Nature as suppose Humanity should subsist in Twenty several Persons without the least variation I should not doubt notwithstanding the Specifick Unity of Nature to say there are Twenty subsisting Human Natures and Three Minds and Spirits which have no other difference are yet distinguished by self-consciousness and are Three distinct Spirits and therefore to help this out he sometimes adds that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no difference either of Nature or Energie in the Deity and at other times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Nature is invariable and undivided which all the ancient Fathers added to explain the Unity of the Trinity that inseparate Union of Nature which is between the Divine Persons that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inseparable from each other But however he might be mistaken in his Philosophy he was not in his Divinity for he asserts a numerical Unity of the Divine Nature not a meer Specifick Unity which is nothing but a Logical Notion nor a Collective Unity which is nothing but a Company who are naturally many but a true subsisting numerical Unity of Nature and if the difficulty of explaining this and his zeal to defend it forced him upon some unintelligible Niceties to prove that the same numerical Human Nature too is but one in all men it is hard to charge him with teaching that there are Three Independant and Coordinate Gods because we think he has not proved that Peter Iames and Iohn are but One man This will make very foul work with the Fathers if we charge them with all those Erronious Conceits about the Trinity which we can fancy in their inconvenient ways of explaining that venerable Mystery especially when they compare that mysterious Unity with any Natural Unions I am sure St. Gregory was so far from suspecting that he should be charged with Tritheism upon this Account that he fences against another Charge of mixing and confounding the Hypostases or Persons by denying any difference or diversity of Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which argues that he thought he had so fully asserted the Unity of the Divine Essence that some might suspect he had left but One Person as well as One Nature in God But though the Homoousiotes or Coessentiality of the Divine Persons is not sufficient alone to prove this Unity of the Godhead yet as I before observed this is necessary to an essential Unity for they must all have the same Nature or they cannot be One and therefore this was the first thing to be considered in the Unity of the Godhead Secondly To this Homo-ousiotes the Fathers added a numerical Unity of the Divine Essence This Petavius has proved at large by numerous Testimonies even from those very Fathers whom he before accused for making God only collectively One as Three Men are One Man such as Gregory Nyssen St. Cyril Maximus Damascen which is a demonstration that however he might mistake their explication of it from the Unity of human Nature they were far enough from Tritheism or One collective God For we must observe though all the Fathers assert the singularity of the Godhead or the numerical Unity of the Divine Essence yet they do not assert such a numerical Unity as there is where there is but One Person as well as One Essence but such a numerical Unity as there is between Three who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the very same nature but are not meerly united by a specifick Unity but by an essential Union and therefore are Three and One This as Maximus truly says is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both a wonderful distinction and union but though several Fathers attempt several ways of explaining it they all agree in the thing that Father Son and Holy Ghost Three distinct Divine Persons are united in one numerical Nature and Essence And I cannot but observe that Petavius greatly commends Boethius's explication of this Mystery which is the very same he had before condemned in Gregory Nyssen and those other Fathers That Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God not Three Gods Cujus conjunctionis ratio est indifferentia the reason or manner of which Union and Conjunction is their indifference that is such a sameness of Nature as admits of no difference or variety or an exact Homo-ousiotes as he explains it Eos enim differentia comitatur qui vel augent vel minuunt ut Ariani qui gradibus meritorum Trinitatem variantes distrahunt atque in pluralitatem deducunt Those make a difference who augment and diminish as the Arians do who distinguish the Trinity into different Natures as well as Persons of different worth and excellency and thus divide and multiply the Trinity into a plurality of Gods Principium enim pluralitatis alteritas est Proeter alteritatem enim nec pluralitas quid sit intelligi potest For the beginning of plurality is alterity for we know not what plurality is but alterity that is there must be some difference in the Nature of Things to make them Two or Three but when the Nature is exactly the same they are but One which is exactly the same account which Gregory gave of it as I have already shewn and why this should be little better than Heresie in him and very good Divinity in Boethius is a little mysterious for after all this numerical Unity of Essence is nothing else but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where there are no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Maximus speaks such an invariable sameness of Nature as has no differences to distinguish it and therefore must be One For these Fathers apprehended that where there was such an exact sameness of Nature they did mutually exist in each other and were but One Power and Energie Will and Counsel and therefore but One Godhead and Monarchy This Gregory Nyssen insists on as I shewed before and Petavius has quoted a remarkable Testimony from Damascen to this purpose which shews also that though they asserted but One Humanity yet they were far enough from thinking that the Three Divine Persons are One God only as Peter Iames and Iohn are one Man where he tells us That the distinction and separation between Peter and Paul is real and visible their union and community of Nature only Notional for we conceive in our minds that Peter and Paul are of the same kind and have but One common Nature thus common Nature is discerned by Reason but yet it subsists by Parts and separately by itself and is distinguished from itself as it subsists in individuals by many things some peculiar marks and properties but especially that they do not subsist in each other but separately and therefore may be called Two or Three or many Men and Gregory Nyssen says the same as Petavius himself owns but in the most sacred Trinity it is otherwise for there the community of Nature is not a Logical Notion but is real from the same Eternity Identity of Substance Action Will
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
he be but One Christ he must be God and Man in one Person for two Persons make two Christs and if the same One Christ be both God and Man then the Divine and Humane Nature continue distinct without any mixture or confusion he is perfect God and perfect Man in opposition to the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches the first of whom divided the Persons the second confounded the Natures the first made God and Man two distinct Persons and two Christs the second swallowed up the Humanity in God This may serve for a brief Vindication of the Athanasian Creed that it teaches nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God and I thought fit to premise this to let the World see that all the spight against Athanasius's Creed is not so much intended against that Creed as against the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation which are so fenced and guarded from all Heretical Senses and Expositions in that Creed that there is no place left for Tricks and Evasions And now I come to consider the Brief Notes and to expose the Venome and Blasphemy of them which deserves a sharper Confutation than this And that this Author may not complain of unfair usage I shall examine them Paragraph by Paragraph SECT III. Concerning the Necessity of the Catholick Faith to Salvation and a brief History of Athanasius WHosoever will be saved before all things 't is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith