this Case For here when we hear of the Image of God we must conceive nothing less than the Brightness of his Glory But what is this Brightness and what is this Glory That the Apostle adds The perfect Impression or Character of his Substance And therefore Substance is the same with Glory and Character with Brightness So that the Divine Glory remaining perfect and undiminished emits a perfect Splendor and Brightness And thus the very Nature of an Image expounded as it becomes God confirms the Faith of One Divinity For the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father because such as the Father is such is the Son and such as the Son is such is the Father And thus Two are One because the Son in nothing differs as receiving no other Form or Character but that of his Father And therefore I say again One and One but an undivided Nature and never-failing Perfection And therefore there is One God because by both the same perfect Divine Form and Nature is seen wholly and perfectly subsisting in both This I think is as plain as words can make it both what St. Basil meant by the Sameness and Identity of Nature and that herein he placed the Unity of the Godhead and were there any occasion for it it were easy to confirm this by the concurrent Suffrages of Athanasius Gregory Nyssen and Gregory Nazianzen St. Cyril and other Greek Fathers almost in the same words St. Hilary and St. Ambrose to name no more of the Latin Fathers are so express in placing the Unity of the Godhead in this perfect Sameness Indifference Indiversity of Nature between Father Son and Holy Ghost that there is no need of any other Art but barely to represent their Words and therefore I shall only refer my Readers to some few Quotations in the Margin It cannot be denied but that all the Fathers unanimously agree in this Account of the Unity of the Divine Nature in Three Distinct Persons Which should make modest men very cautious of charging it with a direct Contradiction to all Reason and Philosophy But Modesty and Reverence to the Catholick Fathers are none of the prevailing Virtues of this Age. But is it indeed such a Contradiction to say That the same Nature which is perfectly and in every thing the same in Three is but One Nature in Three and that such Three have not Three Natures but One Nature Is it such a direct Contradiction to Sense and Reason to say That there is alius alius alius in the Trinity but not aliud That there is Another and Another and Another Person in the Holy Trinity but that there is nothing in any One of these Persons which can be called Another thing from what is in the other Two This is so far from a Contradiction that it seems plain Sense nay plain Demonstration to me That Three Persons who have nothing in themselves but what each of them have without the least conceivable Variation are in Nature but one and the same and though each of them be Another Person yet not Another Thing or Another Nature There are several Examples in Nature which justify this distinction between alius aliud and must make all thinking men confess that they cannot speak properly without it I would not be mistaken in this matter and therefore desire the Reader carefully to observe That I do not alledge these Instances which follow as Resemblances of the Trinity but only as Examples of a perfect Sameness and Unity in Nature where we must confess That the thing is but One and the same and yet that there is Another and Another And if there be any Images of this in Nature there is no reason to call this a Contradiction in the Faith of the Trinity Let me then ask this plain Question When Five hundred Men hear the same Man speak do they all hear one and the same Voice or Five hundred Voices It will I think be granted that it is but one and the same Voice which they all hear and yet it is heard five hundred times and is distinctly in five hundred Ears The Voice is essentially one and the same in all and yet no man dares deny that the Voice in Peter's Ear is another from that Voice which is in Iohn's Ear and therefore is Another and Another but not Another Thing And were a Voice Essence and Substance there would be One Nature Essence and Substance in a Plurality of Hypostases Thus Sight furnishes us with as many Examples of this as Hearing When five hundred Men see the same thing the Object is one and the same and yet is Another and Another according to the number of the Persons who see it Is one and the same in Nature and subsists the same and yet distinctly in each eye Sight and Hearing approach nearest to an Incorporeal Nature and therefore give us the nearest Resemblances of a Spiritual Sameness Unity and Distinction But we have still more perfect Images of this in what is more perfectly Spiritual The same Notion and Idea though it subsist in Ten thousand Minds is perfectly the same in all A perfect true Idea of any thing is and can be but One and therefore how many Minds soever it subsist in it must be one and the same in all but yet the Idea in the Mind of Peter is not the same in Subsistence with the Idea in the Mind of Paul It is Another and Another and yet the same Idea in Nature and Essence As suppose the perfect Idea of Humanity or Human Nature and the perfect Idea of the Divine Nature if they be true and perfect they are perfectly the same in all the Minds in the World and nothing but the different Notions men have of things can multiply such Ideas Now if we advance but one step higher we shall plainly see what this Unity of Sameness is what the true Notion of it is and how far it reaches For though this be absolutely essential to the Divine Unity yet as I have already noted and will appear more hereafter this is not the compleat and adequate Notion of it Let us suppose then that Human Nature for instance did subsist as perfectly the same in Peter Iames and Iâ—hn as the true and perfect Idea of Human Nature is one and the same in all that a Man were nothing else but the living subsisting Idea of Human Nature without the least change or variation in Nature to distinguish one from another I say in such a Case as this would not Three such Persons be perfectly one and the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sameness and Identity of Nature which would be as perfectly and invariably the same as the common Notion and Idea of Nature Would not Human Nature be as perfectly the same in Three Persons or Subsistences as the Idea of Human Nature is one and the same in Three Minds Or could we in
that the other is and yet not Three Minds but One Mind This shews the diffâ—rence between Absolute and Relative Substances Three Absolute Substances are always distinctly and separately Three and can never be any otherwise than specifically One but Relative Substances may be essentially One in the same One Individual Nature and this is the Account both the Fathers and Schools give of a Trinity in Unity Three Relations or Three Relative Substances or Subsistencies essentially related to each other in the Unity of the same One Individual Essence St. Gregory Nyssen has given the most particular Account of this matter in his Catechetical Oration To convince the Heathens of the Eternal Subsistence of the Divine Word in the Unity of the same Godhead he lays the foundation of all in that universally received Principle That the Divinity is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I translate not irrational without Reason or Understanding but not without its Word which is not the Personal Wisdom of the Father whereby the Father is wise as I have already shewn Chap. 3. but a Personal Living Subsisting Word Which answers to that Word which we feel in our own Minds and which is essential to all Minds that no Mind can be without its Word but is not a vanishing Notion and Idea or a transient sound as Human words but answers to the perfection of the Divine Nature And therefore as our Mortal Nature has a Vanishing Perishing Word so the Incorruptible and Eternally Permanent Immutable Nature has an Eternal Subsisting Word And as he proceeds if this Divine Word subsists it lives for it does not subsist like stupid inanimate Stones but as Mind and Spirit which must live if it subsists and if it lives the absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature which admits of no composition proves that he lives not by a participation of Life but as Life it self And if the Word lives as being Life it self it must have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a power to do what it freely wills and chuses For that which cannot will and chuse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not live and an Impotent Will is a contradiction to the Nature of God and therefore its Power must be equal to its Will But this Divine Word can will nothing but what is good and wills whatever is good and being able to effect whatever it wills is not unactive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without doing any thing but does the good it wills And since we must acknowledge the World and all things in it which are wisely and artificially made to be good all things are the Works of this Living Subsisting Word This is his Proof That God has a Subsisting Living Almighty Creating Word which is another distinct Person from him whose Word he is For the Word is a Relative Term and signifies a Relative Subsistence and necessarily supposes the Father for he is not the Word but with relation to him whose Word he is And by this means he tells us we may escape both the Polytheism of the Gentiles and the Singularity of the Iews by acknowledging the Living Energetical Operative Word which the Iews deny and the Unity and Identity of Nature between the Word and Him whose Word he is For as our Word proceeds out of our Mind and is neither every way the same with the Mind nor yet upon all accounts another For that it is of the Mind proves that is is another and not the Mind it self but as it perfectly expresses and represents the Mind it cannot be another Nature but one and the same Nature though a kind of different subsistence So the Word of God by a distinct subsistence of its own is distinguished from him from whom he receives his Subsistence and Hypostasis but inasmuch as he is all and the same that God is he is perfectly one and the same in Nature This is the Doctrine of all the other Catholick Fathers as well as of Gregory Nyssen who resolve the Unity of the Godhead in a Trinity of Persons into Relative Subsistencies in the same Individual Nature which no more multiplies Natures and Divinities to make Two or Three Gods than the Mind its Word and Love make Three Minds This is the true and compleat notion of the Homoousion which as I have already shewn does not signify a meer Specifick Unity but the Unity of One Individual not Singular Nature in Three that Three Real Distinct Subsisting Persons are as intimately and essentially related to each other in the same Individual Nature as a Human Mind and its Word are which are not and never can be two Minds but one Mind Two compleat and perfect Minds can never in a proper notion be Consubstantial or one Substance though they have the same specifick Nature for their Substance is not one and the same but naturally two and naturally separable how closely soever they may be united but Three Divine Persons who are essentially related to each other in the same Divinity as the Mind and its Word are are in the strictest notion Consubstantial or One Substance being essentially related to each other in the same One Individual Nature and Essence And here I must take notice of a great mistake which some Learned Men run into concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singular and particular Natures Substances and Essences by which they understand what some others call Personal Substances and conclude That since Philoponus and others who asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three particular Natures and Essences or Substances in the Godhead were charged with Tritheism as they deserved if their Opinions be truly represented those who assert Three Substantial Persons or Three distinct Personal Subsistencies or Substances are liable also to the same Charge This is a material Objection and a fair Answer to it will set this whole matter in a clear light Now the Answer in short is this That those who rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and charged it with Tritheism did not thereby understand particular personal relative Subsistencies or Substances but compleat absolute particular Natures and Substances not Three Real Substantial Subsisting Relations in One Individual Nature as a Mind its Internal Essential Word and Spirit as Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three but Three absolute particular Natures as Three Men each of whom has a compleat absolute personal Nature of his own are Three Now if this be the true Account every one sees the difference between Three personal relative Substances or Subsistencies of the same Nature and Three absolute particular Natures the first is a real Substantial Trinity Three Subsisting Infinite Persons in the Unity of the same Godhead Three Persons and One God the other is down-right Tritheism And that this is all they meant by particular Individual Natures I have many Arguments to prove For 1st Had they herein condemned distinct personal relative Substances they had condemned the Faith of the Catholick Church and relapsed into Sabellianism as
that there is but One Divinity the second shews the distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature But then which is what I intended in all this this very distinction proves one individual Divinity because it is in the individual Unity of the same Numerical not Specifick Nature for all essential Processions as the Eternal Word and Spirit are which cannot so much as in Thought be separated from Original Mind must continue in the Unity of the same individual Nature This is what the Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One common Divinity which is individually One in Three perfect Hypostases Father Son and Holy Ghost The Divinity of the Father of Eternal Self-originated Mind is the common Divinity communicated to the Eternal Word and Spirit in the individual Unity of Nature 2. Now this will give us some Notion of the distinction of Nature and Persons in the Eternal Godhead I say Persons not Person which I take to be the fundamental Mistake which has obscured and perplex'd this Mystery Men have rack'd their Inventions to find out some distinction between Nature and Person in every single Person in the Godhead which it is certain these Fathers never thought of though their Attempt to distinguish between Nature and Person in every Man gave some occasion to this Mistake But I have already proved both from Fathers and Schoolmen That when they spoke distinctly of each particular Person they made Person and Nature the same That the Person of the Father is the Nature of the Father and the Person of the Son the Nature of the Son Nor indeed had they any occasion to distinguish between Nature and Person in each single Person which could do no service in this Mystery For the true reason and occasion for this distinction was to reconcile the Individual Unity of the Divine Nature with a Trinity of real Hypostases or Persons how One Nature can subsist in Three distinct Hypostases and continue One Individual Nature Which had been no difficulty at all were not each Divine Person by himself the Divine Nature But how the Divine Nature should subsist whole and perfect in Three distinct Persons and not be Three distinct Natures but One Nature and One Divinity not specifically but individually and numerically One This was the difficulty they were concerned to answer which the distinction between Nature and Person in each single Person could not answer For let us suppose such a distinction as this whatever it be if the Divine Nature subsist whole and perfect in each distinct Person the difficulty still remains how the Persons are distinct and the Nature individually One As to put the Case in Human Nature whatever distinction we allow between Nature and Person in every particular Man if we allow that every Man has Human Nature as distinctly in himself as he is a distinct Person the distinction between Nature and Person can never prove the Individual Numerical Unity of Human Nature in Three Men. The Question then is Not how Nature and Person is distinguish'd in each single Person much less how Three Persons in One singular Nature are distinguished from that singular Nature which unavoidably reduces a Trinity of Persons to an unintelligible Trinity of Modes but How the Three Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity which are Three in number and each of them the Divine Nature are distinguished from that One Individual Divinity which is in them all or rather which they all are Now what I have already said seems to me to give a very intelligible Notion of this viz. That the Divine Nature which is but One is the Eternal Self-originated Divinity with its Eternal Essential Processions or Productions which as I have already shewn are but One not Singular but Individual Nature and Individual Divinity But then this One Self-originated Divinity is most certainly an Infinite Eternal Self-originated Person if Infinite Eternal Self-originated Mind be a Person and these Eternal Essential Processions are Persons also if an Eternal Living Subsisting Word be a Person and an Eternal Living Subsisting Spirit be a Person and then it is evident that there are Three Eternal Subsisting Persons in the Individual Unity of Nature These Divine Processions do not multiply nor divide the Divine Nature because they are essential to an Infinite Mind and are Processions ad intra in the perfect Identity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Individual Unity of Nature but they are distinct Persons as being Eternal Subsisting Living Intelligent Processions which is all that we mean by Persons in this Mystery with reference to the Eternal Word and Spirit For these Three Divine Persons have their different Characters and Order whereby they are distinguished from each other which the Fathers call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which they meant their different manner of subsisting in the Individual Unity of the Divine Nature that though they have all the same Divinity as that signifies all Divine Perfections yet they have it after a different manner that is as they constantly explain it Vnbegotten Begotten and Proceeding as the Athanasian Creed teaches us to believe 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 This is the only distinction which the Catholick Fathers allow between the Three Divine Persons and let us consider the nature of it Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies actual Existence and that which does actually exist and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify that there are Three that do actually exist but after a different manner That is That the Father is Unbegotten Self-originated Divinity is God of himself without any other cause of his Being and this Self-originated Unbegotten Divinity is the Person of the Father and in the highest and most absolute sense the One God The Son is Eternally begotten of his Father's Substance and lives and subsists in him and so the Holy Ghost Eternally proceeds from Father and Son That is There is One Eternal Self-originated Divinity with its two Eternal Processions in the perfect Unity and Identity of the same Nature The Father's manner of subsistence is easily understood and secures to him the Prerogative of the One True God but we must shew this a little more plainly with reference to the Son and Holy Spirit each of which is by himself True and Perfect God but not a Second and Third God The right understanding of which depends upon the true stating of their different manners of subsistence And here I need only refer to what I have already discoursed concerning the difference between an Absolute Nature and Relative Subsistencies in the same Nature An Absolute Nature is a whole Compleat Nature with all that essentially belongs to such a Nature as every perfect Man has all that belongs essentially to the Nature of Man
and thus a Man begets a Man in his own Nature and Likeness and the Son which is begotten is upon all accounts as much a Man as he who begets and Father and Son are two Men And to beget and to be begotten tho they prove their Persons to be distinct yet are but External Relations not different manners of subsistence in the same Nature And thus God does not beget a Son which would be to beget a Second God For to beget and to be begotten when he who begets begets in an absolute sense all the same that he is himself makes two of the same kind And therefore we must observe That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Personal Character and Property of the Father does not only signify that he has no cause of his Being and Nature but that what he is he is absolutely in himself has an Absolute not a Relative Nature and Subsistence and so consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Personal Property of the Son signifies that his Being and Nature is Relative not only that he receives his Being and Nature from his Father but that he so receives it as to be a Relative Subsistence in his Father's Nature and the like may be said of the Procession of the Holy Ghost As to shew this more particularly God begets a Son his own perfect Image and Likeness but he does not beget his own Absolute Nature in his Son as Man does though he begets his Son of his own Nature and Substance as for instance God is Perfect Absolute Original Mind not only as Original is opposed to what has a Cause and a Beginning but as opposed to an Image but God does not beget an Absolute Original Mind in his Son but only his own Eternal Essential Word which is the Perfect Living Image of Eternal Self-originated Mind and is it self Eternal Infinite Mind in the Eternal Word but is in its own proper Character the Eternal Word of the Eternal Mind not originally an Eternal Mind it self It has all the Perfections of an Eternal Mind as a Perfect Word must of necessity have which is the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature but it has all these Perfections not as Original Mind but as a Begotten Word which is a different Mode of Subsistence and a sensible distinction between the Eternal Mind and its Word in the perfect Identity of Nature This I take to be a True and Intelligible Account of these different manners of Subsistence which distinguish the Divine Persons in the perfect Unity of Nature that they have all the same Nature and same Perfections but after a different manner which can never be understood in Absolute Natures and Persons for three Men though Father Son and Grandson have all of them Human Nature after the very same manner but in an Absolute Nature and Relative Essential Processions this is to be understood and proves a real distinction and perfect Unity It is evident to all Men that the Mind and its Word are Two and it is as evident that Life Wisdom Knowledge are in Absolute Original Mind after another manner than they are in its Word and yet the very Notion of a Mind and its Word and that Essential Relation that is between them makes it a contradiction to say that any other Life Wisdom Knowledge can be in the Word than what is in the Mind which would be to say That the Word is not the Word of the Mind if it have any thing that is not in the Mind For a Natural Word can have nothing but what is in the Mind and is no farther a Word than it is the Natural Image of the Mind And the like may be said concerning the Holy Spirit which hath all the same Divine Perfections but in a different manner from Original Mind and its Word as eternally proceeding from both This is the Account which the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of Nature and Distinction of Persons in the Ever Blessed Trinity which answers the Objections of our Sabellian Arian and Socinian Adversaries and vindicates those Catholick Forms of Speech which they charge with Tritheism Contradiction and Nonsense As to shew this briefly in one view for each part of it has been sufficiently confirmed already The Catholick Faith teaches us That there is but One God and this is demonstrable from the Doctrine of these Fathers For in this Account I have now given there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Absolute Divinity One Divine Nature and therefore but One God But say our Adversaries One God in Natural Religion and according to the general Sense of Mankind signifies One Person who is God And this also in some sense has always been owned by the Catholick Church That as there is but One Absolute Divinity so the Person of the Father who is this One Absolute Divinity is this One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is but One Person who is God in this Absolute Sense because there is but One Father who as they often speak is the Fountain of the Deity that is of the Divine Processions of the Son and Holy Spirit He is the Whole Absolute Divinity himself and whatever is Divine Eternally and Essentially proceeds from him in the Unity of his own Nature But at this rate what Divinity do we leave for the Son and the Holy Spirit Truly the very same by Eternal Generation and Procession which is originally and absolutely in the Father For it is the Nature of the Father and the Divinity of the Father which is in the Son and Holy Spirit as the Fathers constantly own and as of necessity it must be because there is no other This Eternal Generation and Procession has always been owned as an ineffable Mystery which we must believe upon the Authority of the Scriptures without pretending to know how God begets an Eternal Son or how the Eternal Spirit proceeds from Father and Son which we confess we have no Notion of but we know likewise That this is no reason to reject this Faith no more than it is a reason to reject the belief of an Eternal Self-originated Being because though it be demonstrable That there must be an Eternal First Cause of all things which has no Cause of its own Being but an Eternal necessary Nature yet we can no more conceive this than we can an Eternal Generation and Procession Supposing therefore without disputing that matter at present that God has an Eternal Son that Eternal Self-originated Mind has an Eternal Subsisting Word and an Eternal Spirit it is evident that this Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit must have all the same Perfections of the Eternal Mind must be all that the Eternal Mind is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excepting its being an Absolute Self-originated Mind Now if he be God who has the whole Divine Nature and Perfections then the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God who by Eternal Generation and Procession have that same
