Eternal Divine Spirit proceeding from both for the Ancients do not call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would represent all of them rather as original and absolute and not relative and derived from another as two of them are from one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Principium Fons Origo c. in which they chiefly lay the Divine Unity but always assert a real Trinity of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Explication of the Ancients which they hold with this more plain Scriptural Account of the Trinity that needs no Explication One God the Father with an only begotten Son and so of the same Nature with himself and a Divine Spirit the Spirit of the Father and the Son who has Personal and Divine Attributes and Perfections plainly attributed to him and so each of the two latter are God in a true and proper sence as habentes Deitatem Divinâ Naturâ praediti but not unoriginated or God in that high sence as the Father who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to whom therefore the term of God and one God is more peculiarly attributed and even appropriate in the Judgment of the Antients (a) Nam quum id sit principium caeteris quod ingenitum Deus solus Pater est qui extra originem est ex quo hic est qui genitus Tertul. seu Novatian de Trin. Deus quidem ostenditur Filius cui Divinitas tradita porrecta conspicitur tamen nihilominus unus Deus Pater probatur Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Orat. coutra Arrianos Deum in verbo suo omnia fecisse dum enim Deum audio Patrem cogito Scotus Erigena de Divis Naturae L. 1. P. 61. Habeo libenterque accipio Dei nomine Patrem Principij Filium Dei Spiritus Dei Spiritum Sanstum significatos Ibid. and Moderns (b) Peculiaritèr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tribuitur Patri Dei nomen Ravanel biblioth v. Deus Persona Caeterum Attributionem seu Appropriationem ut vocant nominis Deus omnes in Scriptura pie ac prudenter exercitati facile animadvertunt Appropriatio autem omnino in eo sita est quod vox Deus quae caeteroquin pluribus numero personis est communis tanquam unius nempe Patris propria sumatur Bisterfield contra Crel L. 1. P. 41. Nonne in hoc regno-solus Condaeus absolutè princeps dicitur idque elogium pro ejus nomine proprio saepissimè ponitur cum alij Exemplum in quo Attributum commune uni tantum ex illis ita rectè tribuitur ut dicere ci soli competere Placaeus contra Crell P. 33. This is the Christian and Catholick Faith which he that believes with or without with right or with wrong Explications is undoubtedly Orthodox The Truth seems to lye so plain that I wonder any should miss it I have picked it up where others have over looked it It is generally observed to lye between contending Parties The Socinians especially Crellius insist very much upon the Scriptural Notion of One God the Father The Antients also do this as I have shown but not exclusively to the Divinity of Son and Holy Ghost as the others have done very Erroneously and Heretically The School men mist this plain Notion whilst they carefully maintain the other but run into a Labyrinth of Subtleties and Difficulties about One's being Three and Three One and weave an artificial cloudy Net-work of thin but dark Cobwebs such as Real Universals Substantial Modes Subsistent Relations Unsubsistent Existencies Concrete Personal Properties c. that thro' it One Being may look and appear as Three and yet be One and to avoid the Objection of Three Gods which they need not have been puzled with if they had hit right upon that of One according to Scripture and Antiquity they make three distinct Subsistencies and but one distinct Subsistent Three opposite Modes and Relations and but one Subject of them Three Divine Persons and but One Divine Being Three Somewhats and but One Thing My hearty Zeal and Concern for the Honour of Christianity and my deep Regret to see its Faith thus Mangled and Perverted and my Pity to see so many groping for the Light at Noon-day and looking so carefully for what they have in their hands has made me venture to show that which I wonder I did not always see and I hope others may do the same Some Remarks of the Fathers upon Sabellianism and the wrong and Jewish Notion of One God which it held and from whence it arose SImplices enim quique ne dixerim imprudentes idiotes quae major semper credentium pars est quoniam ipsa regula fidei à pluribus Deis saculi ad Vnicum verum Deum transfert non intelligentes unicum quidam sed cum suâ oeconomiâ esse credendum expavescunt ad oeconomiam numerum dispositionem Trinitatis Divisionem praesumunt unitatis quando unitas ex semetipsâ derivans Trinitatem non destruatur ab illâ sed administretur Itaque duos tres jam jactitant a nobis praedicari se vero unius Dei â—ultores â—prâ—â—sunmâ—t quasi non unitas irrationaliter collecta Heresin faciat Trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat Tertul. adv Praxeam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas contra Sabellij Gregales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Epist 64. ad Neocaesar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. contra Sabel Arr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Orat. