and thus a Man begets a Man in his own Nature and Likeness and the Son which is begotten is upon all accounts as much a Man as he who begets and Father and Son are two Men And to beget and to be begotten tho they prove their Persons to be distinct yet are but External Relations not different manners of subsistence in the same Nature And thus God does not beget a Son which would be to beget a Second God For to beget and to be begotten when he who begets begets in an absolute sense all the same that he is himself makes two of the same kind And therefore we must observe That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Personal Character and Property of the Father does not only signify that he has no cause of his Being and Nature but that what he is he is absolutely in himself has an Absolute not a Relative Nature and Subsistence and so consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Personal Property of the Son signifies that his Being and Nature is Relative not only that he receives his Being and Nature from his Father but that he so receives it as to be a Relative Subsistence in his Father's Nature and the like may be said of the Procession of the Holy Ghost As to shew this more particularly God begets a Son his own perfect Image and Likeness but he does not beget his own Absolute Nature in his Son as Man does though he begets his Son of his own Nature and Substance as for instance God is Perfect Absolute Original Mind not only as Original is opposed to what has a Cause and a Beginning but as opposed to an Image but God does not beget an Absolute Original Mind in his Son but only his own Eternal Essential Word which is the Perfect Living Image of Eternal Self-originated Mind and is it self Eternal Infinite Mind in the Eternal Word but is in its own proper Character the Eternal Word of the Eternal Mind not originally an Eternal Mind it self It has all the Perfections of an Eternal Mind as a Perfect Word must of necessity have which is the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature but it has all these Perfections not as Original Mind but as a Begotten Word which is a different Mode of Subsistence and a sensible distinction between the Eternal Mind and its Word in the perfect Identity of Nature This I take to be a True and Intelligible Account of these different manners of Subsistence which distinguish the Divine Persons in the perfect Unity of Nature that they have all the same Nature and same Perfections but after a different manner which can never be understood in Absolute Natures and Persons for three Men though Father Son and Grandson have all of them Human Nature after the very same manner but in an Absolute Nature and Relative Essential Processions this is to be understood and proves a real distinction and perfect Unity It is evident to all Men that the Mind and its Word are Two and it is as evident that Life Wisdom Knowledge are in Absolute Original Mind after another manner than they are in its Word and yet the very Notion of a Mind and its Word and that Essential Relation that is between them makes it a contradiction to say that any other Life Wisdom Knowledge can be in the Word than what is in the Mind which would be to say That the Word is not the Word of the Mind if it have any thing that is not in the Mind For a Natural Word can have nothing but what is in the Mind and is no farther a Word than it is the Natural Image of the Mind And the like may be said concerning the Holy Spirit which hath all the same Divine Perfections but in a different manner from Original Mind and its Word as eternally proceeding from both This is the Account which the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of Nature and Distinction of Persons in the Ever Blessed Trinity which answers the Objections of our Sabellian Arian and Socinian Adversaries and vindicates those Catholick Forms of Speech which they charge with Tritheism Contradiction and Nonsense As to shew this briefly in one view for each part of it has been sufficiently confirmed already The Catholick Faith teaches us That there is but One God and this is demonstrable from the Doctrine of these Fathers For in this Account I have now given there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Absolute Divinity One Divine Nature and therefore but One God But say our Adversaries One God in Natural Religion and according to the general Sense of Mankind signifies One Person who is God And this also in some sense has always been owned by the Catholick Church That as there is but One Absolute Divinity so the Person of the Father who is this One Absolute Divinity is this One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is but One Person who is God in this Absolute Sense because there is but One Father who as they often speak is the Fountain of the Deity that is of the Divine Processions of the Son and Holy Spirit He is the Whole Absolute Divinity himself and whatever is Divine Eternally and Essentially proceeds from him in the Unity of his own Nature But at this rate what Divinity do we leave for the Son and the Holy Spirit Truly the very same by Eternal Generation and Procession which is originally and absolutely in the Father For it is the Nature of the Father and the Divinity of the Father which is in the Son and Holy Spirit as the Fathers constantly own and as of necessity it must be because there is no other This Eternal Generation and Procession has always been owned as an ineffable Mystery which we must believe upon the Authority of the Scriptures without pretending to know how God begets an Eternal Son or how the Eternal Spirit proceeds from Father and Son which we confess we have no Notion of but we know likewise That this is no reason to reject this Faith no more than it is a reason to reject the belief of an Eternal Self-originated Being because though it be demonstrable That there must be an Eternal First Cause of all things which has no Cause of its own Being but an Eternal necessary Nature yet we can no more conceive this than we can an Eternal Generation and Procession Supposing therefore without disputing that matter at present that God has an Eternal Son that Eternal Self-originated Mind has an Eternal Subsisting Word and an Eternal Spirit it is evident that this Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit must have all the same Perfections of the Eternal Mind must be all that the Eternal Mind is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excepting its being an Absolute Self-originated Mind Now if he be God who has the whole Divine Nature and Perfections then the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God who by Eternal Generation and Procession have that same
owns we cannot prove that our Idea answers the Reality of Things and therefore I know not what this Rule is good for at all But our general Notion of Unity is of a very different Consideration and our particular Ideas of particular Things contribute nothing to it For the question is not How many Things are united in One Being or How many partial Conceptions are united in One Idea But What it is that makes it One or what the formal Conception of its Unity is But our Considerer takes heart at last from the Unity of the Idea of God to prove that there can be but One Divine Person in a proper sense or but One who is True and Perfect God His Argument is this We cannot conceive that any Object should be truly and adequately represented to any Mind or Vnderstanding under One Idea and truly and adequately represented under Three Ideas And what is the Consâ—quence of this That he tells us plainly That all the Perfections of the Deity though considered separately under different apprehensions by our imperfect Faculties being really but One simple Idea can be applied to but One single Person in the first sense of the word Person as it signifies a particular Intelligent Being Nature and Principle 1. Now in the first place this Argument supposes an Idea which truly and adequately represent its Object and yet our Considerer is so modest as not to pretend to a full and adequate Idea of God And therefore according to his own way he can never conclude from the Idea of God That it can belong but to One single Person because he has not an adequate Idea of the Divine Nature and then there may be something in the Idea of God which he does not comprehend which may make it applicable to more Persons than one Certainly it seems very reasonable when we confess that we have not an adequate Idea of the Dâ—vine Nature to refer this whole Dispute not to Natural Ideas which can never determine it but to Revelation which is more certain and more perfect than our Natural Knowledge 2. I grant That One Object cannot be truly and adequately represented to my mind under One Idea and truly and adequately represented under Three different Ideas But it is as true That One and the same Idea may be truly and adequately applied to Three distinct and different Persons The adequate Idea of Peter can be applied to none but Peter but the Idea of Man or of Human Nature may be truly and adequately applied to Peter Iames and Iohn and to every single human Person in the world The Idea of God as abstracted from the Consideration of a Trinity of Persons is only the Idea of the Divine Nature which is but One and can never be Three different Natures for the Divine Nature always was and always will be but One and the same and this is that One Object which is adequately in his sense represented by One Idea And this is the account the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of God That there is but One Divinity One Divine Nature in Three Persons and thus the Trinity is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One Divinity that One Object represented by the One Idea of God The Divine Persons are not distinguished by any difference of Nature which is One and the same in all but by Personal differences That the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten and the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son