that be any fault it is no fault of the Athanasian Creed but of the Doctrine of the Trinity itself the Athanasian Creed only tells us what we must believe if we believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God And I challenge any Man who sincerely proffesses this Faith to tell me what he can leave out o◠this Exposition without destroying either the Divinity of some of the Three Persons or the Unity of the Godhead If each Person must be God and Lord must not each Person be Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty If there be but One God and One Lord can there be Three separated Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty Gods which must of necessity be Three Gods and Three Lords This Creed does not pretend to explain how there are Three Persons each of which is God and yet but one God of which more hereafter but only asserts the Thing that thus it is and thus it must be if we believe a Trinity in Unity which should make all Men who would be thought neither Arians nor Socinians more cautious how they express the least dislike of the Athanasian Creed which must either argue that they condemn it before they understand it or that they have some secret dislike to the Doctrine of the Trinity Nor is this to make any additions to the Christian Faith as some object no more than to explain what we mean by GOD is an addition to the Faith This was all the Christian Fathers aimed at in their Disputes against Arius and other Enemies of the Catholick Faith and in those Creeds they framed in opposition to these Heresies to assert the true Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit in such express terms as would admit of no evasion For this reason they insisted so immoveably upon the term Homo-ousios which signifies that the Son was of the same Nature with the Father as he must be if he be true and real God whereas had he been only like the Father as the Arians asserted he could not be One God with him for that which is only like something else is not the same Now though the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in Scripture yet this is no unscriptural addition to the Faith because all that is signified by it is there that is that Christ is the Eternal and Only Begotten Son of God a true and real not a made or created or nominal God And the Athanasian Creed as far as it relates to this matter is only a more particular explication of the Homo-ousios or in what sense the Son is of the same Nature with the Father and One God with him In the next place the Athanasian Creed having very explicitely declared the Unity of the Godhead in Three Persons it proceeds to the distinct Characters of each Person and their Unity among themselves and here also it teaches nothing but what seems essential to the Distinction and Unity of the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost The Father is made of none neither created nor begotten The Son is of the Father alone not made nor created but begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding So there is One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts The Distinction then between these Three Divine Persons if I may so speak is in the manner of their Subsistence That the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of Himself the Original Fountain of the Deity not made nor created for then he would be a Creature not a God nor begotten for then he would be a Son not the first Father and Origine of all The Son is of the Father alone which is essential to his being a Son not made nor created for there was no time when he was not as all things made or created must have a beginning but
seeming Contradictions in the Doctine of the Trinity I. This contains the true Orthodox Faith of the Holy Trinity or a Trinity in Unity for so the Athanasian Creed teaches us To worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance for there is One Person of the Father another of the Son another of the Holy Ghost but the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One the Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal There are two things then which an Orthodox Christian must take care of neither to confound the Persons nor to divide the Substance that is to acknowledge Three distinct Persons and yet but One God and nothing can be more apparent than both these in that account which I have given of the Ever Blessed Trinity 1. It is plain the Persons are perfectly distinct for they are Three distinct and infinite Minds and therefore Three distinct Persons for a Person is an intelligent Being and to say they are Three Divine Persons and not Three distinct infinite Minds is both Heresie and Nonsense The Scripture I 'm sure represents Father Son and Holy Ghost as Three intelligent Beings not as Three Powers or Faculties of the same Being which is down-right Sabellianism for Faculties are not Persons no more than Memory Will and Understanding are Three Persons in One Man When we prove the Holy Ghost to be a Person against the Socinians who make him only a Divine Power we prove that all the Properties of a Person belong to him such as Understanding Will Affections and Actions which shews what our Notion of a Person is such a Being as has Understanding and Will and Power of Action and it would be very strange that we should own Three Persons each of which Persons is truly and properly God and not own Three infinite Minds as if any thing could be a God but an infinite Mind And the distinction between these Three Infinite Minds is plain according to this Notion for they are distinguished just as Three finite and created Minds are by Self-consciousness They are united indeed into One as I have already discoursed by a mutual Consciousness to each other which no created Spirits have which are conscious only to the actings of their own Minds not to each others and therefore these Three Divine Persons are not separate Minds as created Spirits are but only distinct each Divine Person has a Self consciousness of its own and knows and feels itself if I may so speak as distinct from the other Divine Persons the Father has a Self-consciousness of his own whereby he knows and feels himself to be the Father and