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrll Alexandrin in Thesauro p. 109. It was Sabellius his plausible and twitting Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan Heres 62. Thus Noetus gloried in his being an Unitarian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Heres 57. But the Father calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for those Reasons which are a Demonstration against his Opinion of One Being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan Ibid. They brought all the places of Scripture for One God against the Real Trinity as others do since and run into their Error to avoid Tritheism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Ibid. From all which it is plain and will be plainer to those who read these Authors at large that it is Heretical to believe One God in a Jewish and Sabellian I may add now in a Mahometan and Socinian Sense as well as Three Gods in a Gentile and Pagan or Marcionite and Valentinian and that Christianity is between those Extreams believing One God the Father a Son who is God begotten of him and a Holy Ghost who is God proceeding from both I conclude with a Quotation which the Learned Reader will understand the full Purport of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen adv Gre. T. 2. p. 82. FINIS Advertisement He Reader is desired to add these words which were omitted p. 20. lin ult No way contrary to that of the Church of England I am as well Many other Errata's having slipt correction the Reader is desired to excuse and amend ☞ Three Sermons of the Author in Octavo finished before his Death will be Published in a few days
de Uno Deo contra Crell lib. 1. sect 1. C. 2. p. 43. Bellarminus C. 2. de Christo taxat eos qui filium Dei vocant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oritur autem erroris suspicio ex aequivocatione vocabuli nam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 duplicem sensum habet Divinitatem considerari duplicitèr ratione sui esse ratione modi habendi c. Meisneri philosoph sobr parte 2. sect 1. c. 2. qu. 2. Facit tamen in Trinitate primatus originis atque ordinis ut nomen Dei de Patre Antonomasticè usurpetur Vogelsang exercitat Theolog. p. 353. Veruntamen aequivocè duo predicamenta Deo aptari substantiam relationem Junij Cath. doct de Trin. defens l. 1. Unus est inquis Samosatene Deus verissimum sed rectè intelligendum nam et in subjecto et in predicato positae sunt adversus imprudentiores tendiculae nisi attenderint et ex ijs falsa conclusio adstruitur Deus enim aut absolutè et indeterminatè dicitur aut etiam determinatè priore modo de essentiâ posteriore de aliquâ unâ persona dicitur Secundum priorem modum Christus dicebat Deus est Spiritus Joan. 4.24 Secundum posteriorem Paulus unus Pater omnium Eph. 4.6 Hic autem Deum absolutè indeterminatè enuncias de essentiâ igitur praedicatio est ita accipimus tu de personâ accipis Aequivocè idem concludis contra praedicationum argumentationum leges Id. Def. 2. Obj. Quod Unum est id Trium esse non potest Deus Unus est Deus igitur Trinus esse non potest R. Illudis Samosatene tum equivocatione ut vulgo dicitur tum etiam elenchi ignoratione Aequivocationem committis cum dicis Unum unum inquies ecquid minùs aequivocum esse quam unum potest tibi fortè non videtur sed tamen si veritati credis me demonstrantem audies unum duobus modis dicitur absolutè et relatè c. Ib. p. 78. Ob. Non possunt contraria gradibus excellentibus in eodem subjecto simul existere Deus autem Unum et Trinum esse tam sunt contraria quam Spiritum esse et Corpus aeternum et non aeternum Deus ergo Unus Trinus esse non potest R. Majorem ut negemus absit sed Assumptio tua aequivocatione elenchi ignoratione fallit eâdem planè quam in superiore tuâ argumentatione reteximus Junii Defens 2. P. 80. Ob. Quod expressum est imagine imago exprimens non sunt idem Christus est imago Dei invisibilis Christus ergo et Deus invisibilis non sunt idem R. Aequivocatio in nomine idem manifesta est nam aut idem essentia dicitur