These are Three different Ideas for the Three Divine Persons but the Idea of the Divinity is but One as the Divine Nature is One and the same in all Could he indeed prove That the Idea of God is not only One simple Idea but the Idea of One single Person that would be somewhat more to the purpose it would be such an Argument against a Trinity of Persons from the Idea of God as Necessary Existence as included in the Idea of God is for the Being of God But this he can never prove and at best these Arguments from Ideas are thought too fine and subtle by most men 2. His next kind of Unity is a Vnity of Principle that is One thing which has but One Principle of Action And we cannot conceive that One Principle or Nature should be but One and yet Three different Principles and Natures But I suppose he can conceive That if One and the same undivided Principle and Nature be and act in Three these Three are One by the Unity of Principle and Nature And this is the Catholick Faith of the Trinity not Three different Principles and Natures in Three Persons but One and the same Principle and Nature inseparably and indivisibly subsisting and acting in Three Upon account of which Identity of Principle and Operation the Catholick Fathers asserted but One Life Energy and Power not confusedly but distinctly in Three which asserts the Unity of Principle together with the real distinction of true and proper Persons If indeed he can prove from his Vnity of Principle That One Nature and Principle can live subsist and act but in One such a Unity of Principle as this will admit but of One single Person and must overthrow the Catholick Faith of a Real Trinity But though the Unity of Principle does prove That to be but One which has but One Principle it does not prove That this One Nature and Principle can be but in One. 3. His Third kind of Unity is very surprizing especially as applied to the Unity of God it is the Unity of Position of Place or of Vbi When we perceive any Object in a continued Position bounded and fenced out from other things round about it all within such Terms and Limits we call One Bless me thought I How is this applicable to the Unity of God who has no Body no Parts no continued Position can't be bounded and fenced round about nor confined within Terms and Limits and therefore can never have this Vnity of Position which is a very sorry kind of Unity at best His Philosophy belonging to this Head is very admirable but to let that pass he would not be thought to attribute Extension to Spirits but the Idea of a Point is more applicable to Spiritual Beings but a Physical Point is extended still though it be the least conceivable Extension and has parts and therefore can't represent simple Unity and is the Idea of Body not of Spirit Nor does he think local presence or determination any way contained within the Idea of a Spiritual Being and therefore this can't belong to the Unity of a Spirit Well But he is not able to comprehend the Vnion or Separation of Two Spiritual Beings without considering them in the same or different Localities I know not how to help this that he can't conceive of Spirits but only after the manner of Bodies Are Spirits united by Juxta-position of Parts or Penetration of Dimensions If not One Vbi can't unite
this Case For here when we hear of the Image of God we must conceive nothing less than the Brightness of his Glory But what is this Brightness and what is this Glory That the Apostle adds The perfect Impression or Character of his Substance And therefore Substance is the same with Glory and Character with Brightness So that the Divine Glory remaining perfect and undiminished emits a perfect Splendor and Brightness And thus the very Nature of an Image expounded as it becomes God confirms the Faith of One Divinity For the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father because such as the Father is such is the Son and such as the Son is such is the Father And thus Two are One because the Son in nothing differs as receiving no other Form or Character but that of his Father And therefore I say again One and One but an undivided Nature and never-failing Perfection And therefore there is One God because by both the same perfect Divine Form and Nature is seen wholly and perfectly subsisting in both This I think is as plain as words can make it both what St. Basil meant by the Sameness and Identity of Nature and that herein he placed the Unity of the Godhead and were there any occasion for it it were easy to confirm this by the concurrent Suffrages of Athanasius Gregory Nyssen and Gregory Nazianzen St. Cyril and other Greek Fathers almost in the same words St. Hilary and St. Ambrose to name no more of the Latin Fathers are so express in placing the Unity of the Godhead in this perfect Sameness Indifference Indiversity of Nature between Father Son and Holy Ghost that there is no need of any other Art but barely to represent their Words and therefore I shall only refer my Readers to some few Quotations in the Margin It cannot be denied but that all the Fathers unanimously agree in this Account of the Unity of the Divine Nature in Three Distinct Persons Which should make modest men very cautious of charging it with a direct Contradiction to all Reason and Philosophy But Modesty and Reverence to the Catholick Fathers are none of the prevailing Virtues of this Age. But is it indeed such a Contradiction to say That the same Nature which is perfectly and in every thing the same in Three is but One Nature in Three and that such Three have not Three Natures but One Nature Is it such a direct Contradiction to Sense and Reason to say That there is alius alius alius in the Trinity but not aliud That there is Another and Another and Another Person in the Holy Trinity but that there is nothing in any One of these Persons which can be called Another thing from what is in the other Two This is so far from a Contradiction that it seems plain Sense nay plain Demonstration to me That Three Persons who have nothing in themselves but what each of them have without the least conceivable Variation are in Nature but one and the same and though each of them be Another Person yet not Another Thing or Another Nature There are several Examples in Nature which justify this distinction between alius aliud and must make all thinking men confess that they cannot speak properly without it I would not be mistaken in this matter and therefore desire the Reader carefully to observe That I do not alledge these Instances which follow as Resemblances of the Trinity but only as Examples of a perfect Sameness and Unity in Nature where we must confess That the thing is but One and the same and yet that there is Another and Another And if there be any Images of this in Nature there is no reason to call this a Contradiction in the Faith of the Trinity Let me then ask this plain Question When Five hundred Men hear the same Man speak do they all hear one and the same Voice or Five hundred Voices It will I think be granted that it is but one and the same Voice which they all hear and yet it is heard five hundred times and is distinctly in five hundred Ears The Voice is essentially one and the same in all and yet no man dares deny that the Voice in Peter's Ear is another from that Voice which is in Iohn's Ear and therefore is Another and Another but not Another Thing And were a Voice Essence and Substance there would be One Nature Essence and Substance in a Plurality of Hypostases Thus Sight furnishes us with as many Examples of this as Hearing When five hundred Men see the same thing the Object is one and the same and yet is Another and Another according to the number of the Persons who see it Is one and the same in Nature and subsists the same and yet distinctly in each eye Sight and Hearing approach nearest to an Incorporeal Nature and therefore give us the nearest Resemblances of a Spiritual Sameness Unity and Distinction But we have still more perfect Images of this in what is more perfectly Spiritual The same Notion and Idea though it subsist in Ten thousand Minds is perfectly the same in all A perfect true Idea of any thing is and can be but One and therefore how many Minds soever it subsist in it must be one and the same in all but yet the Idea in the Mind of Peter is not the same in Subsistence with the Idea in the Mind of Paul It is Another and Another and yet the same Idea in Nature and Essence As suppose the perfect Idea of Humanity or Human Nature and the perfect Idea of the Divine Nature if they be true and perfect they are perfectly the same in all the Minds in the World and nothing but the different Notions men have of things can multiply such Ideas Now if we advance but one step higher we shall plainly see what this Unity of Sameness is what the true Notion of it is and how far it reaches For though this be absolutely essential to the Divine Unity yet as I have already noted and will appear more hereafter this is not the compleat and adequate Notion of it Let us suppose then that Human Nature for instance did subsist as perfectly the same in Peter Iames and Iâ—hn as the true and perfect Idea of Human Nature is one and the same in all that a Man were nothing else but the living subsisting Idea of Human Nature without the least change or variation in Nature to distinguish one from another I say in such a Case as this would not Three such Persons be perfectly one and the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sameness and Identity of Nature which would be as perfectly and invariably the same as the common Notion and Idea of Nature Would not Human Nature be as perfectly the same in Three Persons or Subsistences as the Idea of Human Nature is one and the same in Three Minds Or could we in