not the Son nor the Holy Ghost and the Son in like manner feels himself to be the Son and not the Father nor the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost feels himself to be the Holy Ghost and not the Father nor the Son as Iames feels himself to be Iames and not Peter nor Iohn which proves them to be distinct Persons Which is a very plain account how these Three Divine Persons are distinct that there is One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts Here is no confounding of Persons 2. Nor do we divide the Substance but unite these Three Persons in One numerical Essence for we know nothing of the unity of the Mind but self-consciousness as I shewed before and therefore as the self-consciousness of every Person to itself makes them distinct Persons so the mutual consciousness of all Three Divine Persons to each other makes them all but One infinite God as far as consciousness reaches so far the Unity of a Spirit extends for we know no other unity of a Mind or Spirit but consciousness In a created Spirit this consciousness extends only to itself and therefore self-consciousness makes it One with itself and divides and separates it from all other Spirits but could this consciousness extend to other Spirits as it does to itself all these Spirits which were mutually conscious to each other as they are to themselves though they were distinct Persons would be essentially One And this is that essential unity which is between Father Son and Holy Ghost who are essentially united by a mutual consciousness to whatever is in each other and do by an internal sensation I want other words to express it feel each other as they do themselves and therefore are as essentially One as a Mind and Spirit is One with itself 2. This is a very plain and intelligible account of this great and venerable Mystery as plain and intelligible as the Notion of One God or of One Person in the Godhead The great difficulty of conceiving a Trinity of Persons in One infinite and undivided Essence or Substance arises from those gross and material Idea's we have of Essence and Substance when we speak of the Essence or Substance of God or created Spirits We can frame no Idea of Substance but what we have from Matter that it is something extended in a tripple Dimension in length and breadth and depth which is the subject of those Qualities which inhere and subsist in it And therefore as Matter is the subject of all sensible Qualities so we conceive some such Substance of a Mind and Spirit which is the subject of Will and Understanding of Thoughts and Passions And then we find it impossible to conceive how there should be Three Divine Persons which are all infinite without Three distinct infinite Substances each distinct infinite Person having a distinct infinite Substance of his own and if we grant this it seems a plain contradiction to say That these Three distinct infinite Substances are but One numerical Infinite Substance which is to say that Three Infinities are but One Infinite and that Three Persons are but One Person for a Person and an intelligent Substance are reciprocal Terms and therefore Three distinct Persons are Three distinct numerical Substances and One numerical intelligent Substance is but One numerical Person But this is all carnal Reason in a strict and proper sense which conceives of an infinite Mind after the manner of a Body and distinguishes between the Matter or Substance and the Powers and Vertues of the Divine Essence as it does between Matter and Qualities and Accidents in Bodies We know nothing of the Divine Essence but that God is an infinite Mind and if we seek for any other Essence or Substance in God but an infinite Minds that is infinite Wisdom Power and Goodness the Essence of God though considered but as One numerical Person is as perfectly unintelligible to us as the One numerical Essence or Substance of Three Divine Persons in the Ever Blessed Trinity It is this gross and material imagination about the Essence and Substance of the Deity which occasions all the Difficulties about the Notion of One God as well as of a Trinity in Unity For we cannot
A VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE Holy and Ever Blessed TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION OF The Son of God OCCASIONED By the Brief NOTES on the Creed of St. Athanasius and the Brief HISTORY of the Vnitarians or Socinians and containing an Answer to both By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the TEMPLE The Second Edition IMPRIMATUR Z. Isham R. P. D. Henrico Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris Ian. 9. 1690. LONDON Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstans Church in Fleet-street 1691. TO THE READER I Will make no Apology for publishing this Vindication of the Great and Fundamental Mysteries of our Religion for if ever it were necessary it is now when Atheists and Hereticks some openly some under a disguise conspire together to ridicule the Trinity and the Incarnation I confess the Book is too big could I have made it less as at first I intended but when I was once engaged I saw a necessity of going farther and I hope no man will have reason to complain that I have said too much but those who will find a great deal too much said for them to answer My Original Design was to vindicate the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation from those pretended Absurdities and Contradictions which were so confidently charged on them and this I 'm sure I have done for I have given a very easie and intelligible Notion of a Trinity in Vnity and if it be possible to explain this Doctrine intelligibly the Charge of Contradictions vanishes and whether men will believe this Account or not they can't deny but that it is very possible and intelligible and if we could go no farther that is enough in Matters of Revelation But I hope I have done a great deal more than this and proved That it is the true Scripture Account of it and agreeable to the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers and have vindicated the Scripture Proofs of a Trinity and Incarnation from the pitiful Sophistries of the late Socinian Historian I have not indeed answered