own Nature and Godhead each of which is True and Perfect God but not a Second and Third God but the Son of God and the Spirit of God Divine Subsisting Relations in the One Absolute Godhead of the Father which does not multiply the Name nor Nature of God This is the Account the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of God in a Trinity of Persons and therefore this must be the Catholick Sense of this Proposition And here it will be proper to observe That in the Account they give of the Unity of God that is the Unity in Trinity they indifferently assign One Divinity and One Father as the Reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is One God because there is One Divinity and there is One God because there is One Father which are not two different Reasons but one and the same from whence it necessarily follows That this One Divinity is the Divinity of the Father and that this One God in Trinity is the Father for One God must necessarily signify One Person when the Father is the One God So that the Father who is the One Absolute Divinity is the One God who ceases not to be the One God as St. Hilary and others constantly teach by having a Son and Holy Spirit who receive all from him live and subsist in him and are eternally and inseparably One with him Thus we are taught in the Athanasian Creed to worship One God in Trinity that is the Eternal Father who is the One God with his Son and Holy Spirit and the Trinity in Vnity that is Father Son and Holy Ghost not Three Gods but One in the Unity of the Father's Godhead For the Godhead of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all one the Glory equal the Majesty Coeternal There is but One Godhead One Glory One Majesty and that is the Godhead Glory and Majesty of the Father and the Son and Spirit are in the Godhead Glory Majesty of the Father as Internal Processions Living Subsisting Relations in the Father's Godhead This Account which I confess is the only Account of this Matter that I can understand whatever other Faults it may have which I do not yet see I 'm sure is perfectly Orthodox is neither Tritheism Sabellianism Arianism nor Socinianism but the True Catholick Faith of a Trinity in Unity Here is but One Absolute Divinity but One Father with his Eternal Son and Spirit in the Unity of his own Nature and Godhead and therefore but One God For Three Gods must be Three Absolute Divinities without any Internal Relation or dependence on each other Internal Relations though Real Subsisting Relations can't multiply Nature and therefore can't multiply Gods Here are Three Real Proper Living Intelligent Substantial Divine Persons and therefore no Sabellianism not One Personal God with three Names Offices Manifestations Modes Powers Parts Here are Three truly Divine Persons each of which is by himself or in his own Person True and Perfect God The Father God of himself Unbegottan Self-originated God the Fountain of the Deity to the Son and Holy Spirit The Son the Son of God and True and Perfect God as the Son of God The Spirit the Spirit of the Father and the Son and True and Perfect God as the Spirit of God So that here is neither Arianism Macedonianism nor Socinianism no Made or Created Nature no Creature in the Ever Blessed Trinity No say our Arian and Socinian Adversaries neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost according to this Hypothesis are True and Perfect God as the Father is Neither of them have Self-existence or a Fecundity of Nature which are thought great Perfections in the Father but the Son is not of himself but begotten of his Father nor is the Spirit of himself but proceeds from Father and Son and neither of them have a Son or Spirit of their own as the Father has All this I readily grant for it is the Catholick Faith that the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so a Father that he never was a Son and the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so a Son that he never was nor can be a Father and so of the Holy Spirit That there is but One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts as the Athanasian Creed teaches This proves indeed as we all own that neither the Son nor Spirit are absolutely God an Absolute Divinity as the Father is but only Divine Processions an Absolute Divinity has a Fecundity of Nature Absolute Original Mind according to this Hypothesis must have its Word and Spirit in the Unity of its Nature but the Word being no Absolute Nature can't beget another Word nor the Spirit another Spirit So that this Objection only delivers us from the Charge of Tritheism by proving Father Son and Holy Ghost to be but One Divinity One God For if the Son were as absolutely God as the Father is there is no account to be given why he should not beget a Son as his Father did him as we see it is among Men where the Son begets a Son and becomes a Father and thus there could be no possible end of Divine Generations but these are Generations ad extra which give as compleat and absolute a Nature and absolute Subsistence to the Son as the Father has but Internal Essential Relations are in the Individual Unity of Nature and therefore cannot multiply when Nature has all that is essential to it So that Self-existence and Generation do not belong to the Character of a Son and with the Catholick Church we teach That the Son of God is God only as the Son and it would be Heresy to ascribe the peculiar Prerogatives of the Father to him And then it can be no Objection against the Divinity of the Son that he has not what is peculiar and proper only to the Person of the Father as Self-existence and Generation is Self-existence Self-origination to have no cause of his Being I grant is essential to the Idea of a God And Eternal and Necessary Existence to the Notion of any Person who is in any sense God for he who ever began to be and subsists precariously can in no sense be God But then though Self-existence be essential to the Notion of an Absolute Divinity yet a Person who is a Son and therefore not Self-originated but eternally begotten of a Self-originated Father and subsists eternally and necessarily as an Essential Procession and Relation in a Self-originated Nature must be the Son of God and God the Son True and Perfect God as the Eternal Necessary Essential Procession of a Self-originated Divinity For what is internally and essentially related to a Self-existent Nature can be no Creature and therefore must be True and Perfect God Thus to proceed The same Rule of speaking if Men be peaceably and charitably disposed to understand one another will easily reconcile that
THE PRESENT STATE OF THE Socinian Controversy AND THE Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers Concerning A TRINITY in UNITY By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Dean of St. Paul's Master of the Temple and Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAJESTY LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCXC VIII THE PREFACE I Have little to say to the Reader having sufficiently Explained the Design of this Treatise in the First Section Those who remember how this Controversy has been of late managed may possibly expect what they will not find some sharp Resentments of the Ill Usage I have met with and as sharp Returns but I write not to Revenge my self but to Explain and Vindicate the Truly Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith of a Trinity in Unity which requires a Composed and Sedate Mind both in the Writer and Reader For this Reason I have thus long delayed the Publication of this Treatise the greatest part of which was Printed Two Years since that those who will ever grow Cool might have time to recover their Temper And did I not hope that the Publication of it at this time would tend more to quiet Mens Minds to stop the Mouths of Hereticks and to secure the Catholick Faith than a Passive Silence it should never see the Light how much soever my own Reputation might suffer by it But I persuade my self That the Authority of the Catholick Church and of the Catholick Fathers is not at so low an Ebb even in this Age as to be easily despised and therefore their Explications their Arguments their Answers to the Objections of Hereticks will have their due weight and I have not gone one step further I appeal to the Catholick Fathers and am contented to stand or fall by their Sentence I have not wilfully misrepresented their Sense in any thing and have taken all possible care not to mistake it and as far as Human Authority is concerned here I must leave the matter for I know of no further Appeal The CONTENTS CHAP. I. SECT I. THE Present State of the Socinian Controversy and how to reduce the Dispute to the Original Question Page 1. SECT II. How to reduce this Dispute concerning the Trinity to Scripture-Terms 4 The Form of Baptism the Rule and Standard of Faith ibid. That these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost are more easily understood and give us a truer Idea of a Trinity in Vnity than any Artificial Terms 5 c. SECT III. That the Title of God attributed in Scripture distinctly to Father Son and Holy Ghost gives us the best Account of their Nature and must determine the signification of Ecclesiastical Words 12 This particularly Explained with respect to those Terms Nature Essence Substance Hypostasis Existence Subsistence Person c. 13 c. SECT IV. These Names Father Son and Holy Ghost prove the real distinction of Persons in the Trinity 20 c. SECT V. These Names Father Son and Holy Ghost prove the Vnity Sameness Identity of Nature and Godhead explained at large 24 SECT VI. Concerning the Vnity of God 33 In what sense the Catholick Church believed in One God ibid. Tritheism an old Sabellian and Arian Objection against the Trinity 34 How answered by the Catholick Fathers 37 c. CHAP. II. AN Examination of some Considerations concerning the Trinity SECT I. Concerning the Ways of managing this Controversy 51 What Ways the Considerer dislikes 52 c. What way he took viz. consulting Scripture and Natural Sentiments 56 SECT II. Concerning the Traditionary Faith of the Church with respect to the Doctrine of the Trinity 60 What the Catholick Church is from whence we must receive this Traditionary Faith ibid. What Evidence we have for this Tradition from the Ancient Heresies condemned by the Catholick Church 64 Of what Authority the Traditionary Faith of the Catholick Church ought to be in expounding Scripture 77 SECT III. What is sufficient to be believed concerning the Trinity 80 His Requisites to make it possible for us to believe a thing 81 SECT IV. Concerning his state of the Question That One and the same God is Three different Persons 84 His Examination of these Terms God Unity Identity Distinction Number and Person And 1. Of the Notion of God 86 SECT V. His Notions and Ideas of Unity Distinction Person His Sabellian Notion of a Person that there is but One single Person in the Trinity as Person signifies properly a particular Intelligent Being 88 This he proves from his Notions of Vnity and Distinction the Vnity and Distinction of Ideas of Principle and of Position 91 What he means by an obscure confused Knowledge and a general confused Faith of the Trinity 101 SECT VI. What the Scripture requires us to believe concerning the Trinity 103 His Sabellian Notion of One God to be adored under Three different Titles and Characters Ibid. His Scripture-proof of this Examin'd 104 c. His attempt to reconcile this with God's being One and Three 108 c. And with the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity 113 His Account of the Vnion of God and Man 115 What end the belief of the Trinity and Incarnation serve not as a Matter of Faith and Speculation but as an artificial representation of God's love to man 120 CHAP. III. AN Account of the Sabellian Heresy and by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed it 124 The several kinds of Sabellianism 1. Those who made Father Son and Holy Ghost to be only Three names appearances and offices of the same Person And here the question was not whether the Son was a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person but whether they were distinct Persons from the Father 125 By what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed this Heresy 127 2. That the Son is distinguished from the Father only as a man's word is distinguished from himself 133 And by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed this Heresy 134 3. Some made God a compound Being and Father Son and Holy Ghost the Three Parts of this one God 143 By what Arguments the Fathers opposed it Ibid. CHAP. IV. COncerning the Homoousion or One Substance of Father Son and Holy Ghost 150 SECT I. The true sense of the Homoousion from those misrepresentations which were made of it and the Answers which were given by the Nicene Fathers to such Objections 152 SECT II. Some Rules for Expounding the Homoousion 158 SECT III. What the Nicene Fathers meant by the Homoousion 163 SECT IV. A more particular Inquiry into the full signification of the Homoousion with respect to the specifick Vnity of the Divine Nature 170 SECT V. That by the Homoousion the Nicene Fathers did not meerly understand a specifick but a natural Vnity and Sameness of Substance between Father and Son 180 Damascen's distinction between one in Notion and one in reality Ibid. This appears from their Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 181 And the Catholick Fathers lay the
God excepting their Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost whereby they are distinguished into Three As for Example If by Nature Essence Substance Existence Subsistence however they may differ in their formal Conceptions they only mean a true and real Being who actually perfectly compleatly is what it is God is Essence Substance Subsistence in the most perfect sense of all for he is All Being his Name is Iehovah which as Learned Men most probably conclude signifies a Plenitude and Perfection of Being which is such a Perfection as includes all other Perfections in it for Perfect Being is every thing which perfectly is This is the peculiar Name and essential Character of God and of God only God is that is is Eternal Essential Immutable Life and Being in which sense the Apostle tells us That He only has Immortality Creatures are but are not Essential Life and Being Being is not included in the formal Conception or Definition of any Created Nature Man is a Reasonable Creature was a true Definition of Human Nature before any man was created and would be so for ever though all mankind were annihilated And therefore we may reasonably enough in Creatures distinguish between Nature Substance Existence Subsistence if by Nature we understand that Idea or Pattern according to which they are made and by Substance that which is made whatever it is whether Matter or Spirit which is the Subject of those Moral or Natural Perfections which belong to the Idea of such a Creature and by Existence and Subsistence their actual Being which they receive from their Maker with regard to their compleat or incompleat manner of Existence But now we can form no Idea of God without perfect life and being for whatever else according to our imperfâ—ct manner of conceiving is contained in the Idea of God is nonsense and contradiction without it Infinite Wisdom Infinite Power and Infinite Goodness is the Idea of nothing without Eternal and Necessary Being and an Infinitely Perfect Nothing is a contradiction in the very Notion But Infinite Perfect Life and Being includes all other Perfections and is the most simple and comprehensive Idea of God for whatever perfectly is is whatever is any real Perfection So that there is no foundation nor any occasion for such Distinctions of Essence Nature Substance Existence Subsistence in God for his Essence Nature Substance is his Being and his Being is perfect Existence and Subsistence These Terms differ in their formal Conceptions when applied to Creatures but in essential Life and Being these cannot be formally distinguished for we cannot conceive Existence or Subsistence as superadded to Nature as we do in Creatures because Necessary Essential Being is the Divine Nature Nor can we distinguish between Essence Nature and Substance because there is no distinction in God between the Subject and its Faculties and Powers which is the Foundation of that distinction in Creatures Men who do not love to use words without any Notion belonging to them find themselves extremely puzzled to fit any distinct Ideas to these words when applied to God When the Fathers and Schoolmen apply these Terms to God they take care to shew how differently they are used when applied to God from what they signifie when applied to Creatures They assert the most absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature without the least composition and indeed expound all these Terms to the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esse to signify the most Absolute Being or the most Perfect Is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is Simple Perfect Existence One St. Austin whose Authority is sacred in the Schools will furnish us with sayings enough to this purpose Nothing is more certain with him than that in God to Be to Live to Understand or whatever else we can attribute to God is all the same is Perfect Being or Essence And therefore he owns the impropriety of those Terms Substance and Subsistence when applied to God But notwithstanding this that God is the most Pure Simple Being without any imaginable composition yet since we cannot comprize all that is necessary for us to know of God in one simple uncompounded thought we must unavoidably conceive the Idea of God by Parts under different formal Conceptions such as his Wisdom his Power his Goodness his Truth and Faithfulfulness c. for such distinct representations as these God makes of himself in the Holy Scriptures they are what we can distinctly apprehend and are absolutely necessary for the Government of our lives and to know what we are to expect from God But such distinctions as we can frame no distinct conceptions of as are apt to corrupt our Notions of God with corporeal Representations and perplex our Minds with endless and inextricable difficulties ought to be cautiously used and carefully explained to prevent all mistakes and to reduce them to such plain and simple Notions as come nearest to the absolute simplicity of the Divine Essence And now I suppose it will admit of no dispute Whether the Father who is God be Essence Substance Subsistence or whether the Son who is God be Essence Substance Subsistence and so in like manner the Holy Ghost For this signifies no more than To Be in the most perfect and absolute sense of Being which is the first and most simple Idea of God Absolute Essence and Being So that if the Father is the Son is and the Holy Ghost is each of them is Essence Substance Subsistence in the most Perfect and Absolute sense of these Terms For if each of them is and each of them is God each of them is only in that Notion of Being which is included in the Idea of God which contains the most absolute Perfection of Being that is all that is absolutely Perfect And will any Trinitarian deny That the Father is the Son is and the Holy Ghost is And then I know not what other Dispute there can be about this matter if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then the Father is the Son is and the Holy Ghost is in the most Perfect Notion of Being and that is all that is meant by Essence Substance Subsistence when spoken of God In the same manner we may examine the signification of the word Person which has occasioned no small Dispute We say that there are Three Persons in the Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost and each of these Divine Persons is in himself True and Perfect God Now if we must call these Divine Three Three Persons which long Use and Custom has made Reasonable and in some measure Necessary the most certain way to determine the signification of Person when applied to God is to consider in what sense one who is True and Perfect God may be called a Person for GOD is the Scripture Name and Character which is distinctly attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost and therefore that must give the Signification to all other words of Human Use