Consubstantial Son is a true and real Son for which reason as he observes the Arians would not allow the Son to be Consubstantial because they would not allow him to be a true genuine Son and for this very reason the Nicene Fathers inserted the Homoousion in their Creed But yet if we would rightly conceive of God of Father Son and Holy Ghost of the Unity and Distinction of the Ever Blessed Trinity we must not form our Notions by the Ideas of Substance and Consubstantiality which we have no distinct conceptions of but we must learn their Unity Distinction and Consubstantiality from those Characters the Scripture gives of Father Son and Holy Ghost This Rule St. Ambrose expressly gives us with reference to the Son and the Reason is the same as to the other Divine Persons If we would avoid Error says that Father let us attend to those Characters the Scripture gives us to help us to understand what and who the Son is He is called the Word the Son the Power of God the Wisdom of God all this we can understand and not only St. Ambrose but all the other Catholick Fathers as I have already shewn prove the Consubstantiality Coeternity Coequality Unity and Distinction of Father and Son from these Names and Characters which they understood in a true and proper sense for a Living Subsisting Son and Word and Power and Wisdom and there is no difficulty in conceiving all this if we contemplate it in these Characters nay it is impossible to conceive otherwise of it As impossible as it is to form any notion at all of those Philosophical Terms whereby this Mystery is commonly represented when we abstract them from those sensible Characters and Ideas which the Scripture has given us and begin our Inquiries with them It will be of great use to represent this matter plainly that every man may see what it is that obscures and perplexes the Doctrine of the Trinity and confounds mens notions about it to the great scandal of the Christian Religion and the disturbance of the Christian Church The great difficulty concerns the Unity and Distinction of the Ever Blessed Trinity that they are really and distinctly Three and essentially One And this is represented by One Nature Essence and Substance and Three Hypostases and yet Hypostasis signifies Substance and every Divine Hypostasis is the whole Divine Essence and Substance Now if we immediately contemplate this Mystery under the notion of Substance it is impossible for us to conceive One Substance and Three Hypostases that is in some sense Three Substances or which is all One as to the difficulty of conceiving it though the form of Expression is more Catholick Three each of which is the whole Essence and Substance and neither of them is each other we may turn over our Minds as long as we please and change Words and Phrases but we can find no Idea to answer these or any other words of this nature But now if instead of Essence and Hypostasis we put Mind and its Word we can form a very intelligible notion of this Unity and Distinction and prove that Unity of Substance and Distinction of Hypostases which we cannot immediately and directly form any notion of For Eternal Original Mind and its Living Subsisting Word are certainly Two and neither are nor can be each other the Mind cannot be its own Living Word nor the Word the Mind whose Word it is and yet we must all grant that Eternal Mind is the most Real Being Essence Substance and that a Living Subsisting Word is Life Being Substance and the very same Life and Substance that the Mind is and all that the Mind is for a perfect Living Word can have no other Life and Substance but that of the Mind and must be all the same that the Mind is The Eternal Generation of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Substance of the Father Life of Life Substance of Substance Whole of Whole is impossible to be conceived as immediately applied to the notion of Substance but the Generation of the Word Whole of Whole is very conceivable for the Mind must beget its own Word as we feel in our selves and a Mind which is perfect Life and Substance if it begets its Word must beget a Living Subsisting Substantial Word the perfect Image of its own Life and Substance And as impossible as it is to conceive much more to express in words this Mystery of the Eternal Generation yet the necessary relation between a Mind and its Word proves that thus it is we feel it in our selves though we are as perfectly ignorant how our Mind begets its dying vanishing Word as how the Eternal Mind begets an Eternal Living Subsisting Word And the Generation of the Word includes in it all the Properties of the Divine Generation that it is Eternal for an Eternal Mind can never be without its Word that it is without any Corporeal Passions or Esslux or Division begotten in the Mind and inseparable from it Now if we conceive after the same manner of the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit can any man deny this to be an Intelligible Notion of a Trinity in Unity though we can form no distinct Idea of One Essence and Substance and Three Hypostases For if we can conceive Father Son and Holy Ghost Eternal Original Mind its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit to be Essentially One and Three the Catholick Faith is secured though we do not so well understand the distinction between those Abstract Metaphysical Terms of Nature Essence Substance Hypostasis especially when applied to the Unity and Distinction of the Eternal Godhead which is above all Terms of Art The Catholick Faith is That the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God but yet there are not Three Gods but One God and this the Doctrine of the Divine Relations gives us a very intelligible notion of for we cannot conceive otherwise of the Eternal Mind its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit but that each of them are True and Perfect God and yet a Mind its Word and Spirit can be but One and therefore but One God But One Substance and Three Hypostases is but a secondary notion of a Trinity in Unity to secure the Catholick Faith against the Sabellian and Arian Heresies Against the Sabellians the Catholick Fathers asserted Three Hypostases against the Arians One Substance and the Essential Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost necessarily prove both the One Substance and Three Hypostases but though One Substance and Three Hypostases be the Catholick Language yet those Men begin at the wrong end who think to form an intelligible notion of a Trinity in Unity from these abstract Metaphysical Terms This is not the Language of the Scripture nor have we any Idea to answer these Terms of One Substance in Three distinct Hypostases when we consider them by themselves without relation to the Divine Nature to which alone these
and Son to the Eternal Spirit and all Three are Infinite in Wisdom Power and Goodness and all other Divine Perfections This is but One Divinity One Godhead for there is not a Second and Third Divinity in the Son and in the Holy Spirit but the One Divinity of the Father But yet we must confess that here is Number Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three and how can that Divinity which is perfectly and distinctly in Three be One Individual Nature One Numerically One as Human Nature in every particular Man is One Now this must be resolved into the second Notion of Essential for Essential Productions for all Essential Productions in the Unity of Nature though they may be distinguished and numbred among themselves are but One Individual Nature It will be in vain to seek for an Example of this in Created Nature and I believe the reason of it will be evident without it An Eternal Self-originated Mind is True and Perfect God the First Supreme Cause of all things and has all the Perfections of the Divinity wholly in it self is the One and only True God But if it be essential to an Eternal Mind to have an Eternal Living Subsisting Word and Spirit by an Eternal Generation and Procession then this Eternal Word and Spirit are essential to an Eternal Mind not as Essential Perfections or Essential Parts but as Essential Productions or Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature Thus the Scripture represents this Mystery That there is One God who has an Eternal Word and an Eternal Spirit and the Catholick Fathers as I have already observed insist on this as a natural Demonstration of a Trinity That the Eternal Mind must have its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit Now if the Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit are essential to the Eternal Mind it is certain that Father Son and Holy Ghost the Eternal Mind its Word and Spirit are but One Individual Divinity every thing that is essential is included in the Notion of an Individual Nature for that is not a Compleat and Perfect Nature nor an adequate notion of Nature that wants any thing that is essential Now though we may have a general Notion and Idea of a God That he is an Absolutely Perfect Being which Includes all the Divine Attributes and Perfections without knowing any thing of the Son or Holy Ghost yet if we consider this Absolutely Perfect Being as Eternal Self-originated Mind with its Eternal Word and Spirit as essential Productions or Processions we can consider them no otherwise but as One Individual Divinity this Eternal Word and Spirit being essential Processions of the Eternal Mind which can never be separated from it For such essential Processions are not only coeval and consubstantial with the Nature from whence they proceed as the Sun its Light and Heat by which Argument the Catholick Fathers proved the Coeternity and Consubstantiality of the Son and Holy Spirit with the Eternal Father but whatever distinction there is between them they are One Individual Nature if all that be One Individual Nature which is essential to such a Being and such all essential Processions are as well as essential Perfections These are two very different Questions and of a very different consideration What God is and Who this God is In an answer to the first we form the Idea and Notion of all Divine Perfections or of an absolutely Perfect Being which is the true notion of the Divinity and whoever has all these Divine Perfections is True and Perfect God and this is our natural notion of God as that signifies