A good Life is of absolute necessity to Salvation but a right belief in these Points that have been always controverted in the Churches of God is in no degree necessary much less necessary before all things He that leads a profane and vicious Life sins against a plain acknowledged Rule and the plain and unquestioned Word and Letter of the Divine Law and the Dictates of Natural Conscience he wilfully refuses to advert to these Monitors and therefore can no way palliate or excuse his wickedness But he that errs in a Matter of Faith after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed is in no fault at all his Error is pure ignorance not a culpable Ignorance For how can it be culpable not to know that of which a Man is ignorant after a diligent and impartial Enquiry This I must confess is as artificial an Introduction to these Notes as could have been invented for it makes Faith a very useless and Heresie a very innocent and harmless thing and then Men need not be much concerned what they believe if they take care to live well The Creed affirms That the Catholick Faith is before all things necessary to Salvation if this be true then how vertuously soever Men live they may be damned for Heresie and this is a dangerous point and will make Men too much afraid of Heresie to trade in such Notes as these and therefore this must be confuted in the first place to take off the dread and fear of Heresie Now can we hope that any thing should escape the Censures of such a Critick who will not allow the Catholick Faith to be necessary to Salvation For if the Catholick Faith is not necessary no Faith is and then we may be saved without Faith and yet the Scripture tells us that we are justified and saved by Faith and if any Faith saves us I suppose it must be the Catholick Faith and then whoever does not hold this saving Catholick Faith must be damned So that at best he has placed this Note wrong he should only have opposed the necessity of Athanasius's Catholick Faith to Salvation not of the Catholick Faith in general and yet this seems not to be a mistake but design for his Arguments equally hold against all Faith as well as against Athanasius's Creed and will serve a Turk a Iew or a Pagan as well as a Heretick For if what he says is true He that errs in a Question of Faith after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed is in no fault at all How comes an Atheist or an Infidel a Turk or a Jew to be in any fault and if they be good Moral Men and many of them are or may be so why should they be damned for their Atheism or Infidelity for their not believing a God or not believing in Christ at all For are not these Questions of Faith whether there be a God and a Providence and whether Christ be that Messias who came from God Or does our Author think that no Atheist or Infidel no unbelieving Jew or Heathen ever used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed Whatever he can say against their reasonable diligence I doubt will be as easily said against the reasonable diligence of Socinians and other Hereticks If you say he confines this to such Points as have always been controverted in the Churches of God I desire to know a reason why he thus confines it For does not his Reason equally extend to the Christian Faith it self as to those Points which have been controverted in Christian Churches And why then should not Infidels as well have the benefit of this Principle as Hereticks But I desire to know what Articles of our Faith have not been controverted by some Hereticks or other And whether then this does not give sufficient scope to Infidelity to renounce all the Articles of our Creed which have been denied or corrupted by some professed Christians But what he would insinuate in this that these Points of the Athanasian Creed have always been matter of Controversie in the Christian Church is manifestly false as appears from all the Records of the Church The Anti Nicene Fathers were of the same Faith before the Definition of the Council of Nice as the Learned Dr. Ball has abundantly proved this was always the Faith of the Christian Church and those Hereticks who taught otherwise either separated themselves from the Church or were flung out of it and I hope the Disputes of Hereticks against the Catholick Faith shall not be called Controversies in the Churches of God And yet I desire to know why that may not be the Catholick Faith and necessary to Salvation which has always been matter of Controversie Has the Catholick Faith any such Priviledge as not to be controverted Or is it a sufficient proof that nothing is a point of the Catholick Faith which has been disputed and controverted by some or other in all Ages of the Church And if Men of perverse Minds may dispute the most necessary Articles of Faith then if any Faith be necessary it may be of dangerous consequence to err with our reasonable diligence in such necessary and Fundamental Points as are and have been disputed But before I dismiss this Point it may be convenient to instruct this Author if he can use any reasonable diligence to understand how necessary it is to Salvation and that before all other things to
neither wise nor powerful But this acute Father discovered a great inconvenience in this argument for it forces us to say that the Father is not wise but by that Wisdom which he begot not being himself Wisdom as the Father and then we must consider whether the Son himself as he is God of God and Light of Light may be said to be Wisdom of Wisdom if God the Father be not Wisdom but only begets Wisdom and by the same reason we may say that he begets his own Greatness and Goodness and Eternity and Omnipotency and is not himself his own Greatness or Goodness or Eternity or Omnipotency but is Great and Good Eternal and Omnipotent by the Greatness Goodness Eternity Omnipotency which is born of him as he is not his own Wisdom but is wise with that Wisdom which he begets The Master of the Sentences follows St. Austin exactly in this Point and urges this unanswerable Argument for it which he grounds upon St. Austin's Principle That in God to be and to be wise is the same thing and if it be he cannot be wise with the Wisdom he begets for then he would receive his Being from this begotten Wisdom not Wisdom from him for if the Wisdom he begets be the Cause of his being wise it is the Cause also that he is which must be either by begetting or by making him but no man will say that Wisdom is any way the Begetter or Maker of the Father which is the heighth of madness And in the next Chapter he teaches That the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten Wisdom so that according to St. Austin and the Master of the Sentences who is the Oracle of the Schools the Father is Eternal Wisdom or an Eternal Mind and the Son Eternal Wisdom and Mind though both are united into One Eternal Wisdom and if we confess this of Father and Son there can be no Dispute about the Holy Ghost who is Eternal Mind and Wisdom distinct both from Father and Son Nothing is more familiar with the Ancient Fathers than to represent Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Three as distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn are as every one knows who is at all versed in this Controversie and this is charged on them by some men as little better than Polytheism or a Trinity of Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are a Trinity of men but this must be true with reference to distinction of Persons if we will acknowledge a real distinction between them for if the distinction be real and not meerly nominal which was the Heresie of Sabellius their Persons must be as distinct as three humane Persons or three men are The Father is no more the Son or the Holy Ghost than Peter is Iames or Iohn but then they are not separated or divided from each other as Peter Iames and Iohn are for that indeed would make them three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are three men There is no Example in Nature of such a distinction and unity as is between the Three Persons in the Godhead and therefore the ancient Fathers made use of several Comparisons to different purposes which must carefully be confined to what they applied them for if we extend them farther we make Nonsense or Heresie of them There are three things to be considered in the ever blessed Trinity the Distinction