dislikes those who are for reverencing the Mystery of the Trinity without ever looking into it at all who think it proposed to us only as a Trial and Exercise of our Faith and the more implicit that is the fuller do we express our Trust and Reliance upon God Now if by not looking into it at all he means not enquiring what they are to believe concerning the Trinity nor why they believe it this I acknowledge is a very odd sort of Faith but I believe he cannot name any such men whose avowed Principle this is An Implicit Faith is only meritorious in the Church of Rome but then an Implicit Faith is to believe without knowing what or why but these Ignoramus or Mystery-Trinitarians as some late Socinian Considerers have insolently and reproachfully called them and whom our Author ought not to have imitated never teach such an Implicit Faith as this much less admire the Triumph and Merit of Faith in believing Contradictions and the more the better Under all the appearance of Modesty and Temper these are very severe and scandalous Reflections upon some of the Wisest and Greatest Men amongst us and which this Considerer had little reason for as will soon appear The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the most Fundamental Article of the whole Christian Faith and therefore an explicite Knowledge and Belief of it is essential to the Christian Profession and thus all Protestant Divines teach and whatever Voluminous Disputes there may be about it the true Christian Faith of the Trinity is comprized in a few words and the Proofs of it are plain and easy For the Scriptures plainly and expresly teach us that there is but One God and that the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God that the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son as I have already explained it This we all teach our people to believe upon the Authority of Scripture which is the only Authority we can have for matters of pure Revelation and expound those Texts to them which expresly contain this Faith and vindicate them from the Cavils and perverse Comments of Hereticks And this I think is not to reverence the Mystery without ever looking into it at all when we look as far as we can till Revelation bounds our prospect And this is to look into it as far as God would have us and as far as is necessary to all the purposes of Religion that is as far as the knowledge of this Mystery is of any use to us Now when this is done there are a great many wise men who think we ought to look into this Mystery no further and there seems to be a very good reason for it viz. because with all our looking we can see no further There are indeed some curious Questions started about reconciling the Unity of God with the belief of a Trinity in which there are Three each of whom is by himself True and Perfect God for if there be but One God how can there be Three each of whom is True God Now whatever Answer may be given to such kind of Objections and pretended Contradictions these Learned Men think there is no reason to clog the Christian Faith with them nor to disturb the minds of ordinary Christians with such Subtilties That the Authority of God who has revealed this and the acknowledged Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature is a sufficient Answer to all Objections and as ridiculously as a Witty Man may represent this That is the truest Faith not which can believe Contradictions but which can despise the pretence of Contradictions when opposed to a Divine Revelation for that resolves Faith wholly into Divine Authority which is the true Notion of a Divine Faith To say that this will not suppress any of our Doubts or Disputes in Religion is a manifest mistake for such a profound Veneration for the Authority of God would silence them all And whatever is the Natural Propension of the Soul to the search of Truth Natural Reason will tell us that there are a thousand things which we can know nothing of and that it is in vain to search after them but that the Divine Wisdom is unsearchable and therefore God is to be believed beyond our own knowledge or comprehension and when we are agreed about the Truth and Certainty of the Revelation that will silence all our Disputes about what is revealed and set bounds to our Enquiries And I never knew before the danger of submitting our Reason to Faith of a blind resignation of judgment as he is pleased to call it to a Divine Revelation for that is the matter in debate Blasphemies and Contradictions may and have been imposed upon mens Faith under the Venerable Name of Mysteries but such Blasphemies and Contradictions were never revealed in Scripture and therefore belong not to the present Enquiry which only concerns believing what we allow to be revealed without looking any farther into it We allow all men to examine the Truth and Certainty of the Revelation and to examine what is revealed but here we must stop and not pretend to judge of what is revealed by the measures of human Reason which is so inadequate a Rule for Divine and Supernatural Truths This is all very plain and if he will allow the Truth of this he must confess that what he has said upon this first Head is nothing to the purpose It is a very popular thing to decry Mysteries and to cry up Reason but to be very cautiously imitated because it is generally found that such men are either no great Believers or no very deep Reasoners 2. In the next place he tells us of a very strange sort of men who call the Doctrine of the Trinity an Incomprehensible Mystery and yet are at a great deal of pains to bring it down to a level with Human Vnderstanding and are all very earnest to have their own particular Explications acknowledged as necessary Articles of Faith An Incomprehensible Mystery is what Human Reason cannot comprehend to bring an Incomprehensible Mystery down to the level of Human Vnderstandings is to make it comprehensible by Reason and those are notable men indeed who undertake to make that comprehensible by Reason which at the same time they acknowledge to be incomprehensible It is to be hoped this Considerer does a little mistake them Men may be-believe the Trinity to be an Incomprehensible Mystery and yet speak of it in words which may be understood which does not pretend to make the Mystery comprehensible but to deliver it from Nonsense Jargon and Heresy that is not to explain the Mystery which is and will be a Mystery still but to secure the true Christian Doctrine of the Trinity which they desire may continue an Article of the Christian Faith still There are he tells us a third sort of men who are for no Mystery that is the
Homoousion which he afterwards readily received when the Council had declared in what sense they understood it and rejected all corporeal passions all division and partition change and diminution of the Divine Essence which pure simple unbodied eternal unchangeable Mind is not capable of Now all that I shall observe at present is That this very Objection which was thought so formidable necessarily supposes that both they who made it and they who were so much concerned to answer it did acknowledge a substantial generation of the Son for this whole Dispute is downright Nonsense without it If God the Father in begetting his Son does not so communicate his own Nature and Substance to him as to make him a true substantial Son of the same Substance indeed but yet as distinct in Substance from the Father as he is in Person How ridiculous is all this Dispute how the Father communicates his own Nature to his Son for according to these men he does not communicate or propagate his own Nature and Substance at all there being but one singular solitary Divine Nature and Substance with a Trinity of Names Modes or Offices and therefore no danger of any division or partition of the Divine Substance The Dispute between the Catholicks and the Arians about the generation of the Son was this They both owned against the Sabellians that the Son is a real substantial subsisting Person but the Question was whence he had his Nature whether he was created out of Nothing and consequently had a beginning of Being as the Arians affirmed or was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Substance of his Father and so coeternal with his Father as the Nicene Council affirmed That the Substance of the Son was of the Substance of the Father God of God Light of Light Against this the Arians objected That the Son could not be of the Substance of the Father without the division of the Father's Substance which is impossible in an infinite uncreated Spirit as God is which Argument is only against a substantial generation The Nicene Fathers allow this Objection to be good as to corporeal generations but deny that it is thus as to the Eternal Generation of the Son of God for an Eternal Uncreated Immutable Mind if it can communicate its own Nature at all and we learn from Scripture that God has a Son must do it without division of parts for the Divine Nature and Substance has no parts and is capable of no division And it is very absurd to reason from corporeal Passions to the Affections and Operations of Spirits much more of an infinite eternal Spirit Had not the Arians understood the Catholick Fathers of the substantial Generation of the Son they had more wit than to urge an Argument to no purpose for where there is no communication of Substance it is certain there can be no division of it And had not the Catholick Fathers owned this substantial Generation they would have rejected the Argument with scorn as nothing to the purpose and not have distinguished between corporeal generations and the Generation of Eternal and Infinite Mind That though Bodies cannot communicate their own Nature and Substance without division yet an Eternal Mind can so that from these perverse Interpretations of the Homoousion which the Catholick Fathers rejected we may learn what they meant by it for if Father and Son are not Consubstantial in the sense of the Sabellians and Modalists that is that Father and Son are not One Person with Two Names nor One singular solitary Substance common to them both then the Father must be a substantial Father and the Son a substantial Son and these Two substantial Persons are Consubstantial as having the same One Divine Nature and Substance intirely perfectly and distinctly in themselves without any division diminution or separation of Substance by a complete and perfect Generation whereby the Father communicates his whole intire Nature to the Son without any change or alteration in himself SECT II. Some Rules for expounding the Homoousion and in what Sense the Fathers understood it SEcondly Let us now examine what account the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers give of the Homoousion and in what sense they understood it But before I tell you what they expresly say of this matter I shall observe by the way two or three Rules they give us for expounding the Homoousion which are of great use in this Enquiry 1. The first is To give the Homoousion the right place in our Creed as the Nicene Fathers have done They do not tell us abruptly in the first place That the Son is consubstantial or of one Substance with the Father They first tell us That Jesus Christ our Lord is the only-begotten Son of God begotten of his Father that is of the Substance of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light Very God of Very God Begotten not made and then they add Of One Substance with the Father This St. Hilary lays great stress on and his Reason is very considerable because if in the first place we say Father and Son are consubstantial or of One Substance this is capable of an Heretical as well as Orthodox Sense as we have already heard for they may be One Substance in the Sabellian Notion as that signifies One Person or One by the Division or Partition of the same Substance of which each has a part for all these perverse Senses may be affix'd to it when this word Consubstantial or One Substance stands singly by it self or is put in the first place without any thing to limit or determine its signification And therefore a true Catholick Christian must not begin his Creed with saying That Father and Son are of One Substance but then he may safely say One Substance when he has first said The Father is unbegotten the Son is born and subsists of his Father like to his Father in all Perfections Honour and Nature not of nothing but born not unborn but coaeval not the Father but the Son of the Father not a Part of the Father but All that the Father is not the Author but the Image the Image of God begotten of God and born God not a Creature but God not Another God of a different Kind and Substance but One God as having the same Essence and Nature which differs in nothing from the Substance of the Father that God is One not in Person but Nature Father and Son having nothing unlike or of a different kind in them And after this we may safely add That Father and Son are One Substance and cannot deny it without Sin This is as plain as words can make it and needs no Comment but fixes and determines the Catholick Sense of the Homoousion For if we must acknowledge the Son to be consubstantial or of one Substance with the Father in no other sense than as a True and Real Son is consubstantial a Son not created out of Nothing but
kind but as actually subsisting in Particulars which are distinguished from each other by their distinct Subsistence or by such other Properties and characteristical Marks as are peculiar to each of them and not common to the whole kind as the persons of Peter and Iames and Iohn though they have the same common Nature are yet distinguished from each other Now if the One Divine Nature be in this sense a common Nature that it is really and actually communicated by the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit and does distinctly subsist whole and entire and perfect in all Three Divine Persons it cannot be One singular solitary Nature which cannot subsist distinctly in Three for in perfect singularity there can be no distinction nor can One singular Nature be Three Subsistences when there is but One which subsists Athanasius or whoever was the Author of that Treatise of the common Essence of Father Son and Holy Ghost proves that all Three Persons have the same common Nature from the same Names and Attributes and Works Dominion and Power ascribed distinctly to them all and gives this account why though the Father be God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet we must not say that there are Three Gods but One God in Three Persons because a common Nature has a common Name as he shews that all Mankind in Scripture are called one Man upon account of their common Nature and if this be allowable among men to unite all Mankind in one Name and to speak of them as one Man notwithstanding all that diversity which is between them in external form strength will affections opinions c. how much more reasonable is it to call the Three Divine Persons One God who are distinguished and separated from the whole Creation by One undivided Dignity One Kingdom One Power One Will and Energy And that we may not suspect that by One common Nature they meant One singular Substance and Nature common to Father and Son which it is impossible to form any Notion of St. Basil tells us what he meant by a common Nature such a Nature as has the same Notion and Definition that is which is common as a Genus or Species is common As for example If the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to his Suppositum or Substance be Light we must acknowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Essence and Substance of the Son to be Light also and whatever other Notion we form of the Being and Essence of the Father the same we must apply to the Son And herein he places the Unity of the Godhead or the One Divinity that though the Divine Persons differ in Number and in their peculiar Characters yet that Divine Nature which subsists distinctly in each of them has but one and the same Notion and Definition and therefore is but one and the same in all If this be not a specifick Sameness and Unity all our Logicks deceive us I 'm sure the Unity of an Individuum or singular Nature was never thought to consist in a common Notion or Definition of its Nature and yet this is the account which the Fathers unanimously give of the One common Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost No man who understands any thing of this Controversy can be ignorant of that famous Dispute de Ingenito Genito concerning the Vnbegotten and the begotten Nature By this Sophism the Arians endeavoured to prove That the Son could not be Homoousios consubstantial or of the same Nature with the Father because an Unbegotten Nature cannot be the same with a Begotten Nature Now had the Catholick Fathers believed the singularity of the Divine Nature in the modern Notion of it this Objection had been unanswerable for it is absolutely impossible that the same singular Nature should be both begotten and unbegotten as much as it is that the same single Person should be both begotten and unbegotten I desire to know how any Sabellianist who acknowledges but One singular solitary Substance of the Deity would answer this Objection I know no possible way they have but to deny that the Divine Nature of the Son is begotten that though the Son be begotten his Divine Nature is not begotten but only his Personality or Mode of Subsistence without a begotten subsisting Nature And this indeed would effectually answer the Objection for if there be not a begotten and unbegotten Nature the foundation of the Objection is lost And this is so obvious an Answer upon the Hypothesis of Singularity that it is sufficient to satisfy any thinking man that the Câ—tholick Fathers did not believe this Singularity of the Divine Essence since none of them ever gave this Answer to the Objection But we need not guess at their meaning for they themselves expresly reject this Answer which is the only proper and pertinent Answer upon this Hypothesis and give such other Answers as contradict the Notion of the Singularity of the Divine Essence As strange as some think it the Catholick Fathers from the very beginning of Christianity owned the Divine Nature and Substance of the Son to be begotten nothing is more familiar in all their Writings than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Natura genita Deus genitus unigenitus Deus St. Gregory Nyssen agrees this matter with Eunomius that the Divine Nature of the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Begotten Substance so does St. Basil so do the other Fathers When Eunomius objected That God being unbegotten cannot admit of Generation St. Basil allows this to be true in one sense viz. That he who is unbegotten cannot in his own proper Nature be begotten because it is impossible that an unbegotten Nature should it self be begotten But the other sense of the words That he who is unbegotten himself can't beget so as to communicate by a substantial Generation his own Nature to the Son he rejects as Blasphemy both against Father and Son which is a plain demonstration what St. Basil's Judgment was about an unbegotten and begotten Nature Eunomius urged That unbegotten and begotten are both Names of Nature and therefore must signify two Natures as different from each other as unbegotten and begotten are Now to prove that begotten is not the Name of Nature and Substance St. Basil uses this Argument That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the same if begotten and substance signify the same thing then as he who is begotten is the begotten of him who begets so we may in like manner say that he who is begotten is the Substance of him who begets and then the Name begotten will not signify the Substance of the only begotten Son but the Substance of the God of all that as the Son is the begotten of God so he is the Substance of God and thus the begotten is the Substance of the unbegotten which he says is ridiculous And yet as ridiculous as St. Basil thought this those must of necessity
own it who assert but One singular Substance of the Deity for if there be but One Substance in the sense of Singularity the Son if he have any Substance must be the Substance of the Father he who is begotten must be the Substance of him who is unbegotten Thus much I think is certain That if St. Basil was in his wits he would never have used this Argument had he believed that Father and Son are but One singular Substance and yet elsewhere he expresly tells us That the Nicene Fathers distinguished the Hypostates of Father and Son when they called the Son Light of Light for the Light which begets is not the Light which is begotten though their Nature is the same they being Light and Light Once more to prevent if it be possible all manner of Evasions since some Moderns distinguish between the generation of the Son and of his Substance and will allow that the Son is begotten but not his Substance I observe that St. Basil rejects this distinction between the Son and his Substance Eunomius durst not say that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made or created out of nothing this being so expresly condemned by the Nicene Council which the generality of Christians received as the Rule of their Faith and therefore he endeavoured to cheat them into it before they were aware by a new form of speech He says That the Substance of the Son was begotten having no Being before its own proper subsistence and was begotten before all things by the Will of God This was very craftily expressed to insinuate that there was a time when the Substance of the Son did not exist for it could not be before it was begotten and had a proper subsistence of its own St. Basil exposes this Sophistry at large and shews that by the same Argument they might prove that there was a time when the Father's Substance was not for that could not be older than its own subsistence But if the Father be Eternal though his Substance could not be before its subsistence so may the Son be also by an Eternal generation and subsistence But that which I would take notice of is that St. Basil observes the vain Sophistry of this way of speaking that when he durst not say that the Son was of nothing or that there was a time when he was not he insinuates the same thing concerning the Substance of the Son as if the Son and the Substance of the Son were two things Now if the Son and the Substance of the Son be the same then if the Son is begotten the Substance of the Son is begotten if the Son be not the Father the Substance of the Son is not the Substance of the Father And yet all the Philosophy of the ancient Fathers not excepting St. Austin himself would not allow of any difference between the Person of the Father and his Being Essence Substance Subsistence Nature nor between the Person of the Son and his Being Subsistence Nature c. and therefore the Son is as distinct from the Father in Nature Being Life Substance as in Person and Subsistence But to proceed There was no dispute between the Catholicks and the Arians about the singularity of the Divine Substance they both rejected that as Sabellianism and asserted Father and Son to be as distinct in Nature and Substance as they are in Person and therefore this Objection de ingenito genito concerning the unbegotten and the begotten Nature was intended not to prove a numerical distinction which it effectually does but a specifick difference and diversity of Nature between Father and Son that the Son is no more consubstantial to the Father than to be unbegotten and to be begotten are the same The whole Controversy turned upon this one Point Whether unbegotten and begotten were Names of Nature and consequently whether to be unbegotten and to be begotten made a specifick difference of Natures This the Catholick Fathers unanimously denied and not to take notice of all they say on this Argument there is one Answer which they all give very observable to my present purpose and that is this That to be unbegotten or begotten makes no specifick difference in created Natures and therefore there is no reason to say that it makes any such diversity in the Divine Nature and they all give the Example of Adam Seth and Eve who all had the same human Nature and yet Adam was unbegotten as being immediately formed by God Seth was begotten as being Adam's Son Eve was not begotten but made of one of Adam's Ribs But this makes no diversity of Nature but only distinguishes them by their manner of Existence or coming into Being and there is no imaginable reason why the same specifick Nature considered in its Individuals may not have very different Beginnings without any alteration of Nature Nay as Damascen observes thus it is in all the several species of Creatures for the first in every kind is unbegotten And though the Divine Nature in all Three Divine Persons is Eternal without any Beginning yet if to be unbegotten or to be begotten make no diversity of Nature in Creatures there is no reason to say that it makes any such difference in the Divine Nature This is so plain and express that I need add nothing to shew how this overthrows the Opinion of Singularity and owns a Specifick Unity and Sameness of the Divine Nature That though the Father be unbegotten and the Son begotten yet they are Consubstantial or of the same Nature not with the Sameness of Singularity which is impossible but with such a Sameness of Nature as is between two of the same kind and species as the Example of Adam and Seth proves And I need not prove that a Specifick Sameness of Nature supposes a real distinction of Persons who agree in this One same Nature SECT V. That by the Homoousion or One Substance the Nicene Fathers did not meerly understand a Specifick but a Natural Unity and Sameness of Substance between Father and Son BUT yet after all this the Catholick Fathers did not allow the Divine Nature in a strict and proper Notion to be a species which is only a notional and logical Unity and Sameness of Nature for the Divine Nature which is perfect Essence is not logically but essentially One though it subsists distinctly in Three Persons and this was the Faith of the Catholick Fathers On this one Point the whole Controversy turns concerning the Singularity of the Divine Nature or the Plurality of Divine Natures multiplied with the Persons and consequently that great Controversy of all whether a Trinity of true real substantial Persons be essentially One or Three Gods To represent this as plainly as possibly I can we must consider the difference between a Specifick and a Natural Unity between being One in Notion and One in Nature The first is when from that agreement which we observe in the Natures of