particularly the whole Book in Order and Method as it lies which was too tedious a Work and not necessary but I have considered whatever was most material in it and have avoided nothing because it was hard to Answer but because it needed no Answer as I am ready to satisfie the World whenever a just Occasion calls for it for having dipt my Pen in the Vindication of so glorious a Cause by the Grace of God I will never desert it while I can hold a Pen in my Hand I must thankfully own that the writing of this Book has given me clearer and more distinct Notions of this Great Mystery then I had before which is the Reason why the Reader will find some things explained towards the end which I spoke doubtfully of at first as particularly the difference between the Eternal Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Holy Ghost and I hope this is a pardonable Fault The writing this Book has cost me many Thoughts and those who have a mind throughly to understand it must not think much if it cost them some and if they cannot be contented to bestow some serious Thoughts on it it will be lost labour to read it I pray God give success to it and open the Eyes of those Men before it be too late who are so industrious to write or disperse such Brief Notes and Brief Histories as are valuable for nothing but Blasphemy and Nonsense for I will be bold to say That Socinianism after all its pretences to Reason is one of the most stupid sensless Heresies that ever infested the Christian Church THE CONTENTS SECT I. COncerning the Nature of a Contradiction and how to know it page 1. Many Contradictions pretended where there are none as in the Notion of a Spirit and of God 3 How to discover when a pretended Contradiction is not real but in our imperfect Conception of things 4 It is absurd to dispute against the Being of any thing from the difficulty of conceiving it 5 What the natural Boundaries of Humane Knowledge are 9 SECT II. The Athanasian Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to the true Belief of the Trinity and Incarnation 10 The Dispute between the Greek and Lat. Church about the filioque 17 SECT III. Concerning the necessity of the Catholick Faith to Salvation and a Brief History of Athanasius 21 That the Catholick Faith is necessary to Salvation 25 What is meant by keeping the Catholick Faith whole and undefiled 28 The Scriptures being a compleat Rule of Faith do not make Athanasius's Creed an unnecessary Rule 29 The great usefulness of ancient Creeds 31 Pope Leo III. would not deny Salvation to those who disowned the filioque 33 What is meant by the Catholick Faith 35 The History of Athanasius 37 SECT IV. The Catholick Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity and Unity and Trinity explained and vindicated from all pretended Absurdities and Contradictions 45 What it is that makes any Substance numerically One 48 The Unity of a Spirit nothing else but Self-consciousness ibid. And therefore mutual consciousness makes Three Persons essentially and numerically One. 49 The unity of a Mind or Spirit reaches as far as its Self-consciousness does 50 That this is the true Scripture Notion of the Unity of the Father Son and Holy Ghost ibid. The Unity between Father and Son explained 51 The union of created Spirits an union in Knowledge Will and Love 52 The same union between Father Son and Holy Ghost ibid. But this which is only a moral union between Creatures is an essential union between Father Son and Holy Ghost as it is the effect of mutual Consciousness 55 This proved from Scripture as to the unity between Father and Son 56 This makes all Three Divine Persons coessential and coequal 58 That the Holy Spirit is One with Father and Son by a mutual Consciousness proved from Scripture 64 This Notion contains the true Orthodox Faith of a Trinity in Unity 66 For it does not confound the Persons but makes them distinct ibid. Nor divide the Substance but makes them numerically One 68 This makes the Doctrine of the Trinity as intelligible as the Notion of One God ibid. The material Images of Substance confound our Notions both of One God and of a Trinity in Unity 69 God must be considered as Eternal Truth and Wisdom 70 Wisdom and Truth a pure and simple Act and contains all Divine Perfections 71 Three infinite Minds must necessarily be mutually conscious to each other 74 No positive Notion of Infinity but only in a Mind 75 No infinite Extension 76 What the true Notion of Infinite is that it is absolute Perfection 78 That there are no absolute Perfections but those of a Mind 79 Extension is no Perfection nor to be Omnipresent by Extension 80 The same absolute Perfections of a Mind by a mutual Consciousness may be entire and equal in Three infinite Minds 81 This reconciles the
perfect equality and subordination of the Divine Persons ibid. And shows how each Person is God and all but one God 82 This gives an Account of the different modi subsistendi of which the Schools speak 83 And how the Operations of the Trinity ad extra are common to all Three Persons 85 An Answer to the Absurdities and Contradictions charged on the Doctrine of the Trinity by the Brief Notes 87 SECT V. The Doctrine of the Fathers and Schools about a Trinity in Unity reconciled to the foregoing Explication of it page 100 That the Fathers made the Three Divine Persons Three distinct infinite Minds 101 That Father Son and Holy Ghost are as distinct Persons as Peter James and John how to be understood 104 How the Fathers Explain the Unity of the Godhead 105 1. By the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or coessentiality of the Divine Persons 106 What they meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. How they proved the Unity of Essence from the sameness of Nature Gregory Nyssen's reasoning in this matter and vindicated from the Mesrepresentation of Petavius and Dr. Cudworth 109. c. 2. To this the Fathers added a Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence 121 Concerning the Unity of Energy and Power 123 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Circumincession is Self-consciousness 125 St. Austin explains the Unity of the Divine Persons by Examples of Self-consciousness 126 The Unity of the Godhead consists in the Unity of Principle 128 How the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are essential to the Notion of One God explained at large 129 c. SECT VI. Concerning expounding Scripture by Reason 140 The Arguments against a Trinity in the History of the Unitarians Letter 1. particularly answered 153 c. His first Argument 154 His second Argument 155 1 Coloss. 