neutro genere aut idem personâ masculino Ib. P. 87. Ob. Quod ejusdem est aeternitatis et majestatis cum Deo nihil omnino ab eo accepit non vitam non gloriam Filius ejusdem est R. Majorem Samosatene de industriâ facis aequivocam Deum non ignoras à nobis aut absolutè de essentiâ dici aut relatè de unâ aliquâ personâ Ib. P. 90. Praetereà nomen Dei quod essentiale personaliter accipis aequivocè P. 91. Ob. Marc. 13.32 Fallis vocis Pater aequivocatione Patris nomen hoc loco essentiale ac non personale est Fefellit te et hypotheseos et aequivocationis illius ignoratio quam aequivocationem post resurrectionem quoque servavit Christus dicens non vestrum est scire quae Pater posuit in potestate ipsius Act. 1.7 Ib. P. 96. Ad Obj. de Christi subjectione 1 Cor. 15.24 ex quo Christum sibi subjectum fore sic ait omnino constat nomen Christi de personâ sive in sese sive in Mysterio enunciatum dici aequivoce Ib. P. 101. P. 182. Antecedentis duo sunt aequivoca primùm enim Deus appellatur Pater aut essentialiter respectu creaturarum aut personaliter respectu Filij et relationis internae c. Id. Defens 3. P. 185. Now that there is necessarily understood this latitude of Variety in the sence of several of the Words of the Athanasian Creed is apparent from the consent of those that do subtilize this Mistery to the utmost curiosity for it is impossible for them or any else to think that the Godhead of the whole Trinity is one in the same sence that the Father considered alone is one or the Son and Holy Ghost so considered So when the Father is said to be omnipotent the Son omnipotent and the Holy Ghost omnipotent it is evident that omnipotent has not the same sence in all for the Father has the power of Eternal Generation And the like may be said of the term God by which if you understand that which is first of all in such a sence as that all else is from him and he from none the Son and Spirit cannot be said to be God in this signification because the Father is not from them but they from the Father More 's Mistery of Godliness Book 9. Cap. 2. And we must still profess that we take none of those words to be proper formal univocal terms Baxters Cath. Theology Sect. 1. and the Pages following Whether also this might not be applyed to defend the Athanasian Creed The Father Eternal the Son Eternal and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet not Three Eternals but One Eternal as well as Aquinas his taking them adjectively and substantively which Petavius dislikes being willing to allow tres Aeterni tres habentes Deitatem tres Divini and whither also in those Scholastick Questions and sayings Utrum nomina Essentialia approprianda personis nomina Essentialia in divinis concreta nonnunquam pro Essentia aliquando pro una persona aliquando pro tribus supponunt I offer to the Consideration of my more Learned Brethren This I hope will if not justifie at least excuse the word and if any of them will please to teach me a better way to take off the objected Contradiction I promise never to make use of that word again But after all could Malice it self tho' never so blind if it had but Ears and heard that Sermon of mine charge me with saying that Christ and the Holy Ghost were God only Equivocally and not properly truly and naturally when I so often and so fully plainly and directly asserted the contrary thro' the whole Sermon and in several such passages as these following That the Mystery of Christian Faith lay in God the Father's having a Son and an Holy Spirit distinct Persons from himself the one begotten of him from all Eternity and so his only Son the other proceeding from him and the Son both and these two still in the Father Naturally and Inseparably united to him as to the Fountain of their being one with him in the same Divine Nature and Essence and all three together contriving and accomplishing the Redemption of mankind That God the Father
Almighty hath one only begotten Son of the same Nature and Essence with himself Who is the Brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Person And that there is also a Holy Ghost proceeding from both and sent by both who hath the Characters and Attritributes of Divinity plainly ascribed to him and who is joined with the Father and the Son in the Office of Baptism and in the Form of Christian Blessing and against whom the most unpardonable sin may be committed .. That the Son and Holy Ghost have the same Divine Nature and Essence with the Father derived and communicated to them Tho' the Name of God taken absolutely is eminently predicated of God the Father in Scripture and he is called God the One God eminently