the Divinity which gives no notice of any distinction in the Divinity for there can be no diversity in Absolute Perfections and therefore no distinction or number according to the Philosophy of the Fathers But when we consider who God is or what is the Subject of all these Divine Perfections we can form no other Idea of it but an Eternal Infinite Self originated Mind this the Wisest Philosophers as well as Christians are agreed in That God is an Infinite Mind and this rightly explained may teach us some distinction in the Divinity for all Men must grant what they feel in themselves that every Mind has its Word and Spirit and cannot be conceived without them and therefore the Eternal Mind must have its Eternal word and Spirit too and the reason why this did not lead all Mankind into the natural belief of a Trinity of Persons Mind Word and Spirit in the Unity of the Godhead was plainly this Because they found that their own Word and Spirit were not permanent subsisting Persons but were the perishing Creatures of the Mind which were no sooner produced but died and vanished as our Thoughts do and thus they conceived it was with the Divine Mind which is one kind of Sabellianism as I observed above But yet the Catholick Fathers thought this natural belief That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Divinity or Divine Mind is not without its Word a very proper Medium to prove a real subsisting Word in the Divinity for an Infinite Perfect Mind which is all Life Being Substance if it begets its own Word as every Mind does must beget a Living Substantial Subsisting Word the perfect Image and Character of its own Life and Infinite Being However thus much I think we must own That since every Mind must have its Word and Spirit in the Individual Unity of its own Nature and the Holy Scripture assures us that God who is the most perfect Mind has his Word and Spirit and that this Divine Word and Spirit is an Eternal Living Subsisting Word and Spirit this is a very good foundation for the belief of a Real Trinity both from Reason and Scripture The natural Notion and Idea of a Mind teaches us this distinction in the Divinity and Natural Reason strongly infers from the perfect Productions of an infinitely perfect Mind that the Divine Word and Spirit must be an Eternal Living Infinite Word and Spirit and the Holy Scripture confirms all this And therefore Scripture and Reason are so far from contradicting each other in this Article that the Belief of the Trinity though it be ultimately resolved into the Authority of Revelation yet has Reason on its side as far as it can judge of such matters Which proves a considerable Authority when the obscure and imperfect Conjectures of Reason are explained and confirmed by Revelation For though the Notion of an absolutely perfect Being which is the Natural Idea of the Divinity teaches no such distinction yet the Idea of an Infinitely Perfect and Self-originated Mind which is as natural a Notion of God does Thus Damascen teaches us to distinguish between the Divinity and in what the Divinity is or to speak more accurately what is the Divinity and that which proceeds eternally from this First Cause that is the Hypostases of the Son and Holy Spirit the first teaches us
often enough already to the satisfaction of all sober Enquirers who pay a just Veneration to Scripture and shall be done again when a fair occasion offers But the Question under Debate now is Whether we cannot explain and defend the Doctrine of the Trinity without the use of Ecclesiastical or Scholastick Terms and whether the Disputes of Divines about the Use and Signification of such Terms proves any Dâ—sagreement in the Faith when they all consent to the Scripture Explications of it The great Dispute is about the Distinction and Unity of the Godhead and by what Terms to express this Wonderful Distinction and Wonderful Vnion as some of the Fathers call it All sincere Trinitarians do agree That God is Vnus Trinus One and Three but we having nothing in Nature like this we know not by what Names to call it Those who have most critically examined the force of words find them all upon some account or other defective or improper for this purpose That St. Austin well said That in these Sublime Mysteries we can no more express what we conceive of them in Words than we can conceive of them as they are When we profess to believe that there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead the next question is What Three they are That is By what common Name to call them which may be multiplied with them or spoken of them in the Plural Number which St. Austin thinks not easily found The Greeks called them Three Hypostases which signifies Three Individual Substances This seemed hard to the Latins who acknowledged but One Substance in the Godhead and therefore they called them Three Persons though this did not satisfy St. Austin who looked upon Person as an Absolute not a Relative Term and therefore the Plural Predications would not agree with his Rule quae ad se dicuntur that what is predicated absolutely must be predicated only in the Singular Number And in truth if this be a good Rule it is a demonstration that there can be no common Name for these Three for whatever is a common Name for them all must be absolutely predicated of each of them And therefore St. Austin could give no other reason why we say Three Persons and not Three Essences or Three Gods but only this That since we acknowledge there are Three it is fitting to agree upon some common Name to denote the Trinity by and Ecclesiastical Use had given this Signification to the word Person But then besides this the great Dispute is What is meant by a Person when applied to the Three in the Blessed Trinity Some adhere to the old approved Definition of a Person That it is the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature which is the very definition of the Greek Hypostasis as Boetius owns Others are afraid of this for if every Person be an Individual Substance and there are Three Persons they know not how to avoid the Consequence That then there are Three Individual Substances in the Trinity And consequently since we can have no other Notion of the Divine Substance but Infinite Mind and Spirit there must be Three Infinite Minds and Spirits in the Godhead which they think infers Three Gods And therefore they will not allow a Person to be a Substance at least not an Individual Substance but a Mode or at most a Mode of Subsistence or Relation or Property or a Person in the Tragedian or Comedian sense of a Person as one represents and personates another or to signify an Office or Magistracy and so one man may be as many several Persons as he has Offices I can't answer for all these different significations of the word Person as applied to this Sacred Mystery especially as they are used by some Modern Writers for I believe there is no such material difference between the Fathers and the Schools as some men imagine of which more hereafter But as to my present purpose I must profess I can see no necessity why we must find out a Common Name for the Three in the Blessed Trinity when the Scripture has given us no Common Name for them much less why we should dispute eternally about the propriety and use of such words to hazard the Catholick Faith at least the Honour and Reputation of it together with the Peace of the Church If I am asked not only Who but What the Three in the Ever-blessed Trinity are I know no better Answer to make than what the Scripture has taught me That they are God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost which signifies all that can be express'd by any Artificial and Unscriptural words is an Answer liable to no Exceptions or Misrepresentations and in which all must agree who believe a Trinity and it shames and silences all those Disputes which are often occasioned by other words though never so wisely and reasonably chosen This Answer shews us what their Nature is what their Distinction is and what Relation they stand in to each other which is the most perfect knowledge we can have of the Ever-blessed Trinity in this world SECT III. That the Title of GOD attributed in Scripture distinctly to Father Son and Holy Ghost gives us the best Account of their Nature and must determine the Signification of Ecclesiastical Words 1. AS for the first the design of some common Name for these Three is to form some common Notion and Idea of them in which they all agree And is any thing else so common to them Is there any thing else which is common to them but the Name and Nature of God Can any thing else give us so true and perfect a Character and Idea of each of them as this does When we say the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God we attribute every thing to each of them which signifies any Perfection for the Idea of God comprehends all possible Perfections And we reject every thing which has the least signification of Imperfection we abstract our minds from all Material and Creature-Images which Names common to Creatures are apt to impose upon us and when we are forced to apply any such Names to God we learn from hence in what Notion to understand such Words when applied to God Men may very subtilly distinguish between the formal Conceptions of Nature Essence Substance Hypostasis Existence Subsistence Person Personality Suppositality and the like and neither understand God nor Creatures much the better for it But let them but tell us what they mean by these Terms and then every Child can tell whether they belong to Father Son and Holy Ghost or not For as far as they are included in the Notion of God and signify true Divine Perfections so far they belong to all Three For if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then Father Son and Holy Ghost each of them by themselves are whatever is included in the Notion and Idea of