17. The first-born of every Creature explained 156 The Mediatory Kingdom of Christ explained at large 159 His third fourth and fifth Arguments answered 176 His sixth Argument 178 His seventh Argument 184 His eighth Argument from those Texts which declare that the Father only is God ibid. His ninth Argument That if Christ were God there was no need of giving the Holy Spirit to his Human Nature 187 His tenth and eleventh Arguments 188 His Arguments against the Godhead of the Holy Ghost ibid. Concerning the Personality of the Holy Ghost 189 That the Spirit is obtained of God by our Prayers therefore it self is not God Answered 193 Father Son and Holy Ghost the entire Object of Worship page 193 Those who do not worship the Trinity do not worship the true God if Father Son and Holy Ghost be God 194 No need of any new Cammand to worship the Holy Ghost when it is revealed that he is One God with the Father and Son ibid. That the Scripture speaks of God as One Person Answered 196 Whether the Socinian Faith be a reasonable and accountable Faith 198 The Socinian Faith ridicules the Scriptures 199 This is particularly shown in the Expositions of Scripture contained in the History of the Unitarians ibid. The Form of Baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost explained 209 1 John 1 2. In the beginning was the Word c. explained and vindicated 215 How this Historian has represented Grotius 220 Socinianism makes the Iewish oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable 231 Socinianism ridicules the Christian Religion 238 SECT VII An Answer to what remains in the Brief Notes 256 Concerning the Generation of the Son ibid. The equality and coeternity of the Persons in the Trinity 259 Concerning the Incarnation 262 How an infinite and finite Being may be united into one Person 263 What makes a Personal Union 266 A VINDICATION Of the DOCTRINE OF THE Holy and Ever Blessed TRINITY AND OF THE Incarnation of the SON of GOD In ANSWER to the Brief NOTES on the Greed of St. Athanasius SECT I. Concerning the Nature of a Contradiction and how to know it BEFORE I particularly Examine the Brief Notes on Athanasius 's Creed which under a pretence of exposing that Creed charge the Christian Faith itself of Three Persons and One God with the most monstrous Absurdities and Contradictions I shall 1. Shew what a Contradiction is and in what cases we can judge of a Contradiction 2. I shall take a brief view of the Athanasian Creed and shew that it signifies no more than that there are Three Persons and One God or a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and that if we own this we must own the particular Explications of the Athanasian Creed First As for the first A Contradiction is to deny and affirm the same thing in the same sense as to say that a thing is and is not at the same time that there is but One God and that there is Three Gods that is that there is and that there is not but One God for if there be Three Gods then it is not true that there is only One God Things which are so contrary as to contradict each other can never be both true for all Contradictions finally resolve into this It is and It is not which is absolutely impossible But when we come to apply this to the nature of Things we may easily fancy Contradictions where there are none For a Contradiction in the nature of Things is such a Notion or Idea of any thing as implies a Contradiction and then it is impossible any such thing can be as it is impossible that such a Proposition whose terms contradict each other should be true but then before we can pronounce that such a Notion or Idea is contradictions we must be sure that we perfectly understand and comprehend the nature of that Being otherwise the Contradiction may not be in the thing but in our manner of conceiving it It is not enough in this case to say we cannot understand it and know not how to reconcile it but we must say that we do perfectly understand it and know that it cannot be reconciled As for instance Some new Philosophers will tell you that the Notion of a Spirit or an immaterial Substance is a Contradiction for by Substance they understand nothing but Matter and then an immaterial Substance is immaterial Matter that is Matter and no Matter which is a Contradiction but yet this does not prove an immaterial Substance to be a Contradiction unless they could first prove that there is no Substance but Matter and that they cannot conceive any other Substance but Matter does not prove that there is no other Thus the Atheist discovers a great many Contradictions or Absurdities in the very Notion and Idea of a God or of an Eternal Omnipresent Omnipotent Omniscient Being For to be without a cause and without a beginning without time and without succession to be present every-where and to fill all Places and yet to have no parts no extension to be able to create a World and to annihilate it