of Persons the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature and their Essential Unity and the Fathers make use of different Comparisons to represent each of these by because no one can represent them all but inconsidering Persons seek for all in One and because they cannot find it they reject them all as impertinent dangerous or heretical and reproach the Fathers sometimes as ignorant of this great Mystery sometimes as bordering upon Heresie which I am sure does little service to the Doctrine it self and gives great countenance to false and corrupt Notions of it whence the Fathers themselves even those who were the most zealous Opposers of Arianism are thought Favourites of such Opinions I shall have occasion to take notice of several Instances of this as I go on at present I shall confine my self to the Distinction of Persons which cannot be more truly and aptly represented than by the distinction between three men for Father Son and Holy Ghost are as really distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn but whoever shall hence conclude That these Fathers thought that Father Son and Holy Ghost are no otherwise One also than Peter Iames and Iohn are greatly abuse them without any colourable pretence for it as will appear more presently but this Comparison of theirs shows what their sense was that these Three Divine Persons are Three Eternal and Infinite Minds as really distinct from each other as Three men are though essentially united into One Infinite and Eternal Mind or One God But I need not insist on this for the real distinction of Persons is so plainly taught by the ancient Fathers especially after the rise of the Sabellian Heresie that there is more difficulty to understand how they unite them into One God then that they make them distinct Persons and what they say about the unity of the Godhead abundantly proves this distinction of Persons Secondly Let us therefore in the second place consider How they explain this great Mystery of a Trinity in Unity they all agree That there are Three distinct Persons and that these Three Persons are but One God and they seem to me to agree very well in that account they give of it though some late Writers are very free and I think very unjust in their Censures of some of them as scarcely Orthodox in this Point I shall only remind you that this being so great a Mystery of which we have no Example in Nature it is no wonder if it cannot be explained by any one kind of Natural Union and therefore it was necessary to use several Examples and to allude to several kinds of Union to form an adequate Notion of the Unity of the Godhead and we must carefully apply what they say to those Ends and Purposes for which they said it and not extend it beyond their Intension as I observed before and there are several steps they take towards the Explication of this great Mystery which I shall represent in short and show that taking them altogether they give a plain and intelligible Notion of this Unity in Trinity and indeed no other than what I have already given of it 1. The first thing then to be considered is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orCo-essentiallity of the Divine Persons That all Three Persons in the God-head have the same Nature which they signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now whereas the same Nature may signifie the same Numerical or the same Specifick Nature Petavius and after him Dr. Cudworth have abundantly proved that the Nicene Fathers did not understand this word of a
Numerical but Specifick Sameness of Nature or the agreement of things numerically differing from one another in the same common Nature As Maximus very plainly tell us that that is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has the same Notion or Definition of its Essence as a man differs nothing from a man as he is a man nor an Angel from an Angel as he is an Angel and therefore this word did equally overthrow the Sabellian and the Arian Heresie as it affirms both a distinction of Persons and the sameness of Nature as St. Ambrose and others observe for nothing is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it self but to something else distinct from it self but of the same common Nature and therefore some who owned the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as savouring of Sabellianism and implying such a numerical Unity of Essence in the Godhead as destroyed all distinction of Persons for which reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self was rejected by some as abused by the Sabellians till the signification of that word was fixt and declared by the Fathers at Nice as Petavius observes This is One thing wherein the Fathers place the Unity of the Godhead that all three Persons have the same Nature and to be sure this is absolutely necessary to make Three Persons One God for it is impossible they should be One God if they have not the same Nature unless Three distinct and separate Beings of divers Natures can be One God that is unless the Divine Nature be not One pure and simple Act but a compound Being and that of different Natures too But some of the Fathers went farther than this and placed the Essential Unity of the Divine Nature in the sameness of Essence that there is but One God because all the Three Divine Persons have the same Nature And it will be necessary briefly to examine what they meant by it to vindicate these Fathers from the Mis-representations and hard Censures of Petavius and Dr. Cudworth who as I hope to make appear have greatly mistaken their Sense The Charge is that they make the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God only upon account of the same Specifical Divine Nature common to them all just as Three men are One by having the same common Nature or the same Humanity and being asked Why they may not then be called Three Gods as well as we say Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men they answer That this is owing to an ill Custom for they ought not to be called Three men neither which is like saying there are Three Human Natures and though in inferiour Matters we may bear with the abuse of Words and improper forms of Speech yet this is of dangerous Consequence when we speak of God and therefore though there is no great hurt in saying there are Three men though there is but one Humanity common to them all yet we must not say there are Three Gods since there is but One Divine Nature and Essence common to all Three Persons This Petavius says is to deny the true and real Unity of the Divine Substance and Essence and to make God only collectively One as a multitude of men are said to be One People and a multitude of Believers One Church which was the Error of Abbot Ioachim for which he was Condemned in the Council of Lateran Dr. Cudworth represents it thus These Theologers supposed the Three Persons of their Trinity to have really no other than a Specifick Vnity and Identity and because it seems plainly to follow from hence that therefore they must needs be as much Three Gods as Three men are Three men these Learned Fathers endeavoured with their Logick to prove that Three men are but abusively and improperly so called Three they being really and truly but One because there is but One and the same Specifick Essence or Substance of Human Nature in them all He adds It seems plain that this Trinity is no other than a kind of Tritheism and that of Gods Independent and Co-ordinate too This is a very high Charge and yet these Theologers are no less men than Gregory Nyssen and Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus and Damascen men of Note in their Generation and never charged with Heresie before But whatever the meaning of these Fathers was it is plain that Petavius and Dr. Cudworth have mistaken their meaning For they did not think that Father Son and Holy Ghost were one God only as Peter Iames and Iohn are one man or that Peter Iames and Iohn are One man as Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God they neither dreamt of a Collective nor Specifick Unity of the Godhead but asserted a real subsisting numerical Unity of Essence as is obvious to every impartial Reader and therefore if they had not understood how they explained this yet they ought not to have put such a sense upon their Words as is directly contrary to what they affirm I shall not need to