have distinct Understandings Wills and Powers of Action for no other Beings are capable of sending or being sent and Three such distinct Persons each of which is complete and perfect God is the Trinity asserted by the Catholick Fathers in contradiction to the Heresy of Sabellius But there is one very good Rule of Athanasius which is worth observing in this Controversy That we must not imagine to find the Unity of the Godhead by denying Three but we must find this Unity or Monade in Three The Sabellians took the first way to secure the Catholick Faith of One God they denied Three real distinct substantial Persons in the Godhead but the Catholick Faith owns Three real distinct substantial divine Persons and teaches that these Three are One God not with such an Unity as belongs to One Person but as Three Persons are One God which should be a warning to some late Writers who think they cannot sufficiently defend the Unity of God without opposing a real and substantial Trinity which is to oppose the ancient Catholick Faith To conclude this Chapter the result of the whole in short is this That in opposition to the Noetians who made Father Son and Holy Ghost to be only Three Names of the same One Divine Person whom we call God the Catholick Fathers asserted that they were Three distinct Persons not the same Person under Three Names or Three Appearances in opposition to those Sabellians who denied the Substantiality of the Son and of the Holy Ghost but made the Son like the Word in the mind or heart of man which had no substantial permanent Subsistence of its own and the Holy Ghost in like manner to be a transient efflux of Power from God so that God the Father was the only subsisting Person and the One God but the Son and the Holy Ghost the insubstantial transient Word and Power of God These ancient Fathers in like manner asserted the Substantiality of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that they were real distinct subsisting Persons as true and perfect Persons as the Father himself is in opposition to those Sabellians who asserted a compound Deity and made a Trinity of Parts instead of a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead they unanimously rejected all composition in the Deity and asserted each Person distinctly by himself not to be a part of God but true and perfect God Now had these Fathers asserted nothing positively concerning the Three Divine Persons but only rejected these Noetian and Sabellian Heresies it had been evidence enough what their Faith was concerning the Ever-blessed Trinity for remove these Heresies and all such as are manifestly the same however they may differ in words and there is nothing left for any man to believe concerning a Divine Trinity but the true Catholick Faith of Three real distinct substantial Divine Persons each of which is distinctly and by himself complete entire perfect God For if Father Son and Holy Ghost are not one and the same Person distinguisht only by Three Names according to their different Appearances and Operations nor one single Person with two personal Vertues and Powers called the Son and the Spirit like the word and emotion in a man's heart which is no person and has no subsistence of its own nor three parts of one compounded Deity as a man is compounded of Body Soul and Spirit then of necessity Father Son and Holy Ghost must be Three complete substantial subsisting Persons Thrâ—â— such Persons as the Sabellians would allow but One fâ—â—â—f they â—e not the same nor affections and motions of the â—ame nor parts of the same there is nothing left but to own them Three completely and perfectly subsisting Person If God be One not in the Sabellian â—otion of Singularity as One God signifies One single Person but Oâ—e in Three without parts or composition as the Father asserted against Sabellius then each Person must be by himself complete and perfect God for God cannot be One in Three Persons unless each Person be perfect God for unless this One God be perfect God in each Person he cannot be perfectly One in Three If the Unity of God be not the Unity of a Person it must be the Unity and Sameness of Nature and the inseparable Union of Persons and this is the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity which the Catholick Fathers taught and which is the only thing they could reasonably teach when they had rejected the Sabellian Unity There is no medium that I know of in this Controversy concerning the Unity of God between the Unity of One single Person and that Oneness which results from the Unity and the Consubstantiality of Nature and inseparable Union of Persons and therefore if the first be Heresy the second must be the Catholick Faith and whatever Notions men advance against this is Sabellianism in its Principle and last result for if the Unity of God be not the Union of Three complete Divine Persons each of which is distinctly by himself perfect God it must be the Unity of One Divine Person which is the Sabellian Unity CHAP. IV. Concerning the Homoousion or One Substance of Father Son and Holy Ghost IN the last Chapter I have plainly shewn what Sabellianism is and by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed and confuted it which is proof enough what they meant by Person when in opposition to Sabellius they taught that there were Three Persons in the Unity of the Godhead not Three personal Characters and Relations which Sabellius owned but Three true and proper Persons each of whom is by himself true and perfect God But yet the Nicene Faith of the Homocusion or One Substance of Father and Son is so expounded by some as to countenance the Sabellian Heresy which all the Nicene Fathers condemned though one would think that should be an unanswerable Objection against it this has made it so absolutely necessary to the Vindication of the Catholick Faith and to compose some warm Disputes rightly to understand this matter that I shall carefully inquire what the Nicene Fathers meant by these terms of the Homoousion and One Substance which they have put into their Creed as the most express opposition to the Arian Heresy And we cannot long doubt of this if we consider the true state of the Arian Controversy There was no Dispute between the Arians and Catholicks concerning the Personality of the Son they both condemned Sabellius and therefore One Substance when opposed to the Arians can't signify a Sabellian Unity The Arians and Sabellians both agreed in this That One God is but One Divine Person who is truly and properly God and that to assert Three Persons each of which is true and perfect God is to make Three Gods The Sabellians to avoid this Tritheism make Father Son and Holy Ghost but One Divine Person and in that sense but One God The Arians on the other hand allow Father and Son to be two real distinct
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
that the other is and yet not Three Minds but One Mind This shews the diffâ—rence between Absolute and Relative Substances Three Absolute Substances are always distinctly and separately Three and can never be any otherwise than specifically One but Relative Substances may be essentially One in the same One Individual Nature and this is the Account both the Fathers and Schools give of a Trinity in Unity Three Relations or Three Relative Substances or Subsistencies essentially related to each other in the Unity of the same One Individual Essence St. Gregory Nyssen has given the most particular Account of this matter in his Catechetical Oration To convince the Heathens of the Eternal Subsistence of the Divine Word in the Unity of the same Godhead he lays the foundation of all in that universally received Principle That the Divinity is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I translate not irrational without Reason or Understanding but not without its Word which is not the Personal Wisdom of the Father whereby the Father is wise as I have already shewn Chap. 3. but a Personal Living Subsisting Word Which answers to that Word which we feel in our own Minds and which is essential to all Minds that no Mind can be without its Word but is not a vanishing Notion and Idea or a transient sound as Human words but answers to the perfection of the Divine Nature And therefore as our Mortal Nature has a Vanishing Perishing Word so the Incorruptible and Eternally Permanent Immutable Nature has an Eternal Subsisting Word And as he proceeds if this Divine Word subsists it lives for it does not subsist like stupid inanimate Stones but as Mind and Spirit which must live if it subsists and if it lives the absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature which admits of no composition proves that he lives not by a participation of Life but as Life it self And if the Word lives as being Life it self it must have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a power to do what it freely wills and chuses For that which cannot will and chuse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not live and an Impotent Will is a contradiction to the Nature of God and therefore its Power must be equal to its Will But this Divine Word can will nothing but what is good and wills whatever is good and being able to effect whatever it wills is not unactive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without doing any thing but does the good it wills And since we must acknowledge the World and all things in it which are wisely and artificially made to be good all things are the Works of this Living Subsisting Word This is his Proof That God has a Subsisting Living Almighty Creating Word which is another distinct Person from him whose Word he is For the Word is a Relative Term and signifies a Relative Subsistence and necessarily supposes the Father for he is not the Word but with relation to him whose Word he is And by this means he tells us we may escape both the Polytheism of the Gentiles and the Singularity of the Iews by acknowledging the Living Energetical Operative Word which the Iews deny and the Unity and Identity of Nature between the Word and Him whose Word he is For as our Word proceeds out of our Mind and is neither every way the same with the Mind nor yet upon all accounts