his Faith any part of their Accusation though it was the only Reason of their Malice against him but they charged him with a great many other Crimes and that the Reader may the better understand by what Spirit these Men were acted which still appears in this Author I shall give a short Account of the Story The Arian Faction headed by Eusebius of Nicomedia perceiving how impossible it was to retrieve their lost Cause while Athanasius was in Credit and so great Authority in the Church having ripened their Designs against him in their private Cabals prevail with Constantine to call a Council at Caesarea in Palestine at which Athanasius did not appear suspecting probably the partiality of his Judges who were his declared Enemies This was represented at Court as a contempt of the Imperial Orders and another Council was appointed at Tyre which met Ann. 335. with a peremptory Command for his appearance where he first excepted against the competency of his Judges but that being over-ruled he was forced to plead And first he was charged with Oppression and Cruelty particularly towards Ischyras Callinicus and the Miletian Bishops but this fell of it self for want of proof In the next place he was accused for having ravished a Woman and one too who had vowed Virginity The Woman was brought into the Council and there owned the Fact but Timotheus one of Athanasius's Friends personates Athanasius and asks the Woman whether he had ever offered such Violence to her she supposing him to have been Athanasius roundly declared him to be the Man who had done the Fact and thus this cheat was discovered His next Accusation was That he had murdered Arsenius a Miletian Bishop whose hand he had cut off and kept by him for some Magical Uses and the Hand dried and salted was taken out of a Box and shewn to the Council and to make this more credible they had of a long time conveyed Arsenius away and kept him out of sight But he having made his escape about this time and being accidentally met by some Friends of Athanasius was on a sudden brought into the Council where he shewed both his Hands safe to the shame and confusion of the malicious Inventors of that Lye This failing they accuse him of Impiety and Profanation of Holy Things That his Ordination was tumultuary and irregular the contrary of which was evidently true That Macarius his Presbyter by his command had broke into Ischyras's Chancel while he was performing the Holy Offices and overturned the Communion-Table broke in pieces the Sacramental Chalice and burnt the Holy Books all which Ischyras was present to attest but the contrary in every branch of the Accusation was made apparent and the whole Plot discovered by a writing under Ischyras his own hand sufficiently attested After all these shameful baffles they would not give over but sent Commissioners from the Synod to inquire into the matter of fact upon the place and having raked together any thing which they could make look like Evidence though gained by the most barbarous Cruelties and other vile arts they return to the Council who without more ado condemn and depose Athanasius from his Bishoprick and command him to go no more to Alexandria upon this he withdrew himself and went to Court prays the Emperor for a more fair and impartial Tryal who thereupon sent to the Council then adjourned to Ierusalem to come to Constantinople and make good their charge Five Commissioners appeared who joyned with some others whom they could get together formed a small Synod but not daring to insist upon their former accusations start up a new Charge more like to take at Court viz. That he had threatned to stop the Emperors Fleet that yearly Transported Corn from Alexandria to Constantinople which was as true and as probable a story as any of the rest but they told this with such confidence and urged the ill consequences of it so home upon the Emperor that they prevailed with him to banish Athanasius to Triers in Germany If this short story does not make our Author blush he is possessed with the true Spirit of the Tyrian Fathers But to proceed He was also condemned in his own life time by Six Councils as an Heretick and Seditious person of these Councils that at Milan consisted of Three Hundred Bishops and that of Ariminum of Five Hundred and fifty the greatest Convention of Bishops that ever was This consent of the Churches of God against him and his Doctrine occasioned that famous Proverb Athanasius against all the World and all the World against Athanasius This is all Sham. I grant Athanasius was condemned by several Arian Conventicles which he prophanely calls the Churches of God in his own life time but I deny that he was condemned as a Heretick or that he was condemned for his Faith We have seen the account of his condemnation by the Council of Tyre already and for what pretended Crimes he was condemned without the least mention of his Heresie for if this Author understood any thing of the story of those times he must know that though the Arian cause was vigorously and furiously promoted yet it was done more covertly since that fatal blow which was given it by the Council of Nice whose Authority was too sacred to be easily born down and therefore they did not pretend to unsettle the Nicene Faith nay pretended to own it though they did not like the word Homo-ousios and therefore formed various Creeds as they pretended to the same sense without that litigious word which shews that it was not time of day for them to accuse Athanasius of Heresie but of such other Crimes as might condemn and depose him and remove him out of the way that he might not hinder their Designs Thus in the Council at Antioch in the Reign of Constantius 341 the old Calumnies are revived against Athanasius and he deposed again after he had been restored by Constantine the younger and George the Cappadocian a Man of mean Birth base Education and worse Temper for they could find no better Man that would accept it was advanced to the Patriarchal Chair but all this while he was charged with no Heresie in Faith But that his return to Alexandria had occasioned great Trouble and Sorrow there and the effusion of much Blood that being condemned by a Synod and not restored again by the Authority of a Synod he re-assumed his Chair again contrary to the Canons c. Upon this Athanasius fled to Rome where in a Synod of Western Bishops he was absolved and restored to Communion contrary to the earnest Solicitations of the Council of Antioch Anno 347 a Council of Eastern and Western Bishops was called at Sardica where the Eastern Bishops who were most of them Arians or Favourers of that Party refused to joyn with them of the West and acted in a seperate Assembly and had brought with them Count Musonianus and Hesychius an Officer of the
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