transcribe much out of these Fathers to justifie them in this Point but will only represent their Argument as plainly as I can and that will be their Justification whatever become of their Argument They affirm then That Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One God because there is and can be but One numerical Divinity or one Divine Nature and Essence though it subsist in Three distinct Persons against this it was objected that Peter Iames and Iohn though they have the same Human Nature yet are called Three men and there is no absurdity in it when there are more than One who have the same Nature to speak of them in the Plural Number to call Two Two and Three Three how then comes it to pass that Religion forbids this that when we acknowledge Three Persons who have the same Nature without any imaginable difference we must in a manner contradict our selves confessing the Divinity of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One and the same and denying that they are Three Gods This Gregory Nyssen answers at large and I shall chiefly confine my self to the Answers he gives which will abundantly show how much these two Learned Men have mis-represented his Sense And first he takes notice of the common Form of Speech of calling Three who partake of the same Human Nature Three Men which inclines us to call the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost who have all the same Divine Nature Three Gods and that naturally betrays men into the Opinion of a Trinity of Gods as well as of a Trinity of Persons who are as much Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men and therefore he tells us that this is an improper way of speaking even when applied to men to say that there are Three men For man is the name of Nature not of the Person to
say that there is but One man is no more than to say there is but One Humanity and to say there are Three men is to say there are Three Humanities or Three Human Natures and the Name of Nature cannot be a proper Name of distinction and therefore ought not to be multiplied for that which is the same in all cannot distinguish one Person from another This he observes all men are very sensible of for when they would call any particular Person out of a Crowd they do not call him by the Name of Nature that is they do not say you man come hither for this being a common Name as the Nature is common no man could tell who was meant but they call him by the Name of his Person Peter or Iames for though there are many who partake of the same Human Nature yet there is but One man or One Humanity in them all Persons are distinguished and divided and multiplied by peculiar personal properties and therefore may be numbred but Nature is One united with it self a perfect indivisible Unity which neither increases by addition nor is diminished by Substraction but though it be in a Multitude of Individuals is whole entire and undivided in all And therefore as a People an Army a Church are named in the single number though they consist of Multitudes so in exactness and propriety of Speech man may be said to be One though there are a Multitude who partake of the same Human Nature So that hitherto all that the Father hath said tends only to justifie this Form of Speech as having nothing absurd or incongruous in it to acknowledge that the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet that there is but One Divinity or Godhead not Three Gods for though this sounds as harsh as to own that Peter is a man and Iames a man and Iohn a man and yet there are not Three men but One man which Custom has made very absurd and contradictious to say which is the Objection he was to Answer yet he observes that according to strict propriety of speaking this is no absurdity to say there are not Three men but One man nay that it is an abuse of Speech to say otherwise because man is the Name of Nature not of a Person and therefore there is but One man as there is but One Human Nature in all those who partake of it for Human Nature is but One whole and indivisible in all and therefore cannot distinguish One Person from another and therefore not be a Name of Number But what makes St. Gregory dispute thus nicely about the use of words and oppose the common and ordinary Forms of Speech Did he in good earnest believe that there is but One man in the World No! No! he acknowledged as many men as we do a great Multitude who had the same Human Nature and that every One who had a Human Nature was an individual man distinguished and divided from all other Individuals of the same Nature what makes him so zealous then against saying that Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men Only this that lie says Man is the Name of Nature and therefore to say there are Three men is the same as to say there are Three Human Natures of a different kind for if there are Three Human Natures they must differ from each other or they can't be Three and so you deny Peter Iames and Iohn to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the same Nature and for the same reason we must say that though the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet there are not Three Gods but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Godhead and Divinity lest we destroy their Homoousiotes or the Sameness of their Nature and introduce Three Gods of a different Nature like the Pagan Polytheism which is the first reason he gives why we do not say there are Three Gods to avoid the suspicion of Polytheism in numbring and multiplying Gods as the Heathens did which he says is a sufficient Answer for ignorant and unskilful People But to say this in gross will not satisfie more inquisitive men and therefore he assigns the reason for it that Individuals in strict propriety of Speech ought not to be numbred by the name of their Nature because that argues a diversity in their Natures to say Three men is to say there are Three different Humanities whereas Humanity is One and the same in all and as men are not distinguished so they ought not to be numbred by the Name of Nature and that this is all his meaning appears from the reason he gives why this improper way of speaking may be tolerated without any inconvenience when we speak of men that we may say there are Three men but it is very dangerous to apply this to the Divinity and say there are Three Gods because there is no danger by this Form of Speech that that there are Three or more men that any one should be betrayed into that Conceit that we mean a Multitude of Humanities or many different Human Natures but there is danger lest our naming more Gods or saying that there are Three Gods men should imagine that there are divers and different Natures in the Divinity that is that the Three Persons in the Godhead are not all of the same Nature Here St. Gregory lays his Foundation That we must not say there are Three Gods because there is but One Divinity Father Son and Holy Ghost being all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Nature whereas God being the Name of Nature to say there are Three Gods is to say there are Three different Divinities or Divine Natures which destroys the Homoousiotes of the Godhead which is the Sum of his Argument against using the Name of Nature Plurally to say there are Three men or Three Gods There is nothing more plain than this in the Dialogues of Maximus who all along explains this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One Divinity and the One Humanity by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Sameness of Nature and therefore there can be but One Nature though it subsist in several Persons or Individuals Now indeed had they gone no farther in explaining the Unity of the Godhead than this Specifick Unity and Identity of Nature there had been some reason to quarrel with them but they do not stop here but proceed to show how this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature in all Three Persons of the ever blessed Trinity proves a true Numerical and Essential Unity of the Godhead which it does not and cannot do in created Natures without this it is evident there can be no Essential Unity unless we will allow of a Composition of different Natures in the Godhead where the Nature is the same it may be One not only by a Logical but by a Real and Essential Unity Gregory Nyssen
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.