tho' not exclusively To us there is One God the Father I I believe in One God the Father Almighty c. yet the other two Persons having the Divine Nature and the Divine Attributes and Perfections belonging to them may each of them properly be called God and the Divinity does certainly belong to each of them After all these Passages and Expressions in my Sermon which I hope they who have not a memory only on one side will please to remember and owne besides the whole drift and design of it which was to lay down as plainly and to vindicate as strongly as I could the Mystery of Christian Faith and of the Blessed Trinity could any fair and candid Hearer or indeed any one without those Epithets have the least reason or pretence to charge me with asserting that Christ and the Holy Ghost were God only Equivocally and not truly and properly or could they upon hearing and misunderstanding that word as applyed to the Terms God Trinity and Unity One and Three God's being One in Person in one sense and Three in Person in another could they with any more Reason and not without the greatest Mistake imaginable and one would think a wilful one tho' I am willing to think otherwise having never given either of them reason for that charge this as belonging to Christ and the Holy Ghost and not as much to God the Father and the whole Trinity when I used and applyed this Term in general to the Name of God his being One and Three being taken either Essentially or Personally sometimes Absolutely and Eminently for One Person singly sometimes for all the Three Persons together and so upon the account of those different significations these terms were Equivocal Hononymous and Ambiguous as many I have shown and particularly a Lutheran Professor in * Homonymia in voce unus in vocabulo tres Botsac Anti-Crellius Lib. 2. Sect. 1. C. 1. Expressa latet ambiguitas in voce Deus quae modò personalitèr usurpatur modò essentià litèr Id. Lib. 2. S. 1. C. 7. answer to Crellius had long agoe asserted before me and this only to take off the Contradiction of One and Three and to answer that Jewish Pagan Mahometan Sabellian Samosatenian Photinian Arrian Macedonian Socinian Muggletonian Objection of Tritheism against the Doctrine of the Trinity The Father is the only self-existent unoriginated Being whom the Ancients call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the other two and so in the words of a Right Reverend and Excellent Person God in the highest sense whom the Scriptures Creeds (a) Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem Orientales Ecclesiae omnes pene ita tradunt credo in unum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem Ruffin in Symbol 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irenaeus l. 1. c. 2. Cum teneamus autem nos regulam veritatis i. e. quia sit unus Deus omnipotens qui omnia condidit per verbum suum Id. c. 19. In unum Deum credentes fabricatorem Coeli et Terrae et omnium quae ijs sunt per Christum Jesum Dei Filium Id. L. 3. C. 4. Regula est autem fidei illa scilicet qua creditur unum omnino Deum esse nec alium praeter Mundi Conditorem qui universa de nihilo produxit per verbum suum primo omnium imissum id verbum Filium ejus appellatum Tertull. praescr adv Haeres C. 13. Nos unicum quidem Deum credimus sub hac tamen dispensatione quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicimus ut unici Dei sit et Filius sermo ipsius qui ex ipso processerit per quem omnia facta sunt Id. adv Praxeam C. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Symbol Vetustis Eccles Hieros apud Cyrill in Cateches 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eüseb-Caesar Confes in Synod Nicaen apud Socrat. H. E. l. 1. c 8. and Christian Offices (b) Haec Patris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in omnibus Catholicae Ecclesiae Lyturgijs hodie agnoscitur nam et in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deum Patrem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Justinus loquitur glorificamus et preces plerasque ad ipsum dirigimus Bull. Def. Fid. Nicaen P. 208. Veteri ex usu pleraeque preces ad Patrem referuntur atque ita decretum legimus in Carthaginensi tertiâ Synodo Canone 23. ut cum ad altare assistitur semper ad Patrem dirigatur oratio Petav. Dogm Theolog. de Trin. L. 3. C. 7. Instabunt illi forte cum quibus nunc agimus et dicent se idem aliquo modo statuere Patrem enim solum ideo vocari Deum verum quia fons sit Divinatis ac porro quandam prae Filio ac Spiritu Sancto praerogativam ratione Divinitatis habens siquidem Filius ac Spiritus Sanctus Divinam Essentiam ab ipso habeant ipse á Nemine quam ob