Faculties and Powers more but these being only Faculties and Powers neither of them is a whole entire Mind the Understanding alone is not the whole entire Mind nor Reflexion nor Love but the Mind is whole and entire by the union of them all in One but these being Persons in the Godhead each Person has the whole Divine Nature The Son has all that the Father has being his perfect and natural Image and the Holy Spirit is all that Father and Son is comprehending all their infinite Perfections in Eternal Love and they are all the same and all united into One God as the several Faculties and Powers are in One Mind 7. For this proves that these Divine Persons are intimately conscious to each other which as I before showed makes them One numerical God for as the same Mind is conscious to all its own Faculties and Powers and by that unites them into One so where there are Divine and Infinite Persons instead of Faculties and Powers they must be mutually conscious to each other to make them all One God 8. This proves also that though there are Three distinct Persons there can be but One Energie and Operation Father Son and Holy Ghost is the Maker and Governour of the World by one inseparable and undivided Energie neither of them do nor can act apart as the several Powers of the Mind all concur to the same individual Action Knowledge Self-reflection and Will do the same thing which is the Effect of Knowledge brought into act by Reflection and Will and yet the Effect may be ascribed to Knowledge and ascribed to Will as the making of the World is to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost not separately to either but as they act in Conjunction and produce the same Effect by One individual Energie and Power 9. This proves also that Father Son and Holy Ghost must be co-eternal as the several Powers and Faculties must be co-temporary and co-exist in the same Mind Understanding cannot be without a Power of Reflection nor that without Will and Love And I suppose no man will say that there could be any imaginable instant wherein God did not know and love himself This Account is very agreeable to what St. Austin has given us who represents the Father to be Original Mind the Son his Knowledge of himself and the Holy-Spirit Divine Love as I have done and gives the very same Account of their Union Cùm itaque se mens novit amat jungitur ei amore verbum ejus quoniam amat notitiam novit amorem verbum in amore est amor in verbo utrumque in amante dicente When the Mind knows and loves it self its Word is united to it by Love and because it loves its Knowledge and knows its Love its Word is in Love and Love in its Word and both in the loving and speaking or knowing Mind This is the Eternal Generation of the Son Itaque mens cùm seipsam cognoscit sola parens est notitioe suoe cognitum enim cognitor ipsa est when the Mind knows it self it is the sole Parent of its own Knowledge for its self is both the Knower and the Thing known that is the Son is begotten of the Father by a reflex Knowledge of himself and he gives us the same Account of the Difference between Generation and Procession that One is a new Production if I may so express it inventum partum repertum that is the Production of its own Image of its own Wisdom and Knowledge by Self-reflexion the other comes out of the Mind as Love does and therefore the Mind is the Principle of it but not its Parent Cur itaque amando se non genuisse dicatur amorem suum sicut cognoscendo se genuit notitiam suam in eo quidem manifeste ostenditur hoc amoris esse principium undè procedit ab ipsa quidem mente procedit quae sibi est amabilis antequam se amet atque ita principium est amoris sui quo se amat sed ideo non rectè dicitur genitus ab ea sicut notitia sui quâ se novit quia notitia jam inventum est quod partum vel repertum dicitur quod saepe praecedit inquisitio eo fine quietura This I hope is sufficient both to explain and justifie this Doctrine which is the great Fundamental of the Christian Religion of a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and that Account I have given of it It must be confessed that the ancient Fathers did not express their Sense in the same terms that I have done but I will leave any indifferent and impartial Reader to judge whether they do not seem to have intended the very same Explication which I have now given of this venerable Mystery As for the Schoolmen they generally pretend to follow the Fathers and have no Authority where they leave them Sometimes they seem to mistake their Sense or to clog it with some peculiar Niceties and Distinctions of their own The truth is that which has confounded this Mystery has been the vain endeavour of reducing it to terms of Art such as Nature Essence Substance Subsistence Hypostasis Person and the like which some of the Fathers used in a very different Sense from each other which sometimes occasioned great Disputes among them not because they differed in the Faith but because they used words so differently as not to understand each others meaning as Petavius has shewn at large The more pure and simple Age of the Church contented themselves to profess the Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost that there was but One God and Three who were this One God which is all the Scripture teaches of it But when Sabellius had turned this Mystery only into a Trinity of Names they thought themselves concerned to say what these Three are who are One God and then they nicely distinguished between Person and Hypostasis and Nature and Essence and Substance that they were Three Persons but One Nature Essence and Substance but then when men curiously examined the signification of these words they found that upon some account or other they were very unapplicable to this Mystery for what is the Substance and Nature of God How can Three distinct Persons have but one Numerical Substance What is the distinction between Essence and Personality and Subsistence The Deity is above Nature and above terms of Art there is nothing like this mysterious Distinction and Unity and therefore no wonder if we want proper words to express it by at least that such Names as signifie the Distinction and Unity of Creatures should not reach it I do not think it impossible to give a tolerable Account of the School-terms and distinctions but that is a work of greater difficulty than use especially to ordinary Christians and I have drawn this Section to too great a length already to enter upon that now SECT VI.
Concerning Expounding Scripture by Reason FOR like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there be Three Gods and Three Lords By the Christian Verity I suppose is meant the Sacred Books which contain the Christian Religion that is the Books of the Old and New Testament But do these Books and does this Verity compel us to the acknowledgment of Three Persons each of which is by himself Supreme God and Lord and yet all of them together but One God Doth I say the Holy Scripture compel us to this contradictory acknowledgment Is there any Text alleadged from Scripture which all the Vnitarians and some or other of the most learned Trinitarians do not easily interpret in such Sense that the Vnity of God is preserved and no more than One Person even the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ acknowledged to be God See the History of the Vnitarians But if there is no Text of Scripture but what is in the Opinion of some or other of their own Learned Men fairly capable of a Sense contrary to the Faith delivered in this Creed then we are not compelled to acknowledge this Faith And the truth is the Contest between the Vnitarians and Trinitarians is not as is commonly thought a Clash of Reason with Scripture but it layeth here whether when the Holy Scripture may be understood as teaching only One God or but One who is God which agrees with the rest of Scripture and with Natural Reason we must notwithstanding prefer an Interpretation of it that is absurd and contrary to it self to reason and to the rest of Scripture such as the Trinitarians Interpretation exprest in this Creed appears to be In a word the Question only is Whether we ought to Interpret Holy Scripture when it speaks of God according to Reason or not that is like fools or like wise men There is nothing in this long Paragraph to trouble an Answerers thoughts but a great deal to exercise his Patience if he be apt to be provoked by Arrogance and Folly His first Argument to prove that the Holy Scriptures do not compel us to confess each Person in the ever blessed Trinity to be God and Lord and yet that there is but one God is because it is a contradictory acknowledgment So he says and has endeavoured to prove it and how vainly and impertinently I leave the Reader to judge but if a Trinity in Unity imply no Contradiction as I am perswaded I have evidently proved then I hope the Scripture may teach this Doctrine and require the belief of it but this is an impudent Argument which brings Revelation down in such sublime Mysteries to the level of our Understandings to say such a Doctrine cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction whereas a modest man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not and if it be plainly contained there he would conclude how unintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture we must not indeed expound Scripture contrary to common Sense and to the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every man knows and every man can judge of but in Matters of pure Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of but what is revealed we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and express Authority of a Revelation for it is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Natures of Things whose Natures we do not understand as I shewed before His next Proof That the Scripture does not compel us to this Acknowledgment is that the Unitarians and some of the most Learned Trinitarians expound these Texts of Scripture which are alledged for a Trinity in Unity to another Sense and easily reconcile them with the Belief and Acknowledgment of One only who is God as well as of One God and for this he refers us to that Learned Piece the History of the Unitarians As for examining particular Texts which are alledged on both sides in this Controversie it is too voluminous a Work at present and besides my present Undertaking which is only to vindicate the Athanasian Creed and the true Christian Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity from the pretended Absurdities and Contradictions charged on it in these Notes and when that is done and I hope I have done it I dare trust any man of competent Understanding to judge which is most agreeable to the Scope and Language of Scripture But as for what he says that the Unitarians or Socinians can easily reconcile all the Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity to their Notion of One God in opposition to Three Divine Persons in the Godhead we must let him say so because he will say it as all other Hereticks pretend Scripture to be on their side but to say that they can easily do this is a little impudent when all Men who understand this Controversie see what Art they use and what forced and arbitrary Interpretations they put on Scripture to reconcile it to their Opinions especially when some of the most learned Socinians stick not to confess That they will expound Scripture to any sense rather than acknowledge such Doctrines as they think so contradictory to the Reason and Understanding of Mankind which no modest Man would own were he not sensible of the harshness and uncouthness of his own Expositions for things are come to a desperate pass when they shall resolve upon any sense or no sense rather than that which the words most aptly and properly signifie but lies cross to their Prejudices and pre-conceived Opinions But what thinks he of Socinus's Exposition of that Text where Christ says That he came down from Heaven which he could not do if he had no being before he was born of the Virgin Mary Did Socinus find it so easie a thing to reconcile this Text to his darling Opinion when he was fain to fast and to pray for it and to pretend Revelation because he wanted Reason to support it viz. That Christ before he entred on his Prophetick Office was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in the Gospel and then came down from Heaven again to publish it to the World Whereas our Saviour plainly speaks of his first coming into the World when he was born of the Virgin and the whole History of the Gospel takes no notice of his being taken up into Heaven before his Resurrection from the dead I think this was no easie Exposition but of this more presently That there are no Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity but what are rejected by one or other of the most learned Trinitarians is as true as the other There are many Texts which all hearty Trinitarians do and must agree in