several Individuals we form a Notion of one common Nature which belongs to them all as the Notion of Humanity or Human Nature which belongs to all men and affords a common Name and a common definition to them But this is only the work of the mind for there is no such one common Human Nature actually existing in all Mankind but every man is a man by himself and has a particular Human Nature as he has a Soul and Body of his own which is not the Soul and Body of any other man in the world And thus Damascen owns it is with all Creatures of the same kind who in truth and reality are distinct separate Beings who subsist apart by themselves as Peter and Paul and all other men do and are united only in a common Notion not in a common subsisting Nature which is one and the same in all But then he tells us that it is quite otherwise in the Divine Nature which is a common Nature and yet but One not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not meerly in our notion and conception but in truth and reality the same One Divine Nature without the least diversity or separation actually and distinctly subsisting in Father Son and Holy Ghost which being perfectly the same is but One and really and substantially subsisting in Three is a common Nature which is equally and perfectly in them all Thus Damascen has declared his Opinion fully against the notional and specifick Unity of the Divine Nature that the Divine Nature is One only as Human Nature is One because it has one common Name and Definition which belongs to all of the same kind whereas there is no one common Human Nature in Subsistence but only in Notion But the same One Divine Nature actually subsists in Three and is the same One Divinity in Three And that this was the true Sense of all the Catholick Fathers will appear from considering some Notions which were common to them all 1. They all agree That there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but One Divinity and One God and One God because but One Divinity and for this very reason nothing is more familiar with them than to call the Holy Trinity One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity in Three perfect Hypostates Now will any man say That the One Divinity or One Divine Nature and One God is a meer Notion Is not the Unity of God the fundamental Article of Natural Religion And if this One Divinity does really immutably inseparably subsist in Three Divine Persons as it must do if these Three Divine Persons with respect to this One Divinity are naturally and inseparably One God Can this One common subsisting Divinity be a meer Notion which has no Hypostatical Subsistence but only subsists in Thought Can the Specifick Notional Unity of Human Nature make three men one man as the One common Divine Nature makes Three Persons One God If the Unity of the Divine Nature be but a Notion the Unity of God the Unity of the Trinity which is this One God must be a meer Notion also And so in truth and reality there is no more One God than there is but one man I readily grant That the Father may be and often is in a peculiar manner called God and the One God as distinguished from the Person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit but I deny that he is called the One God as considered without them or so much as in thought separated from them If we do not include the Son and the Holy Ghost in the Unity of the Godhead we must deny their Godhead also unless we will say that there is One God and besides him two Divine Persons each of which is God but not the One God Which must introduce a Plurality of separate Gods For if they be not One they are more than One and if One Person be the One God without the other they cannot be One God This shews what necessity there is of owning the Holy and Ever-Blessed Trinity to be the One God and One Divinity naturally and essentially One and then the necessary Consequence is That this One Divine Nature which actually and substantially subsists in Three distinct Divine Persons who for that reason are naturally and essentially One God cannot be a mere Common Specifick Nature but One Common Subsisting Nature But what possible Sense can we make of this One Common Subsisting Nature which is really actually indivisibly One and yet is Common that is does really and distinctly subsist in more than one To be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Common and to be One not in Notion as a Species is common to all the Individuals but in the truth and reality of Nature sounds very like a Contradiction When we say the Divine Nature is common to Three Persons and subsists distinctly in three we deny it to be One singular solitary Nature which can subsist but in one and constitute but One Person which was the Sabellian Notion of the Divine Unity which the Catholick Church condemned as destroying a Real Trinity as I have shewn at large But how then can this Common Nature which is not singular but subsists perfectly and distinctly in Three be actually and essentially One for a Natural Unity is a Numerical Unity is one in number which one would think should signify a singular Nature for so it does in all Creatures And when we speak of the Unity of the Divine Nature it cannot be one by composition which the absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature cannot admit This is the great difficulty which we must not expect perfectly to understand because a Finite Mind can never comprehend that is can never have an adequate notion of what is infinite But I shall give some account what the Catholick Fathers have said of this matter which will satisfy us that it is a natural not a mere Specifick Unity which they intended and will give us such a notion of this Venerable Mystery as will deliver it from all inconsistency and contradiction 2. I observe therefore That the Catholick Fathers lay the foundation of this Sameness and Homoousiotes of Nature in the Eternal Generation of the Son of the Substance of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nicene Creed is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Son is not of nothing as all Creatures are but receives his whole Substance of the Substance of his Father St. Basil in express words makes Generation essential to the notion of the Homoousion For such Beings as upon account of likeness of Nature may be call'd Brothers to each other are not therefore Homoousious but when the Cause and that which actually subsists from or out of that Cause have the same Nature then they are Homoousious to each other And in opposition to that Perverse and Heretical Sense which some affixed to the word Homoousion that
same whole And yet if he be so of the Father as not to be the Father but the Son he must be distinct in substance from the Father He is true and perfect God but he receives his Divinity by his Birth he is God of God not God who begets but God who is begotten not of nothing but of his Father's substance who is unbegotten And therefore though St. Hilary and all the Catholick Fathers with him reject all Corporeal Passions in the Divine Generation all Corporeal Desection Division Efflux or Emanation of the Divine Substance which is incorporeal and indivisible yet they all assert a true and proper generation of the Son and an impassible production and prolation of him whole of whole And St. Hilary tells us that for this reason the Arians under a specious Pretence of condemning Valentinus his Emanations and Aeons denied the prolation of the Son from the Father only to deny his generation whereas some kind of prolation is essential to the very Notion of a Birth which cannot be conceived without it and therefore we must not wholly reject all Prolation and Production of the Son from the Father but only reject all Corporeal Emanations which are very imperfect Images of Divine Mysteries and have nothing like the eternal generation of the Son but only that the Son is truly begotten of his Father's Substance This is that adorable and unsearchable Mystery of the Divine Generation The Son is truly and properly begotten receives his whole Being and Nature from his Father is substance of his Father's substance whole of whole and therefore one and the same substance with the Father not that substance which is the Person of the Father nor a new or another separate substance as it is in human generations but the nature and substance of the Father born and repeated in the Nativity of the Son as St. Hilary speaks The Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One Divinity One Infinite Eternal nature and substance but they are thrice this One substance and as perfectly and distinctly Three in this One substance as any other Three are Three substances St. Austin was certainly in the right when he asserted That the Divine Nature and Essence must not be considered either as a Genus or Species nor the Divine Persons as Individuals and shews particularly the impropriety of each though he knows not under what Notion to conceive them but inclines most to some common matter or substance which is the same in all as carrying the nearest resemblance and analogy in it though this he does not very well like neither of which more presently It will be of great use briefly to consider this matter for the difficulty consists more in want of words to express this Unity and Distinction by than in the Notion it self The singularity of the Divine Essence and Substance in the Sabellian Notion of One Substance the Nicene Fathers universally rejected as irreconcilable with a real distinction of Persons which destroys the Faith of a Real Trinity A mere specifick Unity of Nature and Substance which is a meer Logical Notion falls short of the Natural and Essential Unity of the Godhead and yet we have no word to serve as a middle Term between the Unity of singularity and a Specifick Unity of Nature For there is no such Unity as this in Created Nature and therefore no name for it and yet the Unity of the Divine Nature in a Trinity of Persons is neither of these but bears some resemblance and Analogy to both As to shew this briefly The Unity of the Divine Nature is not a meer Specifick Unity A Species is only an Idea or Pattern of Nature according to which particular Creatures are formed and such Creatures as are made according to the same Pattern are specifically the same and as far as we can observe this Correspondence and Ideal Sameness of Nature so we rank them under the same Species So that there can be no Species but among created Beings for they must be all made and made according to the same Original Pattern But an Eternal and Necessary Nature was not made and therefore not made according to any Pattern nor can any other be made according to its Pattern for what is made cannot be Necessary and Eternal So that the Divine Nature can be but One and One Numerical Nature is no Species it can communicate its own Substance by an Eternal Generation and Procession but it can't be a Pattern and Idea for any other Beings of the same kind which are not its own Substance For this reason St. Austin rejects this specifick Unity he distinguishes between saying That the Divine Persons are Vna Essentia Vnius Essentiae One Essence or Substance and that they are ex Vna Essentia of One Essence The first may signify a natural Unity and must do so when applied to the Trinity The second signifies only a common specifick Nature and Unity When we speak of men we may use either expression that they are One Essence or that they are of One Essence because in both Cases when applied to Creatures One Essence signifies specifically as a common pattern of Nature according to which not only Three but many Threes may be made But the whole Divine Essence is in the Trinity and cannot subsist in any other Person and therefore is not a common specifick Nature But then there is something in the Divine Nature as substantially communicated to the Son and to the Holy Spirit which bears some analogy to a Species and to a Specifick Unity and for this reason the Catholick Fathers in their Disputes both with the Sabellians and Arians frequently express the Unity of the Nature as subsisting in Three Distinct Persons by a Specifick Unity The Notion and Idea of a Common Nature which subsists in many Individuals is called a Species the same common notion and definition belonging to all the Individuals of the same kind Now if we believe the Doctrine of a Real Trinity we must acknowledge That the same One Divine Nature which is originally in the Father is communicated to the Son and Holy Spirit and does subsist distinctly and substantially in all Three and therefore has this resemblance to a Species that it is a common Nature which has the same Notion and Definition and is the same in Three but not meerly by a Notional Identity and Sameness but by the Real Identity of Substance there being but One Divine Substance unmade uncreated unbegotten but communicated whole and entire to the Son by an eternal generation and to the Holy Spirit by an eternal Procession so that the Divine Nature is so far a Species as by its actual communication to the Son and Holy Spirit and its distinct subsistence in Father Son and Holy Ghost it is in truth and reality a common Nature and Substance which a Species is only in Notion and Idea The Notion and Definition of human Nature in
Peter Iames and Iohn is the very same and therefore there is a specifick Sameness and Unity of Nature between them The Divine Nature in Father Son and Holy Ghost is the same not merely in Notion and Idea but Substantially the same and therefore all the names of a Specifick Sameness and Unity do in a more perfect and excellent manner belong to the Sameness and Unity of the Divine Nature as Subsisting Perfectly Indivisibly and yet Distinctly in Father Son and Holy Ghost And when we speak of the Sameness of the Divine Nature as subsisting distinctly in Three Divine Persons we have no other words to express it by but such as signify a Specifick Unity and we must use such words as we have and qualifie their sense as well as we can As for instance Those words whereby we signify a common specifick Nature which is One and the Same in all the Individuals of the same Species are the best we have to express the Unity of the Divine Nature as common to Three Persons and thus the Catholick Fathers use them without scruple and speak of the Unity of the Divine Nature and of its being common to all the Three Divine Persons in the same Words and Phrases as they use concâ—rning a common specifick Nature Which leads some into a great mistake as if they meant no more by it but a specifick Sameness and Unity of the Divine Nature that Father Son and Holy Ghost have one Substance no otherwise than as Peter Iames and Iohn have one and the same Humane Nature For the Divine Nature is not One merely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in mere Notion and Idea but actually indivisibly inseparably One nor is it a common Nature merely as it has a common Name and Definition but by an actual Inexistence in Three For the same reason it is very difficult what Three to call Father Son and Holy Ghost so as to avoid the Heresies of both Extreams for there is no Example of such Three in Nature They are certainly Three for the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost nor the Son the Father or the Holy Ghost and each of the Three is perfect God and therefore an Infinite Mind an Infinite Spirit and the most Perfect Essence and Substance And that Substance which is the Person of the Son is not that Substance which is the Person of the Father no more than the Person of the Son is the Person of the Father or an unbegotten is a begotten Nature and Substance and therefore in opposition to Sabellius they asserted Three Substantial Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostases or Personal Substances as Hypostasis signifies tria in substantia tres substantias tres res 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet at the same time did assert That there is but One Divine Nature and Substance which indivisibly and inseparably though distinctly subsists in all Three For the understanding of which we must observe That as the Divine Nature which is common to Three is not a mere Species but is really and actually One and the same in all so these Three Divine Persons which have one and the same common Nature are not in a strict and proper notion Individuals of the same common Nature Though we have no Names for these Three but such as signify Individuals as Persons Hypostases Subsistences c. and there being no Created Person Hypostasis or Subsistence but what is an Individual To shew you the difference with respect to the notion of an Individual between the Three Divine Persons and three individual Humane Persons I observe That every Humane Person is such an Individual as has a particular Humane Nature of his own which is not the particular Nature of any other Person the notion and definition of Humane Nature is the same in all men but the same Numerical Humane Nature does not subsist in all but every particular individual man has one particular individual Humane Nature appropriated to himself that is which is his particular Person and as many particular Persons as there are so many particular Humane Natures and particular men there are But now the Divine Persons are not Three such Individuals as these because they have not three individual Divine Natures but the same One Divine Nature common to them all originally in the Father and communicated whole and entire to the Son by an Eternal Generation and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit by an Eternal Procession How impossible soever it is for our finite Understandings to comprehend these Mysteries of the eternal Generation and Procession it is not so hard to conceive the difference between Three Persons who have One individual Nature common to them all but subsisting so distinctly in each of them as to make them Three distinct Persons and Three Persons who have Three Individual Natures of the same Kind and Species As for Instance Three Human Persons which have Three individual Human Natures are by the confession of all Mankind Three Men But could we conceive One individual Human Nature which originally constitutes but One Person to Communicate it self Whole and Entire without Division or Separation to Two other Persons we must acknowledge Three Human Persons each of which Persons is distinctly and by himself True and Perfect Man but not Three Men for Man is a name of Nature and if Persons can be multiplied without multiplying the Nature as we at present suppose there must be Three Human Persons in One individual Human Nature that is Three Persons and One Man but not Three Men no more than Three Human Natures Thus it is with respect to the Divine Nature Were there Three individual Divine Natures Self-originated and Independent on each other though perfectly the same in their Notion and Definition Three such Persons would be as Perfectly Three Gods as Three Human Persons that have Three individual Human Natures are Three Men. But whereas the Scripture teaches and the Catholick Church has always believed there is but One Infinite Self-originated Divine Nature Originally in the Father and by Communication in the Son and Holy Spirit these Three Divine Persons are each of them True and Perfect God but not Three Gods because they have not Three Individual Divine Natures but One Divine Nature subsisting distinctly but Whole and Perfect in them all This I think may give us some Notion of One Numerical Common Nature which is no Species and of Persons which are no Individuals St. Austin shews particularly how improper it is to call the One Divine Essence a Genus and the Three Divine Persons Species or to call the Divine Essence a Species and the Divine Persons Individuals for in both these cases we must multiply the name of Essence with the Species and Individuals as we not only say three Horses but three Animals and as Abraham Isaac and Iacob are three Individuals so they are three Men in consequence of which we must
not only say Three Divine Persons but Three Divine Essences not One Essence But besides this One Essence can't be a Genus because what is but One can have no Species nor can it for the same reason be a Species because what is One can't be subdivided into Individuals as though Man considered as a Species is divided into Abraham Isaac and Iacob yet One Man can't be subdivided into Three Men for One Man is One single Man Why then do we say One Essence and Three Substances or Persons which are St. Austin's words who always renders the Greek Hypostases by Substances and makes Substances and Persons equivalent for if Essence be a Species as Man is there can be but One Essence in the Sense and Notion of One Man which by the way he objects as a great Absurdity for it is the Sabellian Heresy Thus far St. Austin was certainly in the right but here I think with all submission this great Man missed the true Notion which he had so happily started One Essence can't be a Species because what is but One can have no proper Individuals under it as One Man can't be subdivided into Three Men But then he might have applied Individual to Essence which One Essence naturally led to and have found Three Persons in One Individual Essence which would not indeed be Three Individuals of One Species but Three Singulars of One Individual Nature And though One Man who is but One Individual of Human Nature can't be subdivided into Three proper Individuals yet to conceive One Individual Human Nature to be communicated whole and entire without division or separation to Two others is the truest Image of Three distinct Persons in One Individual Essence and the only possible Explication of totus ex toto whole of whole which is the true Catholick Faith Such an One Essence is no Species but yet is a common Nature and such Persons are not what we call Individuals as not having each of them a particular individual Nature to himself but yet they have a particular singular Subsistence as other Individuals have and are each of them by himself as true and perfect God though all but One God as every individual Man is true and perfect Man It seems plain to me that this is the very Notion St. Austin intended in what he immediately adds the communis eademque materia that One common Matter which he prefers before either a generical or specifick Unity That the same One Divine Essence is common to Father Son and Holy Ghost not as if Father Son and Holy Ghost had their Subsistence out of the same common Essence as three golden Statues are made of the same Gold this perverse Exposition of the Homoousion was rejected with abhorrence by the Catholick Fathers as I shewed before and St. Austin expresly rejects it here and therefore though these Three Persons are One Essence una essentia unius essentiae he will not allow us to say that they are ex una essentia out of One Essence as golden Statues are of or cut out of the same Gold nay nor as Three Men are of the same Nature that is which is specifically not identically the same as I observed a little above Now remove these two Notions of One common Essence and there remains only a third which is that very Notion I now insist on One and the same Essence common to Three by a perfect communication of the same One whole undivided Essence And this answers exactly to that Notion of St. Austin which he could find no Image of in Nature that the Essence of Father Son and Holy Ghost is not more or greater all together than the Father alone or the Son alone but these Three Substances or Persons if they may be so called all together are equal to each single Person which a carnal Man cannot apprehend But now if we believe a whole of a whole we must confess that it is impossible it should be otherwise for if the Son have the same whole Essence with the Father if the Father be the whole Divine Essence if the Son be the same whole Divine Essence and so the Holy Ghost the same whole though subsisting distinctly in Three can never be greater nor less than it self Three Persons are more in number than One but One and the same whole undivided Essence can be but one whole This is the true Notion and there can be no other Catholick Sense made of it of what the Fathers so universally teach That there is in the Trinity Vna Substantia but not unus subsistens One Substance but not one only who subsists when yet at the same time they as universally acknowledge That the Father is Substance the Son Substance the Holy Ghost Substance and neither of them each other That the Person of the Father is the Essence and Substance of the Father the Person of the Son the Substance of the Son that the Person is not one thing and the Essence and Substance another as St. Austin upon all occasions teaches Now that there should be but One Substance and Three substantial Subsisting Persons can never be reconciled any other way than by the perfect Communication of the same whole undivided Essence and Substance of the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit For the same reason they tells us That the Father is Wisdom the Son Wisdom of Wisdom and yet but One Wisdom the Father is Spirit the Son Spirit and the Holy Ghost Spirit and yet not Three Spirits but One Spirit and the Father is God the Son God the Holy Ghost God yet there are not Three Gods but One God For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One God is the One Divine Essence and One Divine Essence though distinctly subsisting in Three is but One God though every Divine Person having the whole Divine Essence in himself is True and Perfect God Three Divine Natures though specifically the same and perfectly alike would unavoidably be Three Gods as three particular Humane Natures are three men but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thrice subsisting Monade as Dyonisius the Areopagite calls the Divine Essence is but One in Three and therefore but One God in Three because but one Divine Essence In this Sense we are so often told That in the Trinity there is alius alius another and another that is distinct Subsisting Persons who are not each other but not aliud in the Neuter Gender not another Essence or Nature not only not specifically another as the Arians asserted but not another Nature though of the same Species but the same One Individual Nature communicated whole and undivided to more than One. Upon the same account the Father is acknowledged by all Catholick Writers to be the One only God and they answer the Objection of Tritheism by this very Principle That they own but One Eternal Self-originated Unbegotten Father and therefore but One God They grant That Three Fathers would