causam Patrem nominatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellant et eâ ratione Filio et Spiritui sancto opponunt sed qui ita respondent vel sibi contradicunt vel nihil dicunt nudaque nobis verba pro rebus obtrudunt Crell de Uno Deo L. 1. C. 1. Dei vero Nomen aut omnibus aut plerisque omnibus primam omnium rerum causam significat aut quod à nullo sit et à quo sint omnia id quidem convenit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 si vel causae nomen proprie sumatur vel cum creaturis conferatur cum enim creatus non fuerit per eum omnia quaecunque sunt facta sed si collatio instituatur Patris cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu Filio quia a nullo est Pater a Patre est Filius propterea Pater peculiari quadam ratione Dei nomen sibi vendicat nam si Dei nomen ens designat quod a nullo est a quo caetera id Patri convenit non modo ratione Naturae Divinae quae nullius causae proprie dictae sit effectum cum omnium creaturarum sit causa quo sensu etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei Nomen participant sed etiam ratione Personae quae ab alia nulla ducit orginem ullo modo cum ab ea aeterna quadam et incomprehensibili ratione
procedant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et Spiritus sanctus Placaei refutat Crell p. 252. Vide Crell Ib. Deus summus vel Essentiae et Naturae vel si ita loqùi fas est muneris ratione priore modo Deus summus est quicunque praeditus est essentia divina posteriore is tantum qui cum sit praeditus essentia divina personam et partes supremi atque independentis totius Mundi Monarchiae sustinet in Negotio salutis nostrae i. e. Pater Ib. p. 326. Ut igitur formaliter Respondeam Deo altissimo nihil dignius nihil excellentius ulla ratione cogitari potest hoc verissime dicitur de Deo altissimo comparato cum omnibus alijs entibus at si Deus altissimus hoc est una persona comparetur cum Deo altissimo h. e. aliâ Personâ divinâ quae cum ipsa sunt Deus altissimus distinctione opus est est enim excellentia essentialis et excellentia personalis Ib. p. 28. Ex veterum sententia cui ratio communis suffragatur si duo in divinis essent Ingenita sive principia a se pendentia consequens foret ut non modo Pater suâ privaretur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qua Divinitatem à seipso hoc est à nullo alio habet verum etiam ut duo Dij necessario statuerentur contra positâ subordinatione qua Pater solus a seipso Deus Filius vero de Deo Patre Deus esse docetur putarunt Doctores tum illam Patris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tum Divinam Monarchiam in tuto iri collocatam quod idem et ad tertiam Divinitatis personam Spiritum nempe sanctum extendi voluerunt quem quod a Patre per Filium ipse suam habeat originem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive tres Deos neutiquam inducere crediderunt Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. Sect. 4. Vocabulum Deus duobus modis in sacris scripturis repraesentari deprehenditur ut absolutè primum inoriginatum et à nullo alio esse habens à seipso ita subsistens ut prorsus originem essendi aliundé non agnoscat omnia à se et ex se habeat inoriginatum et origo ac principium absolutè omnium eorum sit quae in Coelo et in Terrâ sunt etiam ipsius Filij et Spiritus Pater est qui emphaticè passim constanter et in Novo Testamento ita vocatur Joan. 17. 1 Cor. 8. Ephes 1.3 4. Apoc. 1.6 et in omnibus fermè Novi Testamenti libris ne semel autem toto novo Testamento 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deus expresso textu ad Patrem Filium et Spiritum sanctum simul determinatur cum unus Deus appellatur ut ista tria unum illum Deum esse dicatur sed ad priorem sensum in voce Dei â Spiritu sancto intendi palam sit in veteri Testamento unus est altissimus Creator omnium ait Siracides cap. 1. alibi 2. Ut proxime ex et ab illo primo originatum derivatum deductum ortum illi debens etiam summum ens sed ortum et derivatum proxima veluti summi illius subsistentis propago et emanatio ut veteres dixerunt genitura et spiratura ejus in esse nomine auctoritate opere attributis et cultu Patri par hoc modo Dei vocem sumendo Deus etiam Filius et Spiritus Dei est Henricus Nicolai Professor Lutheranus in Methodo Trinitatis Thesi 47. Jehovah deducitur ab Hava vel Hajah quod significat esse cum Deus sit Essentia omnium Essentiarum Nec incommodè statuitur hanc vocem ex c. 3. Exod. v. 14. ubi Deus dicit Ehejeh Ascher Ehejeh solus Deus esse suum habet à seipso vel rectiùs est suum esse reliqua entia dependent ab hoc summo ente solus Deus est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerhard de Naturâ Dei loci communes call so absolutely and by way of Eminence and Prerogative The Son is produced of the Father and so is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God in that sence as the Father who is from none but is God of God and is very God as having the Divine Nature and Perfections naturally belonging to them but derived and communicated from the Father as the Holy Ghost from both So that the one is Deus Ingenitus the other Deus Genitus and the third Deus procedens all Divines allow that the words are taken thus differently and in these several senses and meanings and why then may they not be called Aequivocal Since * Sum. p. 1. q. 13. Thomas Aquinas says Quicquid praedicatur de aliquibus secundum idem nomen non secundum eandem rationem praedicatur de ijs aequivoce But Deus as it signifies a self-existent unoriginated Being and is often taken in that sense only by Divines g Solus Deus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerard. loc com de natura Del. Deum esse a seipso hoc est neque ab alio neque ex alio Amesij Medul Theol. l. 1. Deus qui semper est nec habet aliunde principium ipse sui origo est suaeque causa jubstantiae Hieron in Epist ad Eph. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Helych Suidas is predicated only of God the Father and not secundum eandem racionem or upon the same Account of the other two Divine Persons neither of which are self existent and unoriginated The Learned Mr. Hill calls the Father Original God p. 163. Vindication of Primitive Fathers p. 113. takes the term Mind relating to the Trinity equivocally in different senses The Father alone is Originally that Deity which Christ originally is not for Christ is God by being of God Hooker's Eccles Pol. l. 5. §. 54. So Dr. More in the same place forequoted nor God in the highest sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the one is God begotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other God proceeding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they are frequently called but both properly and truly and naturally and eternally God in these senses both having the true Divine Nature and the same Divine Essence with the Father belonging to them and so being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with him but yet he being the fountain of Divinity the Principium Fons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. of the other two who were produced from him sent by him and some are not afraid to say sub-ordinate to him * Vide Bull de Subordinatione Filij ad Patrem Defens Fid. Nicaen Sect. 9. is called eminently and absolutely and by way of Excellence and Prerogative the one God and in the words forequoted God in the highest sence which is a Notion Crellius was extreamly angry and provoked at †Instabunt c. but others of known Orthodoxy pleased with as an Answer to him and to Tritheism This tho' not said thus expresly in my Sermon yet was all
juxta sensum aliquem quae tamen apud imperitos efferri non expediat Erasmus in Hyperaspist diatribae contra Lutherum de servo arbitrio However exceptionable the Assertions of these Men are yet the Church of Rome never censured them and the Socinians cannot take any advantage against them fince Socinus * Tantum abest ut qui ista profitetur sc Christianis duos esse Deos hoc enim objecrat Wiekus propter id ut Wieko placet non Christianus sed Ethnicus sit appellandus Socin Respon ad Wiekum C. 1. says against Wiekus that it is so far from Pagan to worship two Gods that 't is most Christian and Smalcius says 't is Jewish to believe and worship but one God and Crellius †Quasi aut duos Deos haberemus summos aut Unum babere Deum summum alterum vero ab eo dependentem eique subordinatum sacris literis sit adversum Crel de uno Deo C. 1. S. 2. C. 18. says 't is no way contrary to Scripture to have two Gods they who are for worshipping Christ must all say this and their Heresie lyes in making him a God only by Office and not by Nature they are therefore truly chargeable with Polytheism as the Arriaus were of old who worship a Creature as God or any being that has not the true Divine Nature and Essence but they who hold the same Divinity the same one Essence to be in three Persons and communicated from the first to the two other as from one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Principium can never be charged with Polytheism or Tritheism all the Tritheists who were condemned in late and dark times holding three Essences and so opposing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Peratae in Theodoret Philoponus in Nicephorus and Photius Joachim in