another For that it is of the Mind proves that is is another and not the Mind it self but as it perfectly expresses and represents the Mind it cannot be another Nature but one and the same Nature though a kind of different subsistence So the Word of God by a distinct subsistence of its own is distinguished from him from whom he receives his Subsistence and Hypostasis but inasmuch as he is all and the same that God is he is perfectly one and the same in Nature This is the Doctrine of all the other Catholick Fathers as well as of Gregory Nyssen who resolve the Unity of the Godhead in a Trinity of Persons into Relative Subsistencies in the same Individual Nature which no more multiplies Natures and Divinities to make Two or Three Gods than the Mind its Word and Love make Three Minds This is the true and compleat notion of the Homoousion which as I have already shewn does not signify a meer Specifick Unity but the Unity of One Individual not Singular Nature in Three that Three Real Distinct Subsisting Persons are as intimately and essentially related to each other in the same Individual Nature as a Human Mind and its Word are which are not and never can be two Minds but one Mind Two compleat and perfect Minds can never in a proper notion be Consubstantial or one Substance though they have the same specifick Nature for their Substance is not one and the same but naturally two and naturally separable how closely soever they may be united but Three Divine Persons who are essentially related to each other in the same Divinity as the Mind and its Word are are in the strictest notion Consubstantial or One Substance being essentially related to each other in the same One Individual Nature and Essence And here I must take notice of a great mistake which some Learned Men run into concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singular and particular Natures Substances and Essences by which they understand what some others call Personal Substances and conclude That since Philoponus and others who asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three particular Natures and Essences or Substances in the Godhead were charged with Tritheism as they deserved if their Opinions be truly represented those who assert Three Substantial Persons or Three distinct Personal Subsistencies or Substances are liable also to the same Charge This is a material Objection and a fair Answer to it will set this whole matter in a clear light Now the Answer in short is this That those who rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and charged it with Tritheism did not thereby understand particular personal relative Subsistencies or Substances but compleat absolute particular Natures and Substances not Three Real Substantial Subsisting Relations in One Individual Nature as a Mind its Internal Essential Word and Spirit as Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three but Three absolute particular Natures as Three Men each of whom has a compleat absolute personal Nature of his own are Three Now if this be the true Account every one sees the difference between Three personal relative Substances or Subsistencies of the same Nature and Three absolute particular Natures the first is a real Substantial Trinity Three Subsisting Infinite Persons in the Unity of the same Godhead Three Persons and One God the other is down-right Tritheism And that this is all they meant by particular Individual Natures I have many Arguments to prove For 1st Had they herein condemned distinct personal relative Substances they had condemned the Faith of the Catholick Church and relapsed into Sabellianism as
Singularity of the Divine Essence for it proves quite the contrary it is the Unity of Three which is a Trinity in Unity not the Unity of One which is Singularity and Solitude In the next place I observe That by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Catholick Fathers understand in this Mystery the inseparable Union of Relatives in the same Individual Nature not the Union of compleat absolute Natures how close and inseparable soever it may be There is by Nature no Inseparable Union but in the same Individual Nature Three compleat Individuals though of the same Kind and Species how closely and intimately soever they be united are not by Nature inseparable nor essentially One for they may be parted by that Power which united them and when they are parted can subsist apart as Three compleat Minds how intimately soever they should be united by God yet can never be essentially and inseparably One for they are not essential to each other they might have subsisted apart and may be parted again and an External Union cannot so make them One as to be naturally inseparable Which I think is a Demonstration that a Natural Inseparability which is an Essential Unity can be only in One Individual Nature between such Relatives as are Essential to each other and can neither be nor be conceived divided or separated And therefore the Catholick Fathers represented the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Examples of Natural Unions between things Essentially related to each other in One Individual Nature which either cannot be conceived or at least cannot subsist apart Of this last Kind are a Fountain and its Streams a Tree and its Branches whereby they not only represent the Homoousion but the Inseparable Union of the Divine Persons as every one knows for there cannot be a Fountain but its Waters must flow out nor Streams without a Fountain from whence they flow and though Branches may be separated from the Tree yet they live no longer than they are united and are Branches of that Tree no longer But these are very imperfect Images and without great caution will corrupt our Ideas of the Divine Unity Of all Corporeal Unions the nearest resemblance we have of this and which the Fathers most insist on is the Sun and its natural Splendor for we cannot conceive the Sun without its Splendor nor the Splendor without the Sun they never were never can be parted and therefore though two are essentially one This Representation the Scripture makes of it which calls the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Brightness of his Father's Glory and in this Sense they teach that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Light of Light as it is in the Nicene Creed whereby they do not mean two distinct independent Lights which either are or may be parted though one be lighted at the other this was the Heresy of Hierachas as St. Hilary tells us who represented this Mystery by two Candles one of which is lighted at the other or by one and the same Lamp which is divided and burns in two Sockets but that Light and Splendor which is essential to the same Sun and can never be divided from it as Athanasius teaches But the truest Images we have of this in Nature is the Inseparable Union which is between a Mind and its own Internal Word which are so essentially related to each other in the same Individual Nature that they can never be parted nor conceived apart the Mind can never be without its Word nor the Word subsist but in the Mind It is evident That two compleat absolute Minds can never be thus united for they are not Essential to each other not naturally one and therefore not naturally inseparable but a Mind and its Word though two are essentially One and therefore can never be parted but must subsist together and these are the Characters the Scripture gives us of God the Father and his Son the Father Infinite Eternal Self-originated Mind the Son his Eternal Infinite Living Subsisting Word And if Father and Son this Eternal Mind and Eternal Word be as essentially One as a mans Mind and his Word are One this is a Demonstration of their Inseparable Union and gives us a sensible Notion and Idea of it This is the account Athanasius every where gives of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Father and Son are inseparably One the Father being in the Son and the Son in the Father as the Word is in the Mind and the Light in the Sun To separate the Divine Persons so as not to be in each other whatever other Union we own between them Dionysius of Alexandria charges with Tritheism for the Divine Word must of necessity be one with God and the Holy Spirit be and subsist in him And this Athanasius resolves into such a Sameness and Unity of Nature as must be between two Relative Subsistencies in the same Individual Nature That the Son is in the Father as the Word is in the Mind and the Splendor in the Sun that he is a genuine proper natural Son in the Father's Essence and Substance not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not subsisting out of his Father's Substance as other Creature Sons do That the true Notion of the Sons being in the Father is that the whole Being of a Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Genuine Natural Birth of the Father's Substance the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Splendor is of the Sun That the very Being of the Son is the Form of Species and Divinity of the Father That as the Sun and its Splendor are two but not two Lights but one Light from the Sun enlightening all things with its Splendor and Brightness so the Divinity of the Son is the Divinity of the Father and therefore inseparable and thus there is but one God and none else besides him All this plainly refers to the Inseparable Union and Inbeing of Relatives of the same Individual Substance which are really distinct but essentially in each other as the Word is in the Mind and the Mind in the Word that Thought it self cannot part them which is such an Union as can never be between compleat absolute Substances which are not naturally Inseparable nor essentially One. Herein Athanasius places the adequate Notion of the Homoousion the Sameness Identity and Unity of Nature He tells us That for this reason the Nicene Fathers taught the Homoousion or that the Son is Consubstantial or of one Substance with the Father to signify that the Son is not only like the Father but to be so of the Father as to be the same in likeness not after the manner of Bodies which are like each other but subsist apart by themselves as Human Sons subsist separately from their Parents but the Generation of the Son of the Substance of the Father is of a different Kind and Nature from Human Generations for he is not only like but inseparable from his Father's Substance