of the Father is not the One Supreme God and the Holy Ghost who proceeds from Father and Son is not the One Supreme God The Major is as self-evident as any Proposition in Euclide whoever understands the Terms must confess it to be true that the One Supreme God cannot be begotten nor proceed from any other the Minor is confessed by Trinitarians that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son how then shall we avoid the Conclusion That the Son is not the One Supreme God nor the Holy Ghost the One Supreme God Indeed no way that I know of for the thing is true the Son is not the One Supreme God nor the Holy Ghost the One Supreme God nay nor the Father the One Supreme God considered separately from each other but Father Son and Holy Ghost or a Trinity in Unity is the One Supreme God Now of this One Supreme God it is certainly true that he is not begotten nor proceeds from any other for then there must be a God above this One Supreme God but if there be Three Persons in this One Supreme God this does not hinder but the Father may beget the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from Father and Son and yet the One Supreme God neither be begotten nor proceed for it is not the One Supreme God that is begotten but the Divine Person of the Son who is God and with the Father and Holy Spirit One Supreme God nor is it the One Supreme God that proceeds but the Divine Person of the Holy Ghost who also is God and together with Father and Son One Supreme God This is plain and what every one may understand at first sight and the fallacy of the Argument consists in this That whatever may be affirmed of the One Supreme God is applied to each Divine Person in their Personal Capacities as if each Person considered separate from the other Divine Persons were the One Supreme God Now this is false for the One Supreme God is not any One Person distinct and separate from the rest but all Three Persons essentially united into One God and therefore the Application must be false too when what is true of the One Supreme God is applied to every distinct Person in the Godhead It is certain the One Supreme God can neither be Father Son nor Holy Ghost If he be a Father he must beget a Son who is not One with him and yet is God For the Son of God who is begotten of his Father's Substance and has the same Nature with him which is the proper Notion of a begotten Son must be God as the Son of a man is a man And if the Father himself in his own proper Person as begetting the Son be the One Supreme God the whole entire Deity then he must beget a Son without not within himself who is not and cannot be that One Supreme God that the Father is The One Supreme God is One in himself and separate from all other Beings And therefore if the One Supreme God be a Father he must beget a Son separate from himself if he be a Son he must have a Father separate from himself and so of the Holy Ghost In the One Supreme God there may and must be a Trinity of Divine Persons within the Unity of the Godhead there is a Father a Son and a Holy Ghost but the One Supreme God is neither neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds for all Three Persons are the One Supreme God and what belongs to the Godhead belongs to them all as considered in the Unity of the same Godhead but not as considered in their distinct Personal Capacities as One is the Father the other the Son and the third the Holy Spirit And thus it is in the present Case the One Supreme God can no more be sent then he can be begotten can receive no Commands from any other cannot be given by any other cannot be subject to any other Will but his own c. but the Divine Persons may send and be sent and interceed with each other for though in the Unity of the Godhead they are all the One Supreme God yet there is a mutual Relation and Subordination between the Divine Persons as I have already explained it As to instance in Intercession or Prayer for himself or others which is a Contradiction to the Notion of a Supreme God as it is to the Notion of an Absolute and Soveraign Prince But yet a Soveraign Prince may interceed with himself his own Wisdom his own Mercy Clemency and Compassion may interceed with him and prevail too without any diminution to his own Soveraign Power Thus though the Supreme God can interceed with no other Being yet the Son may interceed with the Father his own eternal and begotten Wisdom may interceed with him and make Atonement and Expiation for sinners and thus God interceeds with no body but himself for it is his own Wisdom which interceeds with him and makes the Atonement And if we will consider things aright we shall find that there can be no other Advocate with the Father but the Son but his own eternal and begotten Wisdom When a man interceeds with himself it is done by reflecting on his own Mind and examining the Reasons and Motives he finds there to pity and spare and to do good that is by his reflex Wisdom and Knowledge of himself which in the Godhead is the Son God's reflex Knowledge of himself or his begotten Wisdom that Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word which Philo calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High Priest For let us consider what it is to interceed with God and what kind of Intercession is consistent both with the Soveraign Authority and Soveraign Goodness of God An infinitely wise and just and good Being cannot be moved by meer Entreaties nor by the bare Interest and Favour of the Advocate for this is weakness in men and therefore cannot be incident to the Divine Nature Now if you set aside Entreaties and Importunities and Favour there can be no other Advocate with the Father but his own Eternal Wisdom It is his own Wisdom that must Atone him that must reconcile him to sinners that must obtain Pardon and all other Blessings for them for if this cannot be done wisely God cannot do it and therefore his own Wisdom must do all this for no created Wisdom can But God loves his own Wisdom his only begotten Son and therefore Wisdom is a powerful Advocate and must prevail with the Father So that the Son's Intercession with the Father is so far from being incongruous or inconsistent with his being God that the Divine Nature can admit of no other Advocate or Intercessor properly so called To intercede with a never-failing Effect and Success is an Act of Power and Authority and for God to make a Creature-Advocate and Mediator is to give a Creature Authority over himself which
And adds The very truth is they cannot otherwise defend the Incarnation or Personal Vnion of an infinite God to a finite Man This is Gibberish which I do not understand but this I do understand which I suppose is the meaning of it if it have any meaning That an Eternal Being who has no beginning and no succession of Being may Coexist with time and that an infinite Mind who has no parts or extension is present every where without extension This I have sufficiently discoursed already and refer my Reader to it But he has a thundring Argument against this But withal it must be owned that then the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation do infer imply and suppose all the Contradictions that Mr. Johnson has objected to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation I hope not all for that is a very good Discourse and I only wish for the Author's sake si sic omnia but pray what is the matter His whole Book and all his Demonstrations are founded upon these two Suppositions That a longer time doth not all of it coexist in a shorter nor is a greater extension constipated or contained in a less Suppose this for I have forgot what his Demonstrations are and have not the Book now by me what is this to the Trinity and Incarnation though a longer time cannot all of it coexist in a shorter which I hope is not so loosly expressed by Mr. Iohnson because it is not sense for time is in a perpetual flux and nothing of it exists but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what is this to an Eternal Being's coexisting with time without time or succession Though a greater Extension cannot be contained in a less what is this to an infinite Mind's being present every where without Extension for here is no Comparison between a longer and shorter time but