the Lateran Council Roscelin in the Synod of Soissons Abaelardus in the Synod of Soissons Porretanus in that of Rhemes but of this elsewhere I shall only instance further in the Opinions and Differences of the Scholastick and Romish Divines about three Eternals Omnipotents c. and three Subsistencies Dicimus tres existentes vel tres sapientes aut tres aeternos increatos si adjective sumantur si vero substantive sumantur dicimus unum increatum immensum aeternum ut Athanasius dicit Cajetan Comment in Thom. Qu. 39. Art 3. Athanasius substantivis usus est adjectivè in Symbolo Javell Exposit in Cajetan Ibid. Petavius explains this otherwise against these and Thomas Aquinas too Quem ad finem verba illa in Symbolo posita sunt imprimis spectare convenit haec igitur adversus Arrianorum Haeresin opposita videntur á conditore symboli quae Trinitatem cum tribus componebat personis inaequalibus et substantia diversis quarum singulae singulis constabant ut naturis it a proprietatibus naturae Petav. de Trin. p. 286. Molina had before upon the Principles of Aquinas endeavoured to reconcile the Athanasian Creed about one Omnipotent Eternal with the Council of Lateran which declared for three Coeternals c. thus Ex conclusione D. Thomae regulâque propositâ facile erit intelligore rationem conciliandi quaedam dicta in Symbolo Athanasij in Concilio Lateranensi Cap. Firm. de summa Trin. in fide catholicâ quae primo aspectu videntur contraria inter se In symbolo-namque Athanasij de Patre Filio Spiritu sancto dicitur non tres aeterni in plurali sed unus aeternus sicut non tres increati nec tres immensi sed unus increatus unus immensus infra non tres omnipotentes sed unus omnipotens Cap. vero firm de eodem Patre Filio Spiritu sancto dicitur in plurali consubstantiales et coequales et co-omnipotentes et coeterni imo in eodem Symbolo Athanasij eaedem personae etiam dicuntur coeternae eis verbis coeternae sibi sunt et coequales haec ex dictis in hunc modum concilianda Athanasius in locis primo loco citatis sumpsit nomina illa substantive tametsi quaedam eorum quod non sumantur in terminatione neutrâ pre se ferant formam Adjectivorum ideoque negavit dici pluraliter de tribus personis Concilium vero Lateranense idemque Athanasius ubi seoundo loco citatur sumpserunt illa alia nomina adjectivè eâque rationè tribuerunt illa tribus personis in numero plurali Molina Comment in Thom. p. 1. q. 39. art 3. disp 1. Arriba opposes Molina and gives another Answer to this Difficulty Respondeo ad difficultatem quod concilium Lateranense dum affirmat Patrem Filium Spiritum sanctum in plurali numero esse consubstantiales coequales coeternos coomnipotentes loquitur de ipsis secundum rationem habitudinem relativam quae ratione praedictae particulae defert pluralitatem in suppositis Existentibus à parte subjecti Arriba conciliatorium Lib. 2. disp 3. c. 13. As to the Divine Subsistencies the Differences are greater Tres sunt de hâc re Scholasticorum Opiniones prima unum esse subsistentiam essentialem seu absolutam nullas personales seu relativas ita Durandus Paludanus Capreolus in 3. d. 1. quibus videtur favere Thomas qu. 2. de poten a. 1. qu. 8. a. 3 7. secunda tres esse subsistentias relativas nullam absolutam sen essentialem ita Bonaventura alij multi tertia unam esse subsistentiam absolutam tres relativas ita Cajetanus in 1 p. q. 3. a. 3. in 3 p. q. 2. a. 2. Becanus de Trin. C. 3. Qu. 11. Singularis quaedam opinio doctissimi alioqui Theologi Cajetani qui in 1 p. qu. 3. art 3. qu. 39. art 4. existimavit praeter tres subsistentias relativas quibus constituuntur personae esse etiam in Divinis quandam subsistentiam absolutam quae cum essentiâ divinâ constituat hunce Deum subsistentem pro quo supponitur ille terminus Deus acceptus essentialiter Valent. disp 2. qu. 13. Secunda sententia referri potest asserens tres personas vere propriè esse unum Deum ratione untus subsistentis communitèr in Deitate ablatâ vero subsistentiâ communi non posse tres personas dici proprie simplicitèr unum Deum Sumitur ex Cajetan 3 p. q. 3. a 6. Durand in 3. dist 1. q. 3. Richard art 1. qu. 5. ratio est quia positâ subsistentiâ communi hoc subsistens in Deitate est hic Deus qui proprie dicitur Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus ablatâ vero subsistentiâ non potest designari in concreto unus numero Deus qui sit tres personoe Suarez de Trin. L. 4. C. 12. Non potest admitti quod sit unum suppositum commune tribus personis quia hoc esset confundere tres personas in unam personam seu hypostasin unde merito reprehenditur Gajetanus quod aliquo modo admiserit unum suppositum commune tribus perfonis quanquam