and whoever rejects them whatever name he goes by can be no better than a Socinian in disguise but however there are no Texts alledged by learned Trinitarians but are acknowledged by some or other of his learned Trinitarians and thus it is as broad as long but it is not the Authority of any modern Expositors which we rely on but their Reason and if a learned Trinitarian should reject any Text without Reason or Learning it signifies no more to us than the Expositions of a learned Socinian when we seek for Authority we go higher to the Primitive Fathers of the Catholick Church and there we find it They not only delivered to us the traditionary Doctrines of a Trinity which had always been taught in the Catholick Church but the Traditionary Exposition of those Scriptures too whereon this Doctrine is founded and they being so near the Head and Fountain of Tradition the Apostolick Age their Authority is venerable and a modest and prudent Man will not reject any Interpretation of Scripture which relates to Articles of Faith and is unanimously delivered by the Ancient Fathers if the words in any tolerable construction will bear the sense for though a Text should fairly bear two different Interpretations that is most likely to be true which has been from the beginning taught by the Catholick Church And I challenge this Author to name any Text which is alledged for the proof of a Trinity by learned Trinitarians which has not been used to the same purpose by many or most or all the ancient Fathers who have alleadged those Texts But his Conclusion from hence that therefore the Scripture does not compel us to acknowledge a Trinity in Unity because the Unitarians and some or other of the most Learned Trinitarians expound these Texts to another Sense is very pleasant and shows what a great Master of Reason he is for his Argument is this the Scripture does not compel us to believe any thing while there are other men who expound the Scripture to a contrary Sense and thus I am sure the Scripture compels us to believe nothing for it will be hard to name any Text which concerns any Article of Faith how plain and express soever it be but what has been expounded to a contrary Sense by one Heretick or other I would ask this Author whether the Scripture compels him to believe but One God in his Sense of it that is but One who is God If it does not why does he believe it and insist so peremptorily on it in defiance of the whole Catholick Church and yet how can the Scripture compel him to this when the Catholick Church and the Catholick Doctors in all Ages have expounded Scripture to a contrary sense that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God At this rate when Men differ in their Expositions of Scripture the Scripture does not compel us to believe either and thus notwithstanding the Scripture we may believe nothing If the Scripture have a determined Sense we are bound to believe that Sense and must answer it to God and to our Saviour if we do not whoever expounds it otherwise and therefore when it is said in the Creed that we are compelled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are under a necessity by the Christian Verity to acknowledge each Person by himself to be God and Lord the meaning is not that men are under any force to believe or acknowledge it or to expound Scripture to this sense but that the true Sense and Exposition of Scripture does make this Acknowledgment necessary if we will believe as the Scripture teaches and this may be true whatever the Unitarians or any Learned Trinitarians teach He adds That the Contest between the Vnitarians and Trinitarians is not a clash of Reason with Scripture but whether we ought to interpret holy Scripture when it speaks of God according to Reason or not that is like fools or like wise men Now this is all sham and falacy for to expound Scripture by Reason may signifie two very differeent things 1. To use our own Reason to find out the true Sense and Interpretation of Scripture 2. To expound Scripture in Conformity to the Principles and Maxims of Natural Reason In the first sense he expounds Scripture according to Reason who considers the Use and Propriety of Words the Scope and Design of the place what goes before and what follows and how one place of Scripture is consistent with another just in the same way as we find out the sense of any Humane Writing and he who does not thus expound Scripture by Reason expounds it like a fool that is if he put such a sense upon it as the words will not bear or the scope and design of the Text will not admit and as no man would think of who were not prepossessed and prejudiced against what appears to be the plain and obvious Sense of the Text and whether they or we in this sense expound Scripture according or contrary to Reason like fools or like wise men shall be examined presently As for the other Sense of Expounding Scripture according to Reason that is in Conformity to the Principles and Maxims of Natural Reason we allow this too so far that we must not expound Scripture to such a sense as contradicts the plain and express Maxims of Natural Reason for though God reveals such things to us as Natural Reason could not discover and cannot comprehend yet Revelation cannot contradict plain Reason for Truth can never contradict it self what is true in Revelation can never be false in Reason and what is true by Natural Reason can never be false in Revelation but then as I observed before we must be sure that there is such a Contradiction it must be evident and express and not made out of uncertain Consequences which many times are not owing to the Nature of Things but to the Imperfection of our own Knowledge As to keep to the Matter of our present Dispute Natural Reason tells us That there is and can be but One Supreme God the Soveraign Lord of the World and should any man pretend to prove from Scripture that there are Three Gods this would be an express Contradiction to the Natural Belief of One God and therefore we must reject this Sense of Scripture as contrary to Reason but to prove from Scripture that there is but One God and that there are Three who are this One God this is no Contradiction to Reason which teaches but One God for Scripture teaches the same and all Trinitarians acknowledge the same and must do so if they believe the Athanasian Creed and therefore the belief of the Trinity does not contradict the natural belief of One God Yes you 'l say that there should be Three Persons each of which is God and yet but One God is a Contradiction but what Principle of Natural Reason does it contradict Reason tells us that Three Gods cannot be One God but does
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