between Time and Eternity which is not Time nor Succession nor between a greater and less Extension but between a finite and infinite Mind neither of which have any Extension But suppose the worst how does this concern the Doctrine of the Incarnation If he could tell how to apply all the Demonstrations of Mr. Iohnson which he tells us in Print he forbears to do because the Press is not open to them these Absurdities and Contradictions would not fall upon the Doctrine of the Incarnation but upon the Notion of an Omnipresent God who has no Parts nor Extension which was not invented to salve the Difficulties of the Incarnation but is the true Notion of God and his Omnipresence who is not Omnipresent by Parts but is every where a perfect and infinite Mind and if he can ridicule God out of the World we will quarrel no more about the Incarnation I do not at all wonder that he boasts so much what Follies and Contradictions he could discover in the Athanasian Creed for a man who cannot understand common Sense can never fail of finding Follies and Contradictions 2. He proves That the Vnion between God and Man cannot make one Person as the Vnion of Body and Soul does because the Vnion of Soul and Body is not the Vnion of Two Persons but only of One Person the Soul to a thing otherways without Life Reason Memory or Free-will But in the pretended Vnion of God with Man there are Two distinct and very different Lives Memories Reasons and Free-wills which utterly destroys a Personal Vnion for that supposes but One Life One Reason One Memory One Free-will Now this is false as to matter of Fact for though we will allow the Soul to be the Person yet by its Union to the Body it has two sorts of different Lives Wills Affections Appetites Reasons the Animal and Sensual and the Rational Life Will Appetites a Carnal and a Spiritual Reason that is two different Principles of Flesh and Spirit as much as if every Man had two Souls So that there may be two Lives two Wills c. in the same Person and it makes no difference in this Case whether these two Wills be seated in two different Subjects or the same Soul by its vital Union to Matter have two distinct Wills and Reasons and therefore we must find out some other Notion of a Personal Union than this that one Person can have but one Will one Reason c. for it is plain one Person may have two Wills and Reasons and if he may have two he may have three according to the number and diversity of Natures which are united into One Person Now when I inquire what it is that unites different Natures into One Person I do not mean what it is that naturally unites them neither what the natural Union is between Soul and Body in the Person of Man nor of God and Man in the Person of Christ for this we know nothing of and therefore no pretended Contradictions and Impossibilities in this shall hinder my belief of it as I discoursed in the first Section But how two different Natures may be so united as to make but One Agent for One Agent is One Person Now there are but two things necessary to this 1. That these different Natures be so united that the superior Nature have the Government of the whole Person unless there be One governing Principle there cannot be One Agent and therefore not One Person and the superior Nature must be the Governour and the Person as this Author tells us the Soul is the Person in man as being the superior governing Principle and in the Soul Reason has the natural government of Sense as being the superior Faculty proper to a Spirit whereas Sense results from its Union to Matter And thus in Christ the Divine Word is the Person and in this Personal Union of God and Man has such a government of Humane Nature as Reason has over Sense in Man and therefore St. Iohn tells us That the Word was made Flesh or was Incarnate for the Person of the Word took Humane Nature into a Personal Union with himself And this is the Reason why all the Actions and Passions of Humane Nature are attributed to Christ as the Son of God because the Word is the Person to whom Humane Nature is united and who has the sole government of it as all the Sufferings and Actions of the Body are attributed to the Man though the Soul is the Person because it is the superior and governing Power and constitutes the Person 2. To compleat a Personal Union it is necessary there be One Consciousness in the whole As a Man has a conscious Sensation of every thing which is done or suffered either by Body or Soul feels its own Reasonings and Passions and all the Pains and Pleasures of the Body and in this Sense there must be but one Life in one Person and this own Consciousness to the whole is the One Life But then we must observe That where different Natures are united into One Person this universal Consciousness to the whole Person is seated
again to make all things of nothing and to reduce all things to nothing again to know all things past present and to come especially the most contingent Futurities the freest Thoughts and Counsels of Men before they think them or some Ages before they themselves are in being without imposing a Fatal Necessity on Humane Actions I say the Notion of such a Being is very much above our conception and to an Atheist who is for believing nothing but what he can fully comprehend seems very absurd and contradictious This shews that Men may easily mistake in charging the Nature and Notions of Things with Contradictions and therefore we must enquire how we may discover when such an appearing Contradiction is not real but is wholly owing to our imperfect conception of things I. Now in the first place we have great reason to suspect this when it relates to such things as all Mankind agree we do not and cannot fully understand or comprehend for it is a vain and arrogant presumption to say what is or what is not a Contradiction when we confess we do not understand or comprehend the thing we speak of A Contradiction in the Nature of Things is what is contrary to the Nature of that Being of which we speak Now so far as we understand the Nature of any Being we can certainly tell what is contrary and contradictions to its Nature As that Accidents should subsist without their subject that a Body should be without extension or an organized Body without any distinction of parts that the same individual Body should be in Heaven and on Earth and in a thousand distant places at the same time that Flesh and Blood should lie invisible under the Species of Bread and Wine that a Body suppose of five or six foot long should be concealed under the least crum of Bread these and such like are the manifest Absurdities and Contradictions of Transubstantiation and we know that they are so because we know the Nature of a Body and know that such things are a contradiction to the essential Properties of a Body But now all Men must confess that they have not a clear and comprehensive Notion of the Nature and Essential Properties of a Spirit especially of an infinite Spirit as God is and it is impossible to know what is contrary to the Nature of a Spirit if we know not what the Nature of a Spirit is and that Man who shall pretend to comprehend all that is possible in an infinite Nature is as contemptibly ridiculous as if he should challenge to himself infinite Knowledge for without that no Man can comprehend what is infinite II. It is a sufficient proof that such seeming Contradictions are not in the nature of things but in our imperfect manner of conceiving them when we have other evident proofs that the thing is though we cannot comprehend it for nothing can be which involves a Contradiction in its nature and therefore if it is the contradiction is not real but imaginary As for instance As unconceivable as the Notion of Eternity is yet all Mankind even Atheists themselves must confess that something was from Eternity for if ever there was nothing it is impossible there ever should have been any thing for that which once was not can never be without a cause and therefore whatever Difficulties there may be in the Notion of an Eternal Being we must acknowledge something Eternal and that is proof enough that there is nothing absurd or contradictious in the Notion though we cannot comprehend it and I am sure the Notion of a first Eternal Cause is much more easie and natural