proper speaking with reference to this Sameness of Nature any more say that there are Three Men than that there are Three Humanities when a Man is nothing else but the subsisting Idea of Humanity Would not as far as this Sameness and Identity reaches Human Nature be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not merely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both One and a Common Nature not merely by a Logical and Notional Unity and Community but by an actual Subsistence in all without the least difference or diversity As the Idea of Human Nature is both One and Common to the whole Kind This indeed is but an imaginary Case as to Finite Creatures who never were and never can be so perfectly One and the same as their Idea is but yet it is the properest and most sensible representation we can make of the Sameness and Identity of the Divine Nature which has really and actually all that Sameness and Identity which we only suppose in Creatures to help our Conceptions of the Divine Unity how different Hypostases may be One in Nature by this Sameness and Identy of Nature The Divine Nature and Essence is more perfectly simple and uncompounded than any Notion and Idea which we can frame of it and therefore must subsist as simply as the simplest Idea and consequently must be as perfectly one and the same in all Three Persons of the Trinity as the same Idea is one and the same with it self And though this be not the whole notion of the Sameness and Identity of Nature which requires not only two perfect Same 's but that one be of the other without division or Separation yet this is essential to this Notion and there can be no Identity of Nature without it This is what the Catholick Fathers intended in many Passages which some Modern Writers have so miserably mistaken and misrepresented as to charge those Wise men and Learned Philosophers with the most wild and absurd Conceits and those great Advocates of the Catholick Faith with the worst of Heresies even Tritheism it self I can't do right to my Cause without doing right to these great Lights of the Church in giving a plain account of this matter And to explain what they meant by this Sameness and Identity of Nature and to shew how groundless this Imputation of Tritheism is I shall begin with their natural Proof and Demonstration of the Unity of God against the Pagan Polytheism which they unanimously resolve into this Sameness and Identity of Nature They prove that there can be but One God and One Divinity because the Divine Nature is not capable of the least conceivable change and diversity which is necessary to make a Number For what is and always must be the same with it self cannot be another or a Second Nature and One Divinity is but One God This they prove from all the Notions which we have of God especially that comprehensive One of an Absolute and Perfect Being for Absolute Perfection is and can be but One without any possibility of change for all change and diversity must be either for the better or for the worse and Absolute Perfection can admit of neither and without diversity and alterity there can be but One. An Infinite Nature which nothing can distinguish from it self can be but One and could we imagine any thing to be added to or taken from it to make this distinction it would destroy not only its Unity but it s Infinity too it would indeed make a Number but not of absolute perfect Beings If we consider the Divine Perfections by themselves it is impossible to conceive any difference or diversity and consequently any number in them Is not Eternal Truth and Infinite Wisdom and Omnipotent Power always one and the same Can Eternal Truth and Infinite Wisdom in any thing vary from it self to make two Eternal Truths and Infinite Wisdoms Now remove all possible diversity and you necessarily destroy a plurality of Gods for a Perfect Sameness and Identity must reduce us to the belief of One God For what is perfectly the same is not many but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Well! But can't there be more than one of these Eternal infinitely Wise infinitely Good and Omnipotent Natures No For if this Nature must of necessity be always the same and is unmade and self-originated it can be but one For though in Created Natures several of the same kind may be made according to the same Pattern there being nothing in the Idea of any Created Nature which hinders the multiplication of its Individuals yet a Nature which subsists of it self and is absolutely uncapable of any diversity and consequently of number can be but One for a Self-subsisting Nature must subsist according to its own Essential Idea that is according to its own Nature and that is but One for as far as we can judge of these Matters what we cannot possibly conceive should ever be Two we must conclude to be One. But besides this these Fathers observed That if there were more than one Self-originated Divinity or more Divine Natures than one they must be divided and separated from each other for if to the Sameness and Identity of Nature you add an inseparable and indivisible Union too it is impossible they should be more than One. And yet two or more such divided and separated Natures are inconsistent with the Notion of a Divine Nature and Essence which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Uncircumscribed and Omnipresent whereas two Divided and Separated Natures which are not where each other is must be Circumscribed and not Omnipresent and this destroys the absolute Perfection of both for a confined and limited Presence as it is an imperfection it self so confines and limits all other Perfections as it confines Wisdom Power and Goodness within a certain limited Sphere of Action And now it may be some may think that these Arguments conclude as strongly against a Trinity of Divine Persons each of which is by himself True and Perfect God as against a plurality of Divided and Separate Divinities and upon second thoughts I suspect this may be what our Considerer intended in those surprizing Arguments of the Unity of Idea and the Unity of Position and Place to prove that there can be but one single Person in the true and proper notion of a Person for an Intelligent Person in the Trinity this to be sure is the Argument which a Socinian Writer alledges with so much triumph out of Athenagoras to disprove the Trinity though that very Ancient and Learned Writer understood very well the difference between Polytheism and the Trinity and at the same time confutes the one and professes the other which might have made that Author suspect that he did not understand the true force of this Argument since not only Athenagoras but all the other Fathers thought it a good Argument against Polytheism and at the same time
a Confutation of the Charge of Polytheism against the Faith of the Trinity Gregory Nyssen and Damascen and many others having confuted the Pagan Polytheism or plurality of Gods from the Sameness and Identity of the Divine Nature which can admit of no change or diversity and therefore not of number they immediately proceed to consider the distinction of Persons and Hypostases in the perfect Unity and Simplicity of the Divine Nature in opposition to the Iewish Notion of One God for One Single and Solitary Divine Person And here they undertake to prove by Natural Arguments of which possibly more hereafter that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divinity must have an Eternal Subsisting Word which is Life Wisdom Power all the same in his own Person that God is but yet another Person For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divinity is not without its Coeternal Word and Coessential Reason and Wisdom and the same they teach and prove concerning the Eternal Spirit so that they make Father Son and Spirit to be essential to One Divinity not as parts but as perfectly whole and the same in Three distinct Hypostases which they think necessarily included in the Perfection of One Divinity as Reason and Word is essential to a Created Mind This is what they mean by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity in Three Perfect Hypostases not that Three Hypostases are united as it were ex post facto into One Divinity but that One Divinity does subsist Eternally Essentially and Inseparably in Three Hypostases which are necessary to compleat the Notion and Definition of One Divinity Thus it is certain Melanchton understood it and therefore rejects the Definition which Plato gives of God That he is an Eternal Mind the Cause of all Good in the World for though he owns it to be True and Learned when rightly explained yet he says it is defective and must be supplied by the Gospel Revelation That God is a Spiritual Intelligent Essence Eternal True Good Iust Merciful most free of Infinite Power and Wisdom the Eternal Father who from Eternity begat a Son his own Image and the Son the Coeternal Image of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding from Father and Son So that the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity is but One Eternal Coessential Divinity that were there more Divinities than One there must of necessity be more Trinities also according to the Doctrine of these Fathers which is evidence enough that this Argument against a plurality of Divinities from the perfect Sameness and Identity of the Divine Nature which can't be multiplied can't concern a Trinity of Real Subsisting Persons in the same One Eternal Undivided Divinity For the same One Divinity is not multiplied by a Trinity of Persons Coeternal and Coessential if this be the Nature and Unity of the Deity to subsist whole and perfectly in Three which was the constant Doctrine of the Fathers and which this Argument don't oppose nay so far from it that it as evidently proves the Unity of the Godhead in a Trinity of Persons as it confutes a Plurality of Godheads and Divinities for if the Sameness and Identity of Nature will not admit of a Plurality of Divinities then if Three are perfectly One and the same in Nature they are but One Divinity One God Thus the Incircumscriptibility or Omnipresence of the Divine Nature is a good Argument against a Plurality of God's or Divinities which must be separated if they be more than One and therefore circumscribed or of a limited and confined presence but it is no Argument against a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence which are all mutually in each other and therefore equally Unconfined and Omnipresent and perfectly One by an Essential and Inseparable Union And are not these Fathers now like to prove very notable Tritheites who prove the impossibility that there should be more Divinities than One and the perfect Unity of the Godhead in a Trinity of Divine Persons from that perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature which is between them But yet for all this Tritheites they are and must be if they acknowledge Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God in no other sense than Peter Iames and Iohn are one Man that is because they agree in the same common Nature which has the same notion and definition and is upon that account One and the same in all This is what they are charged with and I should not have wondred at it had only some Careless and Unskilful Readers charged them with it for they do say something which at first view may look like it but then such Sayings as manifestly contradict their avowed Doctrine not only in other places of their Writings but in those very Places where these Sayings are found ought in all Reason and Justice to be expounded only by way of Analogy and accommodation as containing some imperfect Image and Resemblance of that which Nature has no proper and adequate Example of This must be allowed in all the Natural Representations which are made by the Catholick Fathers of the Unity and Distinction of the Ever-blessed Trinity or there is not one of them but what literally and Philosophically applied would furnish out some new Heresy This I have already shewn in the Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature which the Nicene Fathers did teach in a qualified Sense though it appears from all I have said in the last and this present Section how far they were from thinking the Divine Nature to be a meer Species or Logical Notion though it has this resemblance to a Species that it is One and Common but not merely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in meer Notion and Idea but by an actual Subsistence and Inexistence in all Three being as perfectly wholly indivisibly the same in all and in each of the Divine Persons as a Specifick Nature is Notionally and Ideally one and the same in every individual of the same kind which as I have made appear is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sameness and Identity of Nature wherein they place the Unity of the Godhead And yet this is the only foundation of the present Charge that they make Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God only by a Specifick Unity as Three Individuals of the same kind and Species suppose Peter Iames and Iohn are one Man That all this is a mistake is evident because these Fathers do not resolve the Unity of the Godhead into a meer Specifick Unity of Nature and the occasion of this mistake is great Inadvertency as will appear in a very few words Gregory Nyssen is principally charged with this Paradox and in vindicating him I shall vindicate all the rest The Question which Ablabius desired him to resolve was this That since Peter Iames and Iohn though they have but one common Humanity are yet called three Men and no man denies
diversifying Properties make them Three Men. Could Human Nature subsist as perfectly and indivisibly the same in Three as the perfect Idea of Humanity their Persons might be distinguished but their Nature would be as perfectly One as the Idea of Humanity is one and the same in distinct Minds and in this Case as far as this perfect Sameness of Nature can make them one which as I have observed is not the compleat Notion of the Divine Unity though it be essential to it they might be called Three Human Persons but not Three Men But such peculiar Properties as diversify and thereby distinguish the same common Nature into Particulars make the Number Which is one reason why we must not say Three Gods as we do Three Men though the same Divinity be common to Father Son and Holy Ghost because this same One Divinity subsists whole and perfect without the least Change Diversity or Alteration in Three That though their Persons are distinct the Divinity is perfectly One and the Same in All and therefore they are but One God So that these Fathers do not insist on a mere Specifick Unity but on the Sameness and Identity of the Divine Nature in Three as the reason why we must not say that there are Three Gods for the same One undiversified Divinity can be but One God And therefore having answered that Popular Objection That Peter Iames and Iohn are allowed to be called Three Men upon account of the same common Nature by shewing that it is a great Popular Mistake that merely the same One Common Nature makes them Three Men or will justify their being called so this Father proceeds to shew That there is such an Unity between Father Son and Holy Ghost as is not and cannot be between any Three Creatures though they partake of the same Common Nature Such an Unity as makes Father Son and Holy Ghost essentially One God though Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men. Nay such an Unity as even a perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature cannot make between Creatures who have an absolute and separate Subsistence This gives a reasonable Account of this whole Argument and vindicates it from those Absurdities which are charged on it It was necessary to lay the Foundation of the Divine Unity in the perfect and invariable Sameness and Identity of Nature For if the Divine Nature in Three is not perfectly the same it cannot be One for Diversity and Alterity makes a Number But if it subsist as perfectly the same in Three as its Idea is the same it must be as perfectly one as its Idea is one No say these Arians the same Nature subsisting in Three becomes Three Individual Natures of the same Species and the name of Nature must be multiplied with the Individuals as all allow it must be as to Men who partake of the same Common Nature For Peter Iames and Iohn are acknowledged to be Three Men though they have but one common Humanity and by the same reason Father Son and Holy Ghost must be Three Gods if they have the same common Divinity To which St. Gregory Nyssen answers That it is not the common Humanity which makes them Three Men for that which is but one and the same in all can't distinguish or multiply them and therefore in strict and accurate speaking as Man signifies pure and abstracted Humanity we cannot properly say Three Men because there are not Three Humanities and accordingly the name Man does not and cannot distinguish one Man from another nor is ever used to that purpose but that which multiplies Nature and the name of Nature are those peculiar Properties which distinguish and diversify Nature as well as Persons and thus the common Nature with diversifying Properties 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is distinguish'd and multiplied by a kind of Composition for the same Nature with one peculiar diversifying Property is distinguish'd from the same Nature with other Properties and thus the same Nature divided and distinguish'd with these Properties makes a Number and gives the name of Nature to each Individual Person and thus it is in all Creatures But where the same Nature subsists in Three without any thing to distinguish or diversify Nature as it is in the Blessed Trinity though the Persons may be distinguish'd the Nature and the name of Nature can be but One Which is the reason why Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One God because they have but One undistinguish'd undiversified Nature though their Persons are distinct This is the true Account of this Matter which is so far from such a mere Specifick Unity of Nature as is between Three Men that it is that very Sameness and Identity of Nature which the Catholick Fathers make essential to the Unity of the Godhead And the better to understand this we must consider their Philosophy about Numbers for according to them nothing properly but Alterity and Diversity makes a Number What is perfectly the same is but One as Boetius tells us not by a Singularity but by a perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature In this sense it is that Greg. Nazianzen St. Basil and others teach That God is One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in Number but Nature whereby they do not mean that there are more Gods in Number than One but that the Unity of the Godhead does not consist in the Unity of Number but of Nature and that the Unity of Nature consists in the invariable Sameness and Identity of it and therefore where the Divinity is perfectly the same there is but One God Thus Greg. Nyssen tells us That the same Divinity may be numbred and yet rejects all Number that is the Divinity may be numbred with the Persons as when we say the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God but the Divine Nature being perfectly the same in all that can't be numbred that we must not say there are Three Gods or Three Divinities Boetius has given the best Account of this according to the Philosophy of the Ancients by distinguishing between Numbers for he says Number is twofold that by which we number and that which is in the things numbred As to the first the repetition of Units makes a Number for One and One and One are Three and both the Catholick Fathers and Schools reject this kind of Number which is a Species of Quantity from the Divinity for God is under no Predicament and therefore the Unity of God not reducible to the Predicament of Quantity for God is before and above all Unity as he is above Substance above Essence above every thing which we have any Notion or Conception of as Dionysius the Areopagite speaks But as to the things numbred the Repetition of Units does not multiply or make a Number in things where the Nature is perfectly the same for it is not a Repetition of Units but Alterity and Diversity which multiplies Natures To say God and God and God does not