He and the Father are One as he himself says The Word is always in the Father and the Father in the Word as it is with Light and its Splendor and this is what the Homoousion signifies and in like manner he resolves the Sameness Identity and Unity of Nature into this Internal Inseparable Union and Inbeing of Three essentially related to each other in One Individual Divinity 4 thly That Mutual Inbeing of the Divine Persons which is their Inseparable and Essential Union that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latins Circumincessio can be understood only between the Relatives of the same Individual Essence and Substance The true compleat Notion of this Inbeing or Perichoresis is not merely a Mutual Presence or the same Vbi that where-ever one is there the other is or a kind of Immeation and Penetration of each other which is a Corporeal Notion and rejected as such by the Catholick Fathers when they speak of this Divine Inbeing as St. Hilary expressly does inesse autem non aliud in alio ut corpus in corpore that they are not in each other as one Body is in another Body And when the Arians objected against our Saviour's saying I am in the Father and the Father in me How can this be in that and that in this Or how can the Father who is greater be at all in the Son who is less Or what wonder is it that the Son should be in the Father when it is written of us all That in him we live and move and have our being Athanasius answers That this is all owing to Corporeal Conceits as if they apprehended God to be a Body not considering the Nature of the True Father and true Son the Invisible and Eternal Light and its Invisible Splendor an Invisible Substance and its unbodied Character and Image But the true Notion of this Inbeing and Pericharesis is the Perfect Unity of the same Individual Nature in Three That the Nature and Essence of the Father is in the Son that the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Character Image Mind Divinity of the Father Here as Athanasius observes our Saviour himself lays the Reason and Foundation of this Mutual Inbeing He first tells us I and my Father are One and then adds I am in the Father and the Father in me that he might shew the Sameness and Identity of the Godhead and the Unity of Essence For they are One not One divided into two Parts and nothing more than One for they are Two the Father is the Father and not the Son and the Son is the Son and not the Father but there is but One Nature for he that is begotten is not unlike in Nature to him that begets but is his Image and all that the Father hath is the Sons There is no need to multiply Quotations to this purpose which may be met with every where The Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father as the Nature of the Father is lives and subsists in the Son not a Nature like the Fathers but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father 's own proper Nature and Essence they are in each other as being essentially One not One merely as being in each other as it is possible Three may be and yet not be essentially One but Three as Three compleat absolute Minds would be Three still though they should perfectly penetrate each other Or as Three Candles in the same Room are Three Lights though they are perfectly united in One But Original Mind its Word and Spirit are and must be in each other as being Three in One Individual Essence for the same undivided Essence can't be whole and entire in Three but those Three must be in each other If the Divinity of the Father is in the Son the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father the Mind is in its Word and the Word in the Mind The Son is in the Father as eternally begotten in the Substance of the Father whole of whole and essentially one and the same as the Word is in the Mind not by such an Union and Penetration as we may suppose between two Minds but as conceived in the Mind and essentially one and the same with it Now according to this Representation which all the Catholick Fathers make of this Mystery we must of necessity acknowledge Number without Multiplication Distinction without Division or Separation a perfect Trinity in perfect Unity Three Persons each of which is by himself True and Perfect God but not Three Gods but One God A Mind and its Word are two and a living subsisting Word is true and perfect Mind Mind of Mind and yet not two Minds but one Mind for the Mind and its Word are essentially One as all Men must confess the Word is in the Mind and the Mind in the Word and therefore identically one and the same for which reason the Fathers acknowledge that the Father is Spirit the Son Spirit and the Holy Ghost Spirit and these are Three but not Three Spirits as essentially related to each other in the same individual Essence essentially the same and essentially in each other And thus Will of Will Wisdom of Wisdom Life of Life Power of Power though they multiply and distinguish Persons do not multiply Wills Wisdoms Lives Powers which are essentially One as the Mind its Word and Spirit are One They are not One Life One Will One Understanding One Power in the Sense of but One who Lives who Wills who Understands and has Power but as the same identically the same Life and Will c. is in each of them and indivisibly and inseparably in them all And this gives an account of the Unity of Operation wherein the Catholick Fathers unanimously place the Unity of God for One Almighty Agent is but One God and One Essential Will Wisdom and Power can be but One Agent and Infinite Original Mind and its Eternal subsisting Word can have but One Will and Wisdom and Power for the Will and Wisdom of the Mind is in its Word the same not merely specifically the same or the same by consent as it may be between Two Minds which Will perfectly the same thing but the same One Individual Will the Father Wills and the Son Wills and they both Will distinctly but with one Individual Will as it is impossible that the Word should Will with any other Will but the Will of that Mind whose Word it is And therefore Father Son and Holy Ghost though Three Eternal Infinite Living Intelligent Willing Persons which Subsist and Act distinctly yet being that to each other in a more perfect and excellent manner that Mind its Word and Spirit are in Men they must be as perfectly One Almighty Agent as a created Mind is which Wills and Acts in its Word and Spirit The Distinction and Unity of
the better for it An Union of Substances seems to signify some kind of Contact which is hard to conceive between Body and Spirit but however an Union of Contact and an Union of Life are two very different kinds of Union and do not include or infer each other and therefore the true Answer to that Question How Soul and Body are united is not to say That their Substances are united or fastened together which gives us no notion of a Vital Union but that the Soul lives in the Body and gives life to it receives impressions srom it and governs its motions But to inquire farther is to inquire into the Reasons of Natural and Essential Unions which are as great Mysteries as Nature is We may as well ask How a Soul lives as how it animates a Body and God alone knows both So that to inquire after the Natural Nexus or Cement of this Union is nothing at all to the purpose and is not the Object of Human Knowledge Now though the Vital Union between Soul and Body and the Union of mutual Consciousness be of a very different Kind and Nature yet the Dispute about the Nexus or the Natural Union of Substances is much the same Consciousness is the Unity of a Spirit Self-consciousness is the Unity of a Person and by the same reason mutual Consciousness is a Natural Union of Three distinct Self-conscious Persons in the Unity of the same Nature And to reject this for want of a Nexus or the Natural Union of Substances is as if we should deny the Union of Soul and Body to be an Union of Life or Animation because this don't explain the Natural Nexus between Soul and Body If a Mutual Conscious Union be an Essential Union of Three distinct Persons in the same Nature as a Vital Union is the Essential Union of Soul and Body we have nothing to do in either Case with the Union of Substances which we can know nothing of and if we could should understand these Unions never the better for it For whatever Union of Substance we may suppose between Soul and Body and the Three Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity it is the Kind and Species of Union which gives us the Notion and Idea of it If you inquire what Spirit and what Matter is It would not be thought a good Answer to these Questions to say a Spirit is a Substance and Matter is a Substance without adding their Specifick Differences that a Spirit is an intelligent thinking Substance and Matter is an extended Substance nor is it a better Answer to that Question what Union there is between Soul and Body or between the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity To say That their Substances are united which gives us no distinct Notion of their Union but a Vital Union and a Mutual Conscious Union contain distinct Ideas and if these be Natural and Essential Unions though we know no more of the Union of Substances than we do what Substance is yet we know that the Soul and Body must be one Natural Person and the Three Divine Persons must be naturally and essentially One God for a Natural Union makes One according to the Nature of that Union It is visible enough what has occasioned this Mistake Men consider Mutual Consciousness between Three Compleat Absolute Independent Minds and rightly enough conclude that how conscious soever they were to each other