than to make either Matter or the World and all the Creatures in it Eternal Whatever we can certainly prove to be either by Sense Reason or Revelation if there be any difficulty in conceiving it we must attribute that to the imperfection of our own Knowledge not to any Absurdity or Contradiction in the thing itself This shews how unreasonable that Method is which is taken by Atheists Infidels and Hereticks to dispute against the being of any thing from the difficulty of conceiving it and some pretended Absurdities and Contradictions in it when there are very plain proofs that the thing is and such as it is impossible for them fairly to answer this is the fundamental miscarriage which is not owing to a prudent caution as is pretended but to wilfulness and obstinacy and pride of Understanding or to a fixed prejudice and aversion to the belief of such matters and therefore I shall not only observe but particularly prove the unreasonableness of it The proof of this comes to this one point that we may have sufficient evidence of the being of a thing whose nature we cannot conceive and comprehend he who will not own this contradicts the sense and experience of Mankind and he who confesses this and yet rejects the belief of that which he has good evidence for meerly because he cannot conceive it is a very absurd and senseless Infidel And the reason of this is very plain because all the ways whereby the being of any thing can be proved are obvious and intelligible to all Mankind but the nature of most things are very dark and obscure and such as the wisest Men know little or nothing of And therefore we may certainly know that a great many things are whose nature and essential properties we cannot conceive As to shew this particularly 1. The proofs that any thing is are either from Sense from Reason or from Revelation What is evident to Sense is evident to all Men who have their Senses what is plainly proved by Reason and it is not a sufficient proof if it be not plain is plain to all Men who can use their Reason and what is plainly revealed every Man may know who can read and understand the Scriptures the being and nature of things are known very different ways and the being of things not only may but most commonly is known without knowing their natures Any Man may know the first but few Men in any measure can know the second Whoever has his Senses about him knows that there are such things as he sees hears or feels but the Philosophy of Nature is not learnt by Sense Reason will convince us by some visible and sensible effects that there are some invisible causes without informing us distinctly what the nature and powers of such causes are and God may and does reveal many things to us which we either are not capable of fully comprehending or the nature of which he does not think fit particularly to explain to us and in all these cases we may certainly know that things are without understanding the Nature and Philosophy of them 2. It is so far from being a wonder to meet with any thing whose nature we do not perfectly understand that I know nothing in the World which we do perfectly understand It is agreed by all Men whoever considered this matter that
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
imagine how any Substance should be without a beginning how it should be present in all places without Parts and without Extension how Substance Essence Existence and all Divine Attributes and Powers which are distinct things in created Spirits should be all the same one simple Act in God and yet Reason tells us we must allow of no Composition no Qualities or Accidents in the Divine Nature for a compounded Being must have Parts and must be made for that which has Parts must have some Maker to join the Parts together and to endow it with such Qualities and Powers But now if we consider God as Wisdom and Truth which is his true Nature and Essence without confounding our Minds with some material conceptions of his Substance these things are plain and easie For it is demonstrable that Truth is eternal had no beginning no Maker for when we speak of original and essential Truth and Wisdom what was not always Truth and Wisdom could never begin to be so And if Truth be the only real thing and necessarily eternal there is an eternal Mind which is nothing else but eternal Truth for he who can imagine Truth and Wisdom to be eternal without an eternal Mind ought not to pretend to either unless he can tell us how Truth can subsist without a Mind Thus it is demonstrable that Truth and Wisdom has no Parts no Extension no more than Thought has Truth and Wisdom is confined to no place fills no space but is every-where the same without Extension and Parts and therefore has a necessary and essential Omnipresence There is a faint resemblance of this in finite and created Spirits even humane Wisdom and Reason Thoughts and Passions have no Extension nor Parts which is a good argument that a created Spirit has no Extension nor Parts neither for nothing which has Extension and Parts can be the subject of that which has none All the Qualities of Bodies are extended as Bodies are for the Properties and Qualities of all Things must conform to the Nature of the Subject in which they are and therefore Faculties Powers and Operations which have no Extension or Parts as the Will the Understanding the Memory the Thoughts and Passions have none must be seated in a Subject which has no Parts nor Extension neither Thus Thought is confined to no place but in a Minute surrounds the Earth and ascends above the Heavens and visits all the empty Capacities of infinite space which is an imperfect imitation of the Omnipresence of an Infinite Mind Thus what can be a more pure and simple Act than Wisdom and Truth Now though we conceive the Divine Attributes and Perfections under different Notions and Characters such as Wisdom Love Justice Goodness Power they are indeed nothing else but Infinite Truth and Wisdom which receives several Characters and Denominations from its different effects as the same Sea or River does different Names from the Countries by which it passes For what is intellectual Love but the perfect Idea's of Truth or the true knowledge and estimation of Things What is Justice and Goodness but an equal distribution of Things or a true and wise proportion of Rewards and Punishments What is perfect Power but perfect Truth and Wisdom which can do whatever it knows This last will not be so easily understood because in Men we find Knowledge and Power to be very different things that Men may know a great deal which they cannot do And yet if we consider this matter over again we shall find it a mistake For even among Men it is only Knowledge that is Power Humane Power and humane Knowledge as that signifies a Knowledge how to do any thing are commensurate whatever humane Skill extends to humane Power can effect nay every Man can do what he knows how to do if he have proper Instruments and Materials to do it with but what no humane Power can do no humane Knowledge knows how to do We know not what the Substance or Essence of any thing is nor can we make any Substance we cannot create any thing of nothing nor do we know how it is to be done which shews that Knowledge and Power in Creatures are equal and that proves a very near relation between them especially when we add that Knowledge is not only the Director of Power but is that very Power which we call Force For it is nothing but Thought which moves our Bodies and all the Members of them which are the immediate Instruments of all humane Force and Power excepting Mechanical Motions which do not depend upon our Wills such as the motion of the Heart the circulation of the Blood the concoction of our Meat and the like all voluntary motions are not only directed but caused by Thought and so indeed it must be or there could be no motion in the World for Matter cannot move it self and therefore some Mind must be the first Mover which makes it very plain that infinite Truth and Wisdom is Infinite and Almighty Power So that if we set aside all material Images of Essence and Substance and contemplate God as Eternal Truth and Wisdom the Notion of a God is very plain and easie as far as we are concerned to know him in this state The same cause