there should be Three such distinct incommunicable Persons in the same undivided undistinguished Divinity Why we may not call Three Divine Persons who have each of them the whole Divine Nature distinctly and incommunicably Three Divinities as well as Three Divine Persons when a Divine Person is nothing else but the Divinity And then Three distinct Persons must be Three distinct Divinities This Unity and Distinction in the Godhead has always been acknowledged by the Catholick Fathers to be a Great and Inexplicable Mystery a wonderful Union and wonderful Distinction Damascen as I observed above tells us That the Divine Nature though subsisting in Three Persons is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really and actually One not merely notionally One as Human Nature is which subsists only in Individuals and has a particular distinct separate Subsistence in every particular Man and therefore can be One in its Individuals in no other sense but only as the same common Notion and Definition of Humanity belongs to them all that is Human Nature is One in all the Men in the World not by a Real Subsisting but by a Specifick Notional Unity But the Divine Nature is One with a Real Subsisting Unity being perfectly the same in Three without any Division or Separation And an indivisible inseparable undiversified Same is really and actually One according to the most simple Notions we can form of Unity But what room then does this leave for a Real Trinity of Persons in this One Simple Uncompounded Indivisible Inseparable Nature To this he answers That this Real Distinction of Persons in the perfect Unity and Simplicity of Nature may be known and understood by Reason though there be nothing in Nature to distinguish them Father Son and Holy Ghost are upon all accounts perfectly One excepting this That one is Unbegotten the other Begotten and the third Proceeds We acknowledge One God distinguished only by these Personal Properties of Paternity Filiation and Procession as a Cause and that which is caused and as each of them has a compleat perfect Hypostasis distinguish'd only by these different Modes of Subsistence This proves a Real Distinction without any Diversity Division or Separation and therefore a Real Distinction in perfect Unity The Divine Nature is Infinite and Uncircumscribed and therefore the Divine Persons cannot be divided and separated from each other but are perfectly in each other without Confusion The Divine Nature is perfectly One in Three by the Unity of Sameness and Identity and therefore there can be no diversity or division of Will or Counsel or Operation or Power Now a Nature which is perfectly the same and undivided must be perfectly One. But then Father Son and Holy Ghost are certainly Three for He who begets is not He who is begotten for nothing begets it self To beget and to be begotten and to proceed are the Characters of Persons and can belong only to True Real Substantial Persons He who begets must be a Person and so must He who is begotten and He who proceeds they have each of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatever makes a compleat and perfect Person but then these Three can never meet in the same Person and consequently must distinguish Persons for the same Person can't be unbegotten begotten and proceed can 't be the Cause and that which is caused This is demonstratively certain That a begotten and unbegotten Person and consequently a begotten and unbegotten Nature a Divine Person being nothing else but the Divine Nature are and must be Two and never can be each other and therefore this distinguishes Persons though it makes no distinction or diversity in the Divine Essence as the Catholick Fathers proved against the Arians that to be unbegotten and to be begotten does not But to be unbegotten to be begotten and to proceed whatever you will call them whether Personal Properties or Modes of Subsistence though they do not make the Persons that is are not the formal Notion of a Person yet they certainly distinguish them or prove them to be as distinct and incommunicable as Unbegotten Begotten and Proceeding for if these Terms or Characters can never signify each other then the Persons characterized by them can never be each other And this is all the distinction that can be in an undistinguished undiversified undivided Essence Well but still the difficulty remains how to distinguish between Essence and Person in God for if Person be Nature and Essence and each Person distinctly in himself be the whole Divine Essence or the whole Divinity how can we avoid acknowledging Three Essences and Three Divinities as well as Three Persons in the Trinity Now the account of this must be taken from the nature of that Distinction and Unity which is in God for such a Distinction as does not destroy the Unity can't multiply Natures though it distinguishes Persons Each Person is the Divine Nature but without any diversity division or separation of the Divinity and what is Identically and Indivisibly the same is but One. The Divine Nature as self-originated and unbegotten is the Person of the Father as communicated by Generation is the Person of the Son as proceeding is the Person of the Holy Ghost and these are Three but the Son is begotten of the Substance of his Father and the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son without any diversity division or separation of Substance and therefore the Divinity is but One. The Divine Nature subsists distinctly and incommunicably in Three according to their distinct Characters of Unbegotten Begotten and Proceeding and these we call Persons because they bear some Analogy to Individuals in created Beings which in an Intelligent Nature are called Persons but they are not Three Divinities because the Divine Nature though it be distinct yet is undiversified and undivided in Three and therefore is but One in Three This seems to me a very intelligible Account of a Trinity in Unity and the difference between Person and Essence though a Divine Person is the Divine Essence When we distinguish between Person and Essence and say there are Three Persons and One Essence by Essence we mean an undistinguished undivided Divinity which is but One by Three Persons we mean the Divine Essence unbegotten and communicated by Generation and Procession which are really distinct Persons and subsist distinctly but i◠the Unity of an undistinguished and undivided Divinity which makes them really and actually Three and One the same without diversity and distinct without division And this seems to be the reason why the Catholick Fathers tho they called the Divine Persons Tres Res and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Tres Subsistentes Three Things and Three that subsist yet were more cautious in calling them Three Natures or Essences or Substances though there are some Examples of this kind because though the Divine Essence subsists distinctly in Father Son and Holy Ghost which makes them Three Distinct Real Subsisting Persons yet the Divine Nature is not
distinguished nor separated but is perfectly One Same Undivided Essence and therefore Vna Substantia though not Vnus Subsistens One Substance though not One but Three that subsist What I have thus briefly represented I hope I have proved in the First Chapter from the Authority of Scripture and Reason founded on Scripture And from what I have already discoursed of the Doctrine of the Fathers it may appear to careful and intelligent Readers who use such Application as this Argument deserves and requires that this is their Unanimous Sense also But yet as far as it is possible to clear this Matter more fully and vindicate the Fathers and Schools from those Obscurities Inconsistences and Contradictions which are generally charged on them in so concerning an Article I shall reassume this Matter and particularly shew 1. That what they call a Divine Person is the Divine Essence and Substance and nothing else 2. That this Divine Essence and Substance as constituting these Divine Persons is proper and peculiar to each and incommunicable to one another and therefore that this Divine Essence and Substance as subsisting distinctly in Three is no more numerically One than their Persons are One. 3. What difference they made between Nature and Essence and Hypostasis and Person 4. Whether the Catholick Faith of a Real and Substantial Trinity can be as reasonably and intelligibly explained by the Notion of One Singular Substance in the Divinity as by asserting Three Personal Substances or Suppositums And whether the Singularity of the Divine Essence in this Notion deliver the Asserters of it from any Inconveniences and Objections which the contrary Opinion is thought liable to 1. As for the first That a Divine Person is the Divine Essence it is and must be in some sense acknowledged by all who profess the Faith of a Real Trinity for there cannot be a Real Trinity of Divine Persons if each Person be not True and Perfect God that is the whole Divinity or Divine Nature and Essence And therefore those who assert in the strictest sense the Singularity of the Divine Essence yet assert That this One Singular Essence subsists distinctly in each Divine Person which whether it be to be understood or not yet is an acknowledgment that there is no conceiving a Divine Person without the Divine Essence But we need not be beholden to any man for this Concession for the thing is plain and evident in all Catholick Writers Petavius has very critically observed the different use of Words in Catholick Writers relating to this Venerable Mystery such as Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis Subsistence Person c. which sometimes occasioned great Misunderstandings between them and is to this day made a pretence of charging the Fathers with great Uncertainty and Obscurity and with contradicting each other and themselves This of late has been much insisted on in order to disparage the Authority of â— as Zealous Contentious Bigots who neither understood one another nor themselves nor the Catholick Faith but so confounded Terms that we can never certainly know what they meant or used such dangerous Terms that if we rely too much upon them we mâ—y easily mâ—stake Hâ—resy for the Catholick Faith Were this true our Case would be very bad but two or three Observations will set this matter in a clear light 1. That very Ambiguity which the Fathers are charged with in the use of Words does certainly prove that by a Divine Person they meant the Divine Essence Nature and Substance The plain Case is this The Catholick Fathers did universally own and profess a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God So that there was no difference in their Faith how different soever their words were The most common Terms whereby they exprest the Unity of the Godhead were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vna Esseâ—â—â—â— Vna Natura Vna Substantia One Essâ—nce One Nâ—ture One Substance and a Trinity they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostates and the Latins Three Persons but sometimes we meet in undoubted Catholick Writers wiâ—â— the direct contrary Expressions such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tres Substantiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances and One Hypostasis The usual way of reconciling this seeming Contradiction is by saying That when these Fathers use such Expressions as Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances they do not understand this of Three divers or specifically different Essences Natures Substances which is Arianism but of Three Persons and when they affirm that there is but One Hypostasis they do not by One Hypostasis mean One Person which is Sabellianism but One Nature Essence or Substance As we know this very Controversy about One or Three Hypostases was thus composed in the Alexandrian Synod where Athanasius presided And no doubt but this is the true Solution since those who were neither Arians nor Sabellians could not understand such Expressions in any other sense But then the Question still remains How this Ambiguity should happen or how it comes to pass that such contradictory Terms as One Essence and Three Essences One Substance and Three Substances One Hypostasis and Three Hypostases should both be Orthodox and Catholick Now the only Account I can give of this matter is this That these Terms Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis which originally signifies Substance of which more presently may signify as the Philosopher speaks either the First or Second Substance either the common Nature which has the same notion and definition common to the whole Kind as Humanity which is the same in all Men or a Singular Subsisting Nature and Substance which in Creatures we call Individuals and in reasonable Creatures Persons Now in analogy to this common Specifick Nature which is one and the same in all its Individuals the Catholick Fathers taught but One Essence Nature Substance and in this sense but One Hypostasis in the Godhead that is a Consubstantial Trinity in analogy to the several Individuals of the same Species in whom only this common Nature did really and actually subsist they ordinarily asserted Three Hypostases sometimes as we see Three Natures and Essences and Substances in the Trinity that is Three Real Substantial subsisting Persons and in this sense Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances was accounted Catholick Doctrine St. Hilary allows Tria in Substantia or Tres Subsâ—antias Three in Substance or Three Substances for Tres Subsistentium Personas Three Subsisting Persons And St. Greg. Nyssen in answer to Eunomius who asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Essences or Substances says That if he understood this distinction of Substances only in opposition to Sabellius who gave three Names to one Suppositum or Substance that not only he but all Catholick Christians assented to it His only fault being in this Case that he uses improper words Three Essences for Three Hypostases Now that which I observe from hence is this That had they not believed each Divine Person to
a diversity and dissimilitude of Nature as Three Essences and Substances may signify and from a Sabellian Unity and Singularity they chose such words as signified a Real Perfect Subsisting Being but did not immediatly and formally signify Essence and Substance tho they did necessarily suppose and connote it Such among the Greeks are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Latins subsistentia suppositum res ens Existence Subsistence Subject Suppositum Thing Being which every one sees must signify something as real as Essence and Substance and must necessarily include Essence and Substance in their very notion and that thus they were used by the Catholick Fathers Petavius proves by numerous Quotations which the Reader may consult at his leisure And though some of these words are sometimes used singularly of all Three Divine Persons in the notion of a Common Essence and Substance as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 res in which sense St. Austin called the Trinity unam summam rem yet both Fathers and Schoolmen did without any scruple use them in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tres subsistentiae tres res tria supposita tria entia realia that the Divine Persons were Three Existences Three Subsistencies Three Suppositums Three Things Three Real Beings and why not then Three Essences and Three Substances since every suppositum every Thing every Real Being is Essence and Substance the reason of which is plainly this That Essence and Substance unless qualified with some limiting Adjuncts signify the formal Reasons of things and can't be multiplied without diversity whereas the other Terms signify nothing but Real and Actual Existence which does not diversify and therefore not multiply the Essence for Three Suppositums Three Subjects Three Things Three Real Beings may have One Essence Nature and Substance formally identically and invariably the same But there is some dispute about the use of those words Existence and Subsistence Petavius observes a great difference between the Ancient and Modern use of them That the Ancients used them in a Concrete Sense for Person and Substance that which does really exist and subsist as he proves by several Quotations but that the Schoolmen use them in an abstract Sense for the modifications of Substance which they call Modes which together with the Substance constitute what we call Persons of which more hereafter and this may be true as to some later Schoolmen but the more Ancient and many Modern Schoolmen retained the Old Catholick use of the words and Suarez could trace the Doctrine of Modes no higher than Durandus Peter Lombard is express in it That Three Persons are tres subsistentioe tres entes Three Subsistencies Three Beings and tres subsistentioe vel entes subsistentioe vel subsistentes Subsistencies or Beings Subsistencies or those that subsist Thus Tho. Aquinas tells us That Persons are res subsistentes subsisting things And in answer to that Objection against a plurality of Persons in the Godhead that a Person according to Boetius being rationalis naturoe individua substantia the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature if there be a plurality of Persons in the Godhead there must consequently be a plurality of Substances he tells us That Substance either signifies the Essence or the Suppositum that in this last sense it is used in the definition of a Person as appears by the addition of Individual which is what the Greeks call Hypostasis and therefore assert Three Hypostases Individual Substances as we do Three Persons but we don't use to say Three Substances by reason of the equivocal use of the word lest we should be thought to assert Three Essences in the Godhead From whence it is plain that by Three Subsistencies Tho. Aquinas understood Three that subsist Three Individual Substances in the Notion of Three distinct Suppâ—situms though not of Three different Essences for this is the true distinction he makes between Suppositum and Essence that they both signify Substance but the one signifies as Matter and the other as Form and therefore the Plurality of Suppositums of Subsistencies does not multiplâ—â—â—e Essence or Form for Three may be perfectly One in Nature and Essence but to multiply Essences to say there are Three Nâ—tures or Three Essences is to diversify them and to make Three Gods specifically and essentially different After this I need not add much concerning the Notion of Person The Ciceronian sense of this word too much in use of late wherein the same Man may be said to sustain several Persons according to his different Relations Offices and Quality has as I have observed before been rejected by all Catholick Writers as Sabellianism St. Austin generally speaking is the Text to the Master of the Sentences and He to the Schoolmen and that Father is express in it that Person is Essence and Substance that the Person of the Father is the Essence and Substance of the Father From whose Authority P. Lombard concludes That Person is used in the Notion of Substance That when we say the Father is a Person the sense is the Father is the Divine Essence He observes from the same Father that the Latins used Person in the same sense that the Greeks used Hypostasis which in Latin literally signifies Substance but yet they were very cautious of saying Three Substances as the Greeks did Three Hypostases because though the Greeks distinguished between Essence and Substance that Essence expressed the formal Nature of things Substance what in Creatures we call the Matter or Suppositum yet the Latins knew no such distinction and therefore Three Substances to them was the same with Three Essences which would assert a diversity in the Divine Nature And this he shews was the only Objection St. Hierom had against Three Substances or Three Hypostases which he allowed in the Notion of Tres Personas subsistentes Three subsisting Persons but not of Three Natures or Essences and this Solution he acquiesces in That Tres Personoe sunt Tres Substantioe scilicet Tres Entes pro quo Groeci dicunt Tres Hypostases That Three Persons are Three Substances that is Three Real Beings which the Greeks call Three Hypostases And though he observes that Person may sometimes signify that Personal Property whereby one Divine Person is distinguished from another yet he will not allow us to call Three Persons Three Properties but Three Subsistencies or Three Hypostases for the Property is not the Person but only distinguishes Persons of which more hereafter And he reduces the several acceptations of Person as used in the Doctrine of the Trinity to these three 1. That it sometimes signifies the Divine Essence as it does when we speak singularly of any One Person for the Person of the Father is the Divine Essence and so of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 2. Subsistencies and Hypostases as when we speak in the Plural Number Three Persons are Three Subsistencies Three Hypostases but unius Essentioe of one
Filiation must belong to two Persons as being relatively opposed and therefore a subsisting Paternity is the Person of the Father and a subsisting Filiation the Person of the Son Which can never be one Person as requiring distinct Suppositums for such opposite Relations But now the other two Relations Spiration and Procession are not opposed to either of these but only to each other And therefore Spiration does not constitute another Person as not being opposed either to Paternity or Filiation and therefore may and does belong both to Father and Son but Procession must constitute a Third Person as opposed to Spiration and so necessarily distinguished from Father and Son And therefore though there are Four Relations yet one of them Spiration is not separated from the Person of the Father and the Son but belongs to them both nor is it a Property as not being proper and peculiar to any one Person nor is it a Personal Relation or that which constitutes a Person and therefore there are but Three Relations Paternity Filiation and Procession which are Personal Properties which constitute Persons and therefore but Three Persons Now this Answer evidently proves That by Relations they did not mean meer Habitudes Respects and External Denominations for then every Relation must of necessity be a Person and there must be as many Persons as there are Relations but they mean relative Beings and Subsistencies and therefore allow no Relations to constitute distinct Persons but such as necessarily require distinct Subjects that is such opposite Relations as can never meet in the same Subject and therefore their Suppositums must be really distinct as Paternity and Filiation for no one can be Father and Son to himself There is no imaginable Account why only opposite Relations constitute Persons but because they distinguish their Subjects for when opposite Relations meet in the same Subject but not in opposition they do not distinguish and multiply Persons as the same man may be Father and Son and but One Person but when opposite Relations distinguish their Subjects as the Divine Relations necessarily do they multiply Persons too And no Relations Properties Notions according to the Doctrine of the Schools constitute a Person but such as distinguish their Subjects that Three Persons and Three Relations are not Three Respects and Denominations of the same Singular Subject but Three real distinct Relative Beings and Subsistencies 2. Let us now consider why they insist so much upon the notion of Relations that when they allow every Divine Relation to be the Divine Essence Substance an incommunicable Subsistence and Substance yet they will not allow us absolutely to say Three Substances but Three Relations or Three Relative Beings Subsistencies or Substances And the plain and short account of it is this That this is essential to the Unity of God and gives us the truest and most perfect conception of a Trinity in Unity As to shew this particularly 1. These Divine Relations though each of them be incommunicably in his own Person Essence and Substance secure the perfect Unity of the Divine Essence For Three Relative Substances are essentially but One Substance which Three Absolute Substances can never be though they never so perfectly agree in the same Specifick Notion and Idea By an absolute Substance I mean one intire perfect individual whole which is compleat in it self and subsists compleatly by it self without any Internal Essential Union to or necessary dependence on any Being of the same kind By Relative Substances I mean such Substances as are internal subsisting Relations in the same One whole individual Nature Of Absolute Substances we have as many Instances as there are particular Creatures in the World of Relative Substances we have no instance in Created Nature but some such Images and Resemblances as may help us to form an intelligible notion of them Now it is evident without any need to prove it that every compleat absolute Substance how many soever they are multiplies the Individuals of the same kind Three absolute Human Substances are Three Men and Three Absolute Dâ—vine Substances would for the same reason be Three Gods but it is â—therwise as to Relative Substances which are â—ubsisting Personal Relations in the same One individuâ—l Nature and it is demonstrable that the Relations of the same One individual Nature and Substance can't multiply Natures and Substances for then they would not be Relations in the same individual Substance but would be Abâ—olute not Relative Substances As to explain this by a familiar Example The Fathers and after them the Schoolmen find some Images of the Trinity in Human Souls as Memory Vnderstanding Will or which they think a nearer resemblance Mind Knowledge Love And a late Sâ—cinian is very fond of such a Trinity as Original Mind Reflex Wisdom and Love Peter Lombard explains this particularly from the Doctrine of St. Austin and it is evident that all these are very distinct and never can be each other but all have a mutual and necessary relation to each other are in each other and equal to each other but are but One One Mind One Life One Essence and One Substance because they substantially exist in the same Soul and Mind not as Accidents in their Subjects which may be parted but as Essential Properties and Powers This our Socinian Adversaries like well enough for these distinct Properties and Powers do not multiply Persons and therefore though they grant something like such distinct Powers in the Divine Nature yet still there is but One Divine Person and therefore according to their own Notion but One God But this is not the Question Whether such distinct Faculties Properties and Powers multiply Persons which we grant they do not because they do not multiply Natures and One Individual Human Natuâ—e is but One Man or One Human Person but the Qâ—estion is Whether if instead of these distinct Powers and Faculties there were real subsisting Persons as essentially related to each other in the same Individual Nature they would any more divide or multiply Nature than such distinct Powers and Faculties do And I am pretty confident no man can give me any good reason why Relative Subsistencies or Personal Relations should any more divide or multiply the Divine Nature than Relative Powers and Properties divide or multiply Human Nature For if these Divine Persons are as essentially related to each other in the Divine Nature as such distinct Powers and Faculties are in Human Nature a Trinity of Persons must be as essentially One in the same One Individual Divinity as a Trinity of Powers and Faculties are in the same single Human Nature It is certain Three such Divine Persons though each of them be by himself true and perfect God are not Three Absolute Divinities and therefore not Three Gods but Three Divine Relative Subsistencies in the same One Individual Godhead and therefore but One God as Memory Understanding and Will are all that a Mind is and each of them all