this could not make them essentially One for every compleat Mind is One by it self and not naturally Conscious to any One but it self and by whatever Power they should be so united as to be mutually Conscious this could not make them essentially One they would be Three Mutually Conscious Minds not essentially One Mind for they are not by Nature One nor mutually Conscious and therefore may be parted again and cease to be so But then in this way of stating it the Objection equally lies against the Perichoresis the inseparable Union and In-being of Minds which can never make Three Compleat Absolute Minds essentially One But if we apply this to the Union of Living Subsisting Intelligent Relatives of the same Individual Essence to Father Son and Holy Ghost Eternal Self-originated Mind its Eternal Living Subsisting Word and Eternal Spirit this Mutual Consciousness gives us the most Intelligible Notion of the Essential and Inseparable Union and In-being of Three in One. I dare not say what other Men can do but I have tried my self and can form no Notion of an Unity in Trinity but what either necessarily includes or ultimately resolves it self into One Natural Essential Consciousness in Three The Divine Nature is indivisibly and inseparably One in Three but we must not understand this Inseparability after the manner of Bodies whose Parts may be divided and separated from each other God is not Body and has no Parts but in the Unity of the Godhead there is Eternal Original Mind an Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit which are inseparable from each other that is can never be parted What then can parting and separating signify in a Mind which has no Parts to be torn and divided from each other I can understand nothing by it but that the Mind does no longer see and know and feel its Word in it self nor the Word the Mind for this would make a perfect Separation between the Mind and its Word that Mind has no Word which does not see and feel it in it self and were it possible that a living subsisting Word should lose all Conscious Sensation of the Mind whose Word it is it would cease to be a Word and commence a perfect separate Mind it self So that as far as we can conceive it the Inseparable Union between Father and Son between Original Infinite Mind and its Eternal Word is an inseparable Conscious Life and Sensation which is such a Natural Demonstration of their Inseparable Union as no other Notion can give us for all Men feel that a Mind and its Word can never be parted a Mind can never be without its Word nor the Word subsist but in the Mind Thus what other possible Notion can we form of the Perichoresis or Mutual In-being of Father and Son as our Saviour tells us I am in the Father and the Father in me which is their Natural and Essential Unity I and my Father are one We all feel how the Word is in the Mind and the Mind in the Word the Mind knows and feels and comprehends its own Word and a perfect living subsisting Word knows and feels that whole Mind whose Word it is in it self for the Word is nothing else but the whole Mind living and subsisting in the Word which is another Hypostasis but perfectly One and the same Nature and therefore as they know themselves so they know and feel each other in themselves As the Father knoweth me saith Christ so know I the Father 10 John 15. And thus to see and know God by an Internal Sensation and to be
he allows to be a good Argument against the Arians which he could not have done had he not allowed this Consciousness in the Trinity but then observes That the Arians did as effâ—ctually consute them as to the distinction of Persons and thus between them both the Catholick Faith of a real distinction of Persons in the Sameness and Conscious Unity of Nature was vindicated In short If the whole Divine Nature is conscious to it self as every Created Mind is conscious to all that is in it self and the Three Divine Persons subsist in the Individual Unity of the same Nature then these Divine Persons must be intimately and mutually conscious to each other as a Mind its Word and Spirit are and however Men please to philosophize about this as to the prius posterius whether they will make the Unity of Nature the cause of this mutual Consciousness and therefore in order of Nature prior to it or make mutual Consciousness not the cause of this Unity but the Essential Union of Three Distinct Subsisting Persons in the Unity of the same Individual Nature I will not contend with any Man which of these speak most properly Consciousness is the Unity of an Intelligent Nature and the mutual Consciousness of Persons in the same Nature and the Conscious Unity of Nature in Three Distinct Persons is the same thing We cannot conceive the Unity of a Mind without Consciousness nor any other kind of Unity of a Mind but a Conscious Unity nor can we conceive an Internal Essential Consciousness without an Essential Unity and if the mutual Consciousness of Persons in the same Nature is the Consciousness of Nature I cannot see why we may not say That it is at least One Notion of the Unity of Nature too But to return where I left off if this may be called a a Digression what I have now said is sufficient to shew how necessary this Doctrine of Relations is to give us a sensible notion of a Trinity in Unity To assert a Real Trinity we must assert Three Real Distinct Subsisting Substantial Intelligent Persons neither of which is each other and each of which is by himself in his own proper Person True and Perfect God But this say Sabellians Arians and Socinians is to assert Three Gods which the Catholick Church always abhorred the thoughts of Now how the Fathers answered this Charge and vindicated the Divine Unity in a Trinity of Real Subsisting Persons I have already particularly shown as by the Consubstantiality the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature whole of whole their Inseparability and Unity of Operation but we can form no distinct Idea of all this but only among Personal Subsisting Relatives of the same Individual Nature Whatever is not this is a meer Specifick Consubstantiality and Identity of Nature and an External Union how inseparable soever it be which must make a number of Individuals in the Divine as well as Human Nature but now it is plain to a Demonstration That if God hath an Eternal Subsisting Word and an Eternal Subsisting Spirit they can be but One Individual Essence as a Man's Mind and Word and Spirit are One and therefore all Three but One God as a Man with his Mind and Word and Spirit iâ— but One Man which is an Intelligible Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Individual Essence and Godhead For though the Word of God be a Person which a Mâ—n's Word is not yet if his true Nature and Character is the Word he is the same to the Eternal Mind which a Man's Word is to his Created Mind and therefore God and his Living Subsisting Word must be One Individual Essence as a Man's Mind and his Word are One a Word must be conceived and begotten of the Mind and can have no other Substance if it be a Living Substantial Word but that of the Mind and if it be a perfect Word the perfect Image of the Mind it must be whole of whole all that the Mind is for the whole Mind is in its perfect Word and Image and lives and subsists in it and the whole Word in the Mind So that the Câ—eternity the Coequality the Consubstantiality the Identity the Inseparability the Unity of Operation between God and his Word is so far from being Jargon Contradiction Unintelligible Nonsense that iâ— God have an Eternal Word it is self-evident that thus it must be When we contemplate the Consubstantiality of Father and Son under the notion of Substance we can form no Idea of a whole which is of a whole that the Father should communicate his whole Essence and Substance to the Son and be the whole himself and this is no great wonder since we can form no Idea at all of the Divine Substance but we can very well understand That the Whole Mind must be in its Word that the Eternal Mind and its Word must be Consubstantial Coeternal Coequal Two but perfectly the same inseparably in each other for all this is included in the very Relation and Notion of a Mind and its Word I 'm sure a Living Subsisting Word which is not Consubstantial Coeternal Coequal with that Eternal Mind whose Word it is that a Mind should be without its Word that an Infinite Eternal Mind which is perfect Life and Being should have a vanishing perishing Word as Man has not a living subsisting Word that a Mind and its Word should ever be parted that the Word should not be and subsist in the Mind and the Mind in the Word I say all this contradicts all the Notions we have of a Mind and its Word We cannot immediately and directly contemplate the Divine Nature and Essence which is so infinitely above us and therefore we must contemplate it in such Ideas and Representations as God himself makes of it and if they are such as we can form an intelligible notion of we have no reason to complain of unintelligible Mysteries and Contradictions though when we reduce it into Terms of Art we find our Minds confounded and perplext and unable to form any distinct and easy Ideas The Arians to avoid the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father would not allow the Term Substance to be used of God the Catholick Fathers proved that Substance is in Scripture used concerning God and that the Arians could not reasonably reject it because they used it themselves for though they would not own the Son to be of the same Substance with the Father they taught that he was of another Substance which still is to own Substance in God But though God be in the most true and absolute sense perfect Essence and Being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or according to St. Ambrose his derivation of the Word which shews what he meant by it whether it shews his skill in Greek or not that Essence and Substance is that which always is and that which always is is God and therefore God is Essence and Substance and a