has confounded and perplext the Notion of a Trinity in Unity and given occasion to some vain and arrogant Pretenders to Reason profanely to deride and ridicule that most Sacred and Venerable Mystery They puzzle and confound themselves with some gross and corporeal Idea's of Essence and Substance and how Three Divine Persons can subsist distinct in the same numerical Substance but would they but consider the Three Divine Persons as Three Infinite Minds distinguished from each other by a self-consciousness of their own and essentially united by a mutual consciousness to each other which is the only way of distinguishing and uniting Minds and Spirits and then a Trinity in Unity is a very plain and intelligible Notion Now certainly this is much the most reasonable way For what the Essence and Substance of a Spirit is when we distinguish it from Understanding and Will which we call the Powers and Faculties of a Spirit for my part I know not no more than I do what the naked Essence and Substance of Matter is stript of all its Qualities and Accidents as I observed before the naked Essences of Things are not the Objects of our Knowledge and therefore it is ridiculous to dispute about them to say peremptorily what is or what is not in matters which we know nothing of And therefore as we frame the Notion of Bodies from their external and sensible Qualities so we must frame the Notion of a Spirit from its intellectual Powers of Will and Understanding c. and when we dispute about the distinction or union of Spirits we must not dispute how their Substances which we know nothing of can be distinguisht or united but how two Minds considered as intellectual
Agreement of Counsels Identity of Authority Power Goodness I do not say Likeness but Identity The numerical Unity then of the Divine Essence resolves itself into those two Principles the Unity and Identity of Power and Energie and that which they call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or circumincession or in-being of the Three Divine Persons in each other which preserves the distinction of Persons but makes the Divine Essence numerically One and indeed these Two are but One and both of them nothing more than what I have explained I think a little more intelligibly by a mutual consciousness whereby all Three Divine Persons are mutually in each other and have but One Energy and Operation That the Fathers universally acknowledged That the Operation of the whole Trinity ad extra is but One Petavius has proved beyond all contradiction and hence they conclude the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence for every Nature has a vertue and energy of its own for Nature is a principle of Action and if the Energy and Operation be but One there can be but One Nature and if there be Two distinct and divided Operations if either of them can act alone without the other there must be two divided Natures This is certainly true but yet it gives no account how Three distinct Persons come to have but One Will One Energy Power and Operation and there is no account to be given of it that I know of but what I have now given viz. mutual consciousness and that is a very plain account of it for if all Three Persons be conscious to each other as every Man is to himself there can be but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Gregory Nazianzen speaks but One and the same motion and Will of the Deity they must move and act all together according to the order and subordination of the Divine Persons and it is impossible they should do so without this mutual consciousness as it is that Three Men who are not conscious to each other should have but one single motion of Will in One single and undivided Act The Fathers then and I agree in this that the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence consists in the singularity of Operation I only add how this Energy and Operation is and must be one by a mutual consciousness and if this be a reasonable and intelligible account I hope it is no fault And there is no other account to be given of that mutual In-being of the Divine Persons in each other which they call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Christ tells us I am in the Father and the Father in me the necessity of this they saw from what our Saviour says and because it is impossible they should be One without such an inseparable and intimate Union and Presence and Inhabitation in each other and therefore Damascen tells us that they cannot go out of each other nor be separated but are united and mutually penetrate each other without confusion Such an Union as this they all agreed in as Petavius largely shews but how to explain it they know not sometimes they are thus intimately united by the sameness of Nature but this might be the cause of this Union but does not explain what this intimate Union is sometimes they represent it by corporeal similitudes which raise gross and material Images in the mind unworthy of the pure and simple Essence of God as the mixture and union of the Light of several Candles in the same Room and of the Colours of the Rainbow c. which is owing to a material conception of the Divine Substance and the Union of Substances which we know nothing of but had they contemplated God as a pure Mind it had been easie to explain this Perichoresis or In-dwelling of the Divine Persons in each other for there is and can be no other Union of Minds but consciousness and by a mutual consciousness they are as intimate to each other as they are to themselves and are whatever each other is as I have explained it at large and I hope this is no fault neither to give an intelligible Explication of that which all the Fathers taught but were not always equally happy in their Explications of it But to do St. Austin right though he do not name this consciousness yet he explains this Trinity in Unity by examples of mutual consciousness I named one of his Similitudes before of the Unity of our Understanding Memory and Will which are all conscious to each other that we remember what we understand and will we understand what we remember and will and what we will we remember and understand and therefore all these Three Faculties do penetrate and comprehend each other But his Ninth Book De Trinitate is spent wholly upon this Argument It is very familiar with the Ancient Fathers to represent the Father as the infinite Original Mind the Son the Wisdom of the Father his Image or reflex knowledge of himself and the Holy Spirit that Divine Love wherewith Father and Son love each other St. Austin takes this similitude of a Mind its knowledge of itsself and love of itsself and shews how these are Three and One which he makes a faint Image of and resemblance of a Trinity in Unity Now the Mind when it knows its whole self its knowledge comprehends its whole self and when it perfectly loves itself it loves its whole self and its love comprehends its whole self and this proves them to be of the same Substance for the Mind knows itself and loves itself and these are so Three that the Mind is known and loved by nothing else and therefore it is necessary that these Three have One Nature and Essence He proceeds to shew that this Unity is without all manner of confusion and mixture as it is in the Sacred Trinity where the Persons are united but distinct for mixture of Persons destroys the Trinity and shews how each of them are distinct and then how they are alternately in each other for the Mind that loves is in the love and love in the knowledge of the Lover and knowledge in the knowing Mind and how each of them is in the other two for the Mind which knows and loves itself is in its own knowledge and love and the love of the Mind which knows and loves itself is in its own knowledge and the knowledge of the Mind which knows and loves itself is in the Mind and in its love because it loves itself knowing and knows itself loving and thus also two are in each for the Mind which knows and loves itself with its knowledge is in love and with its love is in knowledge for love and knowledge are together in the Mind which loves and knows itself and the whole is in the whole for the whole Mind loves itself and knows its whole self and knows its whole love and loves its whole knowledge I need not tell