he allows to be a good Argument against the Arians which he could not have done had he not allowed this Consciousness in the Trinity but then observes That the Arians did as effâ—ctually consute them as to the distinction of Persons and thus between them both the Catholick Faith of a real distinction of Persons in the Sameness and Conscious Unity of Nature was vindicated In short If the whole Divine Nature is conscious to it self as every Created Mind is conscious to all that is in it self and the Three Divine Persons subsist in the Individual Unity of the same Nature then these Divine Persons must be intimately and mutually conscious to each other as a Mind its Word and Spirit are and however Men please to philosophize about this as to the prius posterius whether they will make the Unity of Nature the cause of this mutual Consciousness and therefore in order of Nature prior to it or make mutual Consciousness not the cause of this Unity but the Essential Union of Three Distinct Subsisting Persons in the Unity of the same Individual Nature I will not contend with any Man which of these speak most properly Consciousness is the Unity of an Intelligent Nature and the mutual Consciousness of Persons in the same Nature and the Conscious Unity of Nature in Three Distinct Persons is the same thing We cannot conceive the Unity of a Mind without Consciousness nor any other kind of Unity of a Mind but a Conscious Unity nor can we conceive an Internal Essential Consciousness without an Essential Unity and if the mutual Consciousness of Persons in the same Nature is the Consciousness of Nature I cannot see why we may not say That it is at least One Notion of the Unity of Nature too But to return where I left off if this may be called a a Digression what I have now said is sufficient to shew how necessary this Doctrine of Relations is to give us a sensible notion of a Trinity in Unity To assert a Real Trinity we must assert Three Real Distinct Subsisting Substantial Intelligent Persons neither of which is each other and each of which is by himself in his own proper Person True and Perfect God But this say Sabellians Arians and Socinians is to assert Three Gods which the Catholick Church always abhorred the thoughts of Now how the Fathers answered this Charge and vindicated the Divine Unity in a Trinity of Real Subsisting Persons I have already particularly shown as by the Consubstantiality the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature whole of whole their Inseparability and Unity of Operation but we can form no distinct Idea of all this but only among Personal Subsisting Relatives of the same Individual Nature Whatever is not this is a meer Specifick Consubstantiality and Identity of Nature and an External Union how inseparable soever it be which must make a number of Individuals in the Divine as well as Human Nature but now it is plain to a Demonstration That if God hath an Eternal Subsisting Word and an Eternal Subsisting Spirit they can be but One Individual Essence as a Man's Mind and Word and Spirit are One and therefore all Three but One God as a Man with his Mind and Word and Spirit iâ— but One Man which is an Intelligible Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Individual Essence and Godhead For though the Word of God be a Person which a Mâ—n's Word is not yet if his true Nature and Character is the Word he is the same to the Eternal Mind which a Man's Word is to his Created Mind and therefore God and his Living Subsisting Word must be One Individual Essence as a Man's Mind and his Word are One a Word must be conceived and begotten of the Mind and can have no other Substance if it be a Living Substantial Word but that of the Mind and if it be a perfect Word the perfect Image of the Mind it must be whole of whole all that the Mind is for the whole Mind is in its perfect Word and Image and lives and subsists in it and the whole Word in the Mind So that the Câ—eternity the Coequality the Consubstantiality the Identity the Inseparability the Unity of Operation between God and his Word is so far from being Jargon Contradiction Unintelligible Nonsense that iâ— God have an Eternal Word it is self-evident that thus it must be When we contemplate the Consubstantiality of Father and Son under the notion of Substance we can form no Idea of a whole which is of a whole that the Father should communicate his whole Essence and Substance to the Son and be the whole himself and this is no great wonder since we can form no Idea at all of the Divine Substance but we can very well understand That the Whole Mind must be in its Word that the Eternal Mind and its Word must be Consubstantial Coeternal Coequal Two but perfectly the same inseparably in each other for all this is included in the very Relation and Notion of a Mind and its Word I 'm sure a Living Subsisting Word which is not Consubstantial Coeternal Coequal with that Eternal Mind whose Word it is that a Mind should be without its Word that an Infinite Eternal Mind which is perfect Life and Being should have a vanishing perishing Word as Man has not a living subsisting Word that a Mind and its Word should ever be parted that the Word should not be and subsist in the Mind and the Mind in the Word I say all this contradicts all the Notions we have of a Mind and its Word We cannot immediately and directly contemplate the Divine Nature and Essence which is so infinitely above us and therefore we must contemplate it in such Ideas and Representations as God himself makes of it and if they are such as we can form an intelligible notion of we have no reason to complain of unintelligible Mysteries and Contradictions though when we reduce it into Terms of Art we find our Minds confounded and perplext and unable to form any distinct and easy Ideas The Arians to avoid the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father would not allow the Term Substance to be used of God the Catholick Fathers proved that Substance is in Scripture used concerning God and that the Arians could not reasonably reject it because they used it themselves for though they would not own the Son to be of the same Substance with the Father they taught that he was of another Substance which still is to own Substance in God But though God be in the most true and absolute sense perfect Essence and Being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or according to St. Ambrose his derivation of the Word which shews what he meant by it whether it shews his skill in Greek or not that Essence and Substance is that which always is and that which always is is God and therefore God is Essence and Substance and a
Father Son and Holy Ghost in these Modes of Subsistence but only distinguish and characterize their Persons by them and from thence prove the real distinction of Persons in the Individual Unity of the Divine Essence But then I do not remember that they so much as distinguish all Created Persons by their peculiar Modes of Subsistence I know very well that both Damascen and others give an Example of this in Adam Eve and Seth that Adam was immediately formed by God of the Dust of the Earth Eve formed of one of Adam's Ribs and Seth begotten of Adam and Eve which they call their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in this Example can signify nothing else but their different manner of Production not different Modes of Subsistence but then they do not alledge this as the formal Reason of Personality nay not as necessary to the distinction of Persons though such Peculiarities whenever they are will always distinguish Persons but all they designed by it was to prove that such different ways of coming into being made no change or alteration in Nature for Adam Eve and Seth had all the same Human Nature though formed after such a different manner in answer to the Arian Objection against the Homoousion that an Unbegotten and Begotten Nature cannot be the same and therefore Father and Son not Consubstantial Indeed this would have been a very ill Example of the Distinction of Persons by these different Modes of Subsistence because it could only distinguish Adam and Eve from all the rest of Mankind for all Mankind ever since excepting our Saviour have come into the World the same way that Seth did and therefore are not distinguished by a peculiar manner of Subsistence for they have all the same and consequently either are not distinct Persons or else such peculiar Modes of Subsistence coalescing with common Nature do not constitute the Person And yet I can meet with no other Account of any Modes of Subsistence necessary to the constitution of a Created Person excepting their Personal Properties and Characters which do not make but only distinguish Persons which are not properly Modes of Subsistence but Modes Affections and Properties of the Subsisting Nature but only a separate Subsistence that every Created Hypostasis or Person subsists by it self and separately from all others And herein both Fathers and Philosophers notwithstanding some difference in words seem well enough agreed and this is all that I need say concerning the Distinction between Nature and Person in Created Beings But now every one who understands the True Catholick Faith of the Trinity must needs be sensible how improper all this is to explain that Venerable Mystery of One Nature and Three Persons in the Unity of the Godhead if we apply these Terms strictly and properly The Catholick Fathers would not allow Aristotle's Definition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature Essence and Substance that it is that which subsists by it self because this leaves no possible distinction between Essence and Hypostasis without which we can never defend the Faith of One Nature in Three Persons for what in his Sense thus subsists by it self is an Individual and Singular Nature which is the same with Hypostasis and then it is impossible there should be Three Hypostases in One Singular Nature which is but One Hypostasis But after all Do these Fathers deny that the Divine Nature is One Individual Nature Do they not as I have largely shewn make this the Fundamental Reason of the Divine Unity That there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity in Three Perfect Hypstases and that this One Divinity is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Perfect Indivisible Vnit and Monad and that in a very different Sense from what they own in Creatures So that in some Sense these Fathers own That the Divine Nature is as True an Individuum and infinitely a more Perfect Vnit and Monad than Aristotle's First Substance though his First Substance is and can be but One Hypostasis and the Divine Nature subsists perfectly in Three And therefore to qualify this they tell us That Nature signifies the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is common to all the Hypostases of the same Nature but the Hypostasis is the common Nature with some peculiar and distinguishing Properties subsisting separately by it self and this seems to give us a better image and resemblance of One Nature in Three Hypostases for here is one common Nature not only in Three but in all the distinct Hypostases of that Nature that ever were or ever shall be But I 'm sure this needs greater qualification when applied to the Mystery of the Trinity than Aristotle's â—irst Substance or it will unavoidably introduce not merely Tritheism but Polytheism without end for God can limit the Numbers of Created Hypostases but the number of Hypostases in an Infinite necessary Nature can never be limited if the Divine Nature be common to the Divine Hypostases only as Humane Nature is common to Human Hypostases They teach as I have already observed That Human Nature for instance is a common Nature and that every Hypostasis or every particular Man has this same common Nature but then it is a common Nature not as it is numerically One in all for it subsists separately in every Hypostasis and therefore in this sense is not One common Numerical Individual Nature but it is common only as it is perfectly the same in all Which they will not allow to be a meer common Notion but a common Specifick Nature for the Nature is the Species which is the foundation of the common Predication For therefore all Men have the common Name and Definition of a Man because they have the same common Human Nature And thus though every Hypostasis has not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particular Nature as that signifies a distinction in the Nature it self yet it has the common Specifick Individual Nature that is that Nature which makes the Species and is common as it is the same in all but yet subsists individually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separately in each Hypostasis But now will any Catholick Christian say that thus it is in the Ever Blessed Trinity That the One Common Divinity is One and Common only as One Common Humanity is that is that it is perfectly the same in all not One Individual but One Specifick Nature Or will he say That each Divine Person has one whole intire Specifick Divinity as every Human Person has a whole Specifick Humanity As far as I can see this would as unavoidably make Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are three Men and a common Nature and personal Properties and different Modes of Subsistence would no more prevent a Trinity of Gods than a Trinity of Men. This I think plainly shews how vain an Attempt it is to find out any Notions of Unity and Distinction of Nature and Person or any words to express those
Notions by common to God and Creatures These Creature-Ideas and Creature Terms can be applied to God only by way of Analogy and Accommodation and that a very imperfect one too 2. Let us then consider how the Catholick Fathers accommodated these Names of Essence and Person to the explication of this Mystery and what they intended to represent by them I shall do this in as few words as possibly I can that what I have to say may be the more easily understood They tell us That all Nature is common that Human Nature is common to all Mankind and the Divine Nature common to all the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost not that they thought the Divinity or Godhead a common Nature merely as Human Nature is common but there is this Analogy between them that the Divine Nature is not singular or does not subsist in Singularity but in Three Hypostases as Human Nature is common because it is not confined to one but is in all Human Hypostases and that the Divine Nature is perfectly and invariably the same in each Hypostasis as the Human Nature is which for this Reason is called a common not a particular Nature which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness Identity not Singularity of Nature in the Blessed Trinity Thus far the Analogy holds which is a direct opposition both to Sabellianism and Arianism but it reaches no farther for the Divine Nature is not a common Specifick Nature as all Created Nature is common for the Godhead is no Species that is there is and can be but One God Which I have already at large shewn to be the Sense of the Fathers They expresly teach That the Divine Nature is an Individual Nature but not Singular it is common as being whole and perfect in more Hypostases than One which excludes Singularity but it is one whole Entire Individual Nature so one Individual as Human Nature is one in one Man For though Individual and Singular is the same in Creatures it is not so in the Divine Nature nor can it be if the Catholick Faith be One Nature One Divinity in Three Perfect Hypostases And if we can form any sensible Notion of this it will silence all the pretences of Jargon Nonsense Contradiction Tritheism which are so constantly objected against this Venerable Mystery And therefore I shall briefly inquire 1. What that One Divinity is which is common to Father Son and Holy Ghost and how it is common 2. How this common Nature is in a strict and proper Sense One Individual Nature And I think this is easily accounted for from the Doctrine of the Fathers 1. As for the first This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity is the Divinity of the Father the Natura Patris the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Nature of the Father and the Divinity of the Father who is the Eternal Self-originated Mind which has no Second and therefore there can be no other no Second or Third Divinity Now this One Divine Nature One Divinity of the Father is common to the Son and to the Holy Spirit Common I say not merely as Human Nature is common to all Men because it is the same in all perfectly the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be not the same Individual Nature in all which is singular and incommunicable in Creatures but it is common by a perfect communication whole of whole that it is no New Divinity but the Divinity of the Father which is in the Son who is therefore so often as I observed above called the Nature and Divinity and Mind of the Father his Image and Character and that which is signified by all this his Eternal Living Omnipotent Word I do not intend to prove all this over again which I have abundantly proved already but only to put every thing into its proper place that we may view the Whole in a true light This Divine Nature then of the Father which is but One is that One Divinity which is by an Eternal Ineffable Generation communicated whole and perfect to the Son and by a like Eternal and Ineffable Procession to the Holy Spirit But still the difficulty is How this is One Nature which is not Singular nor subsists in Singularity but in Three Proper Distinct Compleat Hypostases or Persons 2. And therefore rightly to apprehend this we must inquire into the Notion of One Individual Nature Now that which is most obvious and which the Fathers perpetually alledge in justification of the Divine Unity is That an Individual is an undivided Nature and therefore the One Divinity of the Father though actually communicated to the Son and Holy Spirit is One Individual Divinity because it is communicated whole and perfect without Division or Separation and that which is undivided is One. But though to be undivided be essential to the Notion of an Individual Nature yet there must be something else to compleat this Notion or at least to give us a more distinct conception of it Could Human Nature propagate it self whole and compleat to Two or Three without any division or separation of Substance this could not make it One Individual Nature though they were undivided for One Individual Nature is One whole Compleat Nature without division which is all that is essential to such a Being and is this all but once and that without division But how will this agree with the Notion of One Divinity or One Individual Divine Nature For does not the One Divine Nature which is the Divinity of the Father subsist compleatly and distinctly though without division and separation in the Son and Holy Ghost and will you call this One Individual Nature which is not singularly in One but subsists distinctly in Three Yes I will because all these Three Father Son and Holy Ghost are essential to the Notion of One Divinity and therefore are One Individual Divinity in Three for an Individual Nature is that which without division has all that is essential to such a Nature Well But is not the Father then in his own Person True and Perfect God and the Son True and Perfect God and the Holy Ghost True and Perfect God that is Have not each of these Divine Persons all the Divine Perfections included in the Notion and Idea of God And are they not Three who have all the Perfections of the Divine Nature and how then is this One Individual Nature I answer When I say That One Individual Nature is that which has all that is essential to such a Nature by Essential I mean not only Essential Properties Qualities Powers and Perfections which are commonly called Nature there being no other notion of Nature in Created Beings but Essential Productions too which when there is any such thing are as essential to Nature as any other Properties or Perfections In the first Sense of Essential the Divine Nature is not singular but communicated by the Eternal Father to the Eternal Son and by Father
and Son to the Eternal Spirit and all Three are Infinite in Wisdom Power and Goodness and all other Divine Perfections This is but One Divinity One Godhead for there is not a Second and Third Divinity in the Son and in the Holy Spirit but the One Divinity of the Father But yet we must confess that here is Number Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three and how can that Divinity which is perfectly and distinctly in Three be One Individual Nature One Numerically One as Human Nature in every particular Man is One Now this must be resolved into the second Notion of Essential for Essential Productions for all Essential Productions in the Unity of Nature though they may be distinguished and numbred among themselves are but One Individual Nature It will be in vain to seek for an Example of this in Created Nature and I believe the reason of it will be evident without it An Eternal Self-originated Mind is True and Perfect God the First Supreme Cause of all things and has all the Perfections of the Divinity wholly in it self is the One and only True God But if it be essential to an Eternal Mind to have an Eternal Living Subsisting Word and Spirit by an Eternal Generation and Procession then this Eternal Word and Spirit are essential to an Eternal Mind not as Essential Perfections or Essential Parts but as Essential Productions or Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature Thus the Scripture represents this Mystery That there is One God who has an Eternal Word and an Eternal Spirit and the Catholick Fathers as I have already observed insist on this as a natural Demonstration of a Trinity That the Eternal Mind must have its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit Now if the Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit are essential to the Eternal Mind it is certain that Father Son and Holy Ghost the Eternal Mind its Word and Spirit are but One Individual Divinity every thing that is essential is included in the Notion of an Individual Nature for that is not a Compleat and Perfect Nature nor an adequate notion of Nature that wants any thing that is essential Now though we may have a general Notion and Idea of a God That he is an Absolutely Perfect Being which Includes all the Divine Attributes and Perfections without knowing any thing of the Son or Holy Ghost yet if we consider this Absolutely Perfect Being as Eternal Self-originated Mind with its Eternal Word and Spirit as essential Productions or Processions we can consider them no otherwise but as One Individual Divinity this Eternal Word and Spirit being essential Processions of the Eternal Mind which can never be separated from it For such essential Processions are not only coeval and consubstantial with the Nature from whence they proceed as the Sun its Light and Heat by which Argument the Catholick Fathers proved the Coeternity and Consubstantiality of the Son and Holy Spirit with the Eternal Father but whatever distinction there is between them they are One Individual Nature if all that be One Individual Nature which is essential to such a Being and such all essential Processions are as well as essential Perfections These are two very different Questions and of a very different consideration What God is and Who this God is In an answer to the first we form the Idea and Notion of all Divine Perfections or of an absolutely Perfect Being which is the true notion of the Divinity and whoever has all these Divine Perfections is True and Perfect God and this is our natural notion of God as that signifies the Divinity which gives no notice of any distinction in the Divinity for there can be no diversity in Absolute Perfections and therefore no distinction or number according to the Philosophy of the Fathers But when we consider who God is or what is the Subject of all these Divine Perfections we can form no other Idea of it but an Eternal Infinite Self originated Mind this the Wisest Philosophers as well as Christians are agreed in That God is an Infinite Mind and this rightly explained may teach us some distinction in the Divinity for all Men must grant what they feel in themselves that every Mind has its Word and Spirit and cannot be conceived without them and therefore the Eternal Mind must have its Eternal word and Spirit too and the reason why this did not lead all Mankind into the natural belief of a Trinity of Persons Mind Word and Spirit in the Unity of the Godhead was plainly this Because they found that their own Word and Spirit were not permanent subsisting Persons but were the perishing Creatures of the Mind which were no sooner produced but died and vanished as our Thoughts do and thus they conceived it was with the Divine Mind which is one kind of Sabellianism as I observed above But yet the Catholick Fathers thought this natural belief That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Divinity or Divine Mind is not without its Word a very proper Medium to prove a real subsisting Word in the Divinity for an Infinite Perfect Mind which is all Life Being Substance if it begets its own Word as every Mind does must beget a Living Substantial Subsisting Word the perfect Image and Character of its own Life and Infinite Being However thus much I think we must own That since every Mind must have its Word and Spirit in the Individual Unity of its own Nature and the Holy Scripture assures us that God who is the most perfect Mind has his Word and Spirit and that this Divine Word and Spirit is an Eternal Living Subsisting Word and Spirit this is a very good foundation for the belief of a Real Trinity both from Reason and Scripture The natural Notion and Idea of a Mind teaches us this distinction in the Divinity and Natural Reason strongly infers from the perfect Productions of an infinitely perfect Mind that the Divine Word and Spirit must be an Eternal Living Infinite Word and Spirit and the Holy Scripture confirms all this And therefore Scripture and Reason are so far from contradicting each other in this Article that the Belief of the Trinity though it be ultimately resolved into the Authority of Revelation yet has Reason on its side as far as it can judge of such matters Which proves a considerable Authority when the obscure and imperfect Conjectures of Reason are explained and confirmed by Revelation For though the Notion of an absolutely perfect Being which is the Natural Idea of the Divinity teaches no such distinction yet the Idea of an Infinitely Perfect and Self-originated Mind which is as natural a Notion of God does Thus Damascen teaches us to distinguish between the Divinity and in what the Divinity is or to speak more accurately what is the Divinity and that which proceeds eternally from this First Cause that is the Hypostases of the Son and Holy Spirit the first teaches us
Divinity which is absolutely and originally in the Father Well then Here is One Divine Person viz. the Eternal Father who is absolutely and originally God and Two more the Son and Holy Ghost who are each of them in his own Person true and perfect God by having all the Divine Perfections But are not these Three then Three Gods the Unbegotten God who is originally and absolutely God the Begotten God and the Proceeding God No it is the constant Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers that the Trinity is but One Divinity and One God una Summa res One Supreme Being as St. Austin taught and from him Peter Lombard and was confirmed by the Council of Lateran in the Condemnation of Abbot Ioachim For Father Son and Holy Ghost though they are Three true and proper Persons are but One Individual Nature for it is Essential to the Eternal Mind to have its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit and the Eternal Word and Spirit live and subsist in the Mind and though living subsisting Persons yet are as individually One with the Mind as a Created Mind its Word and Spirit are One. Whatever is Essential to Nature is in the Individual Unity of it and that is but One Individual Nature which has nothing but what is Essential to it and therefore if as I have already observed and as the Catholick Faith teaches the Son and Spirit the Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit are Essential Processions of Eternal Original Mind and essentially indivisibly and inseparably in it Father Son and Holy Ghost are as essentially and inseparably One Individual Divinity as any One Nature is One with it self But is not this a kind of Sabellian Composition of a God A whole Divinity made up of Three partial and incomplete Divinities Which St. Austin calls a Triformis Deus By no means What is compounded is made up of Parts which make a compound Nature but perfect Hypostases however united can make no Composition However you unite Iames and Iohn you can never make a compound Man of them because each of them have a perfect Human Nature and as Damascen observes we do not say That the Nature or Species is made up of the Hypostases but is in the Hypostases So that each Divine Person being a complete and perfect Hypostasis having the whole Divine Nature in himself as being True and Perfect God their Union in the same Individual Nature though it makes them One Essential Divinity yet it cannot make a Compound God for however their Persons are united the Divinity or Divine Nature is not compounded each of them being True and Perfect God and not One God by Composition but by an Individual Unity of Nature in Three For every Divine Person is not God in the same sense that every Human Person is a Man as having an Absolute Individual Nature of his own for in this sense the Father only is God as being Absolute Original Divinity an Eternal Self-originated Mind and Three such Persons must be acknowledged to be Three Gods but as I have been forced often to repeat it the Son and Holy Spirit are Divine Persons as they are Eternal Living Subsisting Processions in the Divine Nature which proves them to have the very same Divinity and to be but One Individual Divinity but not One Compound God For One Individual Nature in Three though distinguisht into Distinct Subsisting Persons makes such a natural inseparable Unity of Will Energy and Power that they are as perfectly One Almighty Agent as every single Person is One Agent as I have shewn above It is thought by some a manifest Contradiction to say as the Athanasian Creed teaches us The Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet there are not Three Gods but One God But whoever carefully considers what I have now said must own that this is the only true and proper way of speaking in this Mystery If there be but One Absolute Divinity there can be but One God for the Divine Processions in the Unity and Identity of the same Individual Nature cannot multiply the Divinity nor multiply the Name and Title of God for the Name God does not originally absolutely and immediately belong to them but only relatively The proper immediate Character of the Second Person in the Trinity is not God but the Son of God and the Word of God and so the Third is the Spirit of God And though we must necessarily own that the Son of God and the Spirit of God are each of them True and Perfect God equal in all Divine Perfections to the Father as being all the same that the Father is excepting his being a Father yet they are not Three Gods for this is not their immediate Original Character but there is One God the Father his Eternal Son and Eternal Spirit This is what I have above observed from Tertullian That there is One God with his Oeconomy that is his Son and Spirit and that Christ is called God when he is spoken of by himself but when he is named together with the Father he must have his own proper Title which is the Son of God and the Reason is the same as to the Holy Spirit by which Rule we can never say That Father Son and Holy Ghost though each of them be God are Three Gods but there are Three God the Father his Son and Holy Spirit The Father God of himself the Son and Spirit Eternal Processions and Divine Subsisting Relations in the Unity and Identity of the Father's Godhead They have all the same Divinity their Glory equal their Majesty coeternal but their different manner of having it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinguishes their Names and Characters The Father is God absolutely God an Unbegotten Self-originated Being so God that there is no other God besides him The Son is not absolutely God but the Son of God and when he is called God in Scripture it is in no other sense but as the Son of God for the Son of God must be God the Son Nor is the Holy Spirit absolutely God but the Spirit of God which is all we mean when we call him God for the Spirit of God must be God the Holy Ghost This is the Catholick Faith and let any Man try if he can find Three Gods in it For when we number Father Son and Holy Ghost we must not number them by the common Name of Nature which is One Undivided Divinity in them all but by their Relative Names and Characters which do not only distinguish their Persons but signify their Unity Order and Relations in the same Nature We must not call them Three Gods because God is not the original Name of the Son or Spirit and therefore they are not Three Gods but there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead The One God the Father the Son of God and the Spirit of God so that there is but One God in the Christian Faith if the Son of God be
the Son of this One God the Father and the Spirit of God be the Spirit of this same One God And though the Son of God be God and the Spirit of God be God that is the Name of their Nature not of their Persons and therefore can no more be multiplied with the Persons than the Divine Nature is The Son of God is God but it is Authoritate Paternae Naturae as St. Hilary speaks not by any Absolute Godhead of his own but in right of his Father's Nature and Divinity which he received by an Eternal Generation Thus it must be where there is but One Absolute Nature with its Internal Processions Let us put the Case in a Human Mind and suppose That its Word and Spirit were Distinct Living Intelligent Hypostases in the Mind Essential Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature perfectly the same with the Mind but distinct Hypostases but would any one for this Reason call these Three Three Men or Three Minds And yet such a Living Subsisting Word and a Living Subsisting Spirit would as perfectly have the Nature of the Mind as the Mind it self but neither of them would be an absolute Mind but one the Word of the Mind and the other the Spirit of the Mind not Three Minds but One Mind with its Essential Word and Spirit This though an Imaginary Case gives us a sensible representation of the difference between the Eternal Mind and its Eternal Word and Spirit which I freely acknowledge cannot properly be called Three Infinite Minds and Spirits for though the Eternal Subsisting Word is an Infinite Mind and so the Eternal Subsisting Spirit yet Mind as well as God is the Name of their Nature not of their Persons which is Identically one and the same in all This as I take it is what some Learned and truly Catholick Writers mean in distinguishing the several Acceptations of this Name God That sometimes it signifies the Divine Nature and Essence in general as when we say The Trinity is One God that is One Divinity that there is but One Divine Nature and Essence in all the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity Sometimes it signifies Personally as when we say The Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God that is the Person of the Father the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Ghost is God But then they are still forced to acknowledge that the Name God is not predicated Vnivocally of all Three Persons but that the Father is God in a more excellent and eminent Sense than the Son is God or the Holy Ghost God as being God of himself an Unbegotten Self-originated God the Fountain of the Deity to the Son and Holy Spirit Upon which account he is so often by the Catholick Fathers called the One God and the only True God Now all this is very True and very Catholick but with all submission it seems to me to be an inconvenient way of speaking which perplexes the Article with different Senses and is liable to great Cavils and Misconstructions as the Examples of Dr. Payn and the Author of the 28 Propositions witness and when most dexterously managed will sooner silence than convince an Adversary The Divine Essence must be considered only as in the Divine Persons when we say That the Trinity is One God the true meaning is That Three Persons are One God and the general abstract Notion of the Unity of Essence does not account for this but the Unity of the Divine Essence in Three Thus to say That the Father is God in the highest sense of that Name God and that He alone strictly speaking is a Being absolutely perfect because he alone is Self-existent and all other Beings even the Son and Holy Ghost are from him may be expounded to a very Catholick Sense and was certainly so meant but is liable to great Cavils when Men take more pains to pick Quarrels with Words than to understand an Author An Absolutely Perfect God and a God that wants any Perfection sounds not only like Two Gods but like Gods of different Kinds for every diversity of Nature alters the Species All that is meant by this is certainly True and Catholick and taught in express words by the Primitive Fathers That the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father that the Son is all that the Father is excepting his being the Father and unbegotten that is excepting Paternity and Self-existence or Self-origination and that upon this Account the Father is eminently called the One God the Son God of God that is God as the Son of God What I have now discoursed seems to me to give the fairest Account of this Matter I take the Name God always to signify a Person in whom the Divine Nature is not the Divinity in the Abstract and then the Name God must belong to any Person after the same manner as the Divine Nature is his that is he must be called God in no other sense than as he is God Now as I have already shewn there is but One Absolute Divinity with Two Internal Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature And if we make this our Rule of Speaking as we must do if this be the Catholick Faith of the Trinity and we will fit our words to the nature of things then it is very plain That the Name God absolutely belongs only to him who is this Absolute Divinity that is the Person of the Father that no other Person is God in recto absolutely and simply God but only he that he is the One God the only True God as both the Scripture and Fathers own But what becomes then of the Son and Holy Ghost Is not the Son God and the Spirit God Yes the Name and Title of God belongs to them as the Divine Nature does that is not absolutely as to the Absolute Divinity but as to Divine Processions to Divine Subsisting Relations in the Unity of the Godhead that is the Second Person in the Trinity is God but not in recto as God signifies that Person who is the Divinity but as the Son of God as habens Deitatem having the Divinity not absolutely and originally but by Communication by Eternal Generation And so the Holy Spirit is not absolutely God but the Spirit of God and God only as the Spirit of God as an Internal Procession in the Divine Nature But in what sense then can we say That the Trinity is One God or that Three Persons are One God Must we not necessarily own that God in these Propositions is taken Essentially for the Deity in the abstract and not as considered in any One Person For will we say That the Trinity or Three Persons are but One Person No! and yet in this Proposition The Trinity is One God by One God I understand One who is absolutely God One Absolute Divinity which is the Father who has indeed a Son and Spirit in the Unity of his
Trinity and Three Relative Subsistencies and Existences which is managed with so much perplexing Subtilty as far as I can understand any thing by it may easily be composed after the same manner For there is but One Absolute Being and Nature in the Divinity and therefore there can be but One Absolute Subsistence and Existence as Absolute signifies not Compleat and Perfect but to subsist and exist as an Original which in the Godhead signifies a self-originated Subsistence and Existence But then to deny all relative Subsistencies and Existencies is to deny the compleat Subsistence and Existence of the Son and Spirit who are essential Relations in the Unity of the Father's Godhead and therefore subsist not as Originals but as Relatives which is the meaning of a Relative Subsistence There is but One Absolute Divinity and Two Relative Processions and therefore in this sense but One Absolute and Two not Three Relative Subsistencies which seems fairly to divide the Question between them Thus once more It is a known Rule of speaking in this Mystery That Substantives must be predicated in the Singular Number Adjectives will admit a Plural Predication and the same difference is made between Abstract and Concrete Terms There are not Three Gods but Tres Deit atem habentes there are Three who have the Divinity not Three Omnipotencies or Three Omnisciencies but Three who are Omnipotent and Omniscient And the approved reason for this is That Substantives and Abstract Terms signify the Nature Essence and Form and to multiply them is to multiply Natures but Adjectives immediately signify the Subjects Suppositums and Persons and only connote the Nature and Form which multiplies the Persons but not the Nature Now though I understand what is meant by this when applied to the Divinity yet I never could understand this Reason for it for there is no such difference between Substantive and Adjective Predications in any other Case Three men and Three who have Human Nature signify the very same thing and multiply the Form as well as the Persons Three who have Human Nature are truly and properly Three men and then the meer difference between Substantives and Adjectives cannot be a good Reason why Three who have the Divine Nature are not Three Gods But the difference between an Absolute and Relative Predication does give an account of this Substantives and Abstract Terms always signify the Form as the Schools speak that is an Absolute and Original Nature and in this Sense Number multiplies Nature as well as Persons and Three Gods are Three Absolute Original Divinities as wellas Three Divine Persons and thus it is as to Adjective Predications in all Creatures as I observed before because there is no such distinction in Creatures between an Absolute Nature and Internal Subsisting Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature and when Nature always signifies the Original Form a Substantive or Adjective Predication can make no difference but where there is such a distinction as there is in the Divinity Substantives and Adjectives do most aptly represent it because Adjectives admit of a Relative Predication and may signify a Person who has the Divine Nature as an Internal Subsisting Procession in the Divinity but is not the Absolute Divinity nor in an Absolute Sense God but the Son of God and the Spirit of God Indeed in such Forms of Speech we must have more regard to the Absolute or Relative Signification than to the Substantive or Adjective Form of the Words Adjectives in an Absolute Sense must no more be multiplied than Substantives which I take to be an easier Account of the tres aeterni and unus aeternus in the Athanasian Creed than to turn it with Aquinas into tria aeterna and unum aeternum For Three Eternals whether Substantives or Adjectives in an Absolute Sense are Three Gods Three Eternal Three Intelligent Three Omniscient Persons in an Absolute Sense are Three Eternities Three Omnisciences and in this Sense there is but unus aeternus One Eternal Self Originated Person as there is but One God and on the other hand Deus or God though a Substantive may signify Relatively as it does in the Nicene Creed God of God and in this Sense some of the Schoolmen thought it very Orthodox to say Three Gods if we explained in what Sense we meant it as I observed above Tertullian did Ecce duos deos though at the same time he rejects the use of such Forms for their ambiguous Signification which might betray men into Polytheism And if God may have a Relative Signification so may Mind and Spirit too and then Three Minds and Spirits is as Orthodox as Three that have an Intelligent and Spiritual Nature In short as far as I can hitherto observe all the Catholick Rules of Speaking relating to this Mystery must be resolved into this distinction of Absolute and Relative This is the only distinction we know of in the Godhead and this we as certainly know there is as we know that there is an Eternal Father who has an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit One Absolute Self-Originated Divinity with its Internal Essential Processions in the Individual Unity and Identity of Nature and if this be the Unity and Distinction of the Divinity this must be our Rule of Speaking also to have a due regard to the One Absolute Nature and the Relative Processions of the Godhead which will secure us both from a Sabellian Singularity and a Tritheistick Trinity of Absolute Divinities The CONCLUSION With a short Application to the Socinians I Proposed one thing more to be considered in relation to this Subject viz. Whether the Catholick Faith of a Real aâ—d Substantial Trinity can be as reasonably and intelligibly explained by the Notion of One Singular Substance in the Divinity as by asserting Three Personal Substances or Suppositums And whether the Singularity of the Divine Essence in this Notion delivers the Asserters of it from any Inconveniences and Objections which the contrary Opinion is thought liable to But I hope after what I have already said there is no occasion for this and I will not needlesly revive old Quarrels Let but Men sincerely and heartily believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Eternal Infinite Substantial Living Intelligent Omnipotent All-wise Persons each of which is in his own Person True and Perfect God and all Three but One Divinity and One God and I will dispute with no such Orthodox Christians concerning the Philosophy of the Divine Nature which is so infinitely above our comprehension There may be a necessity for such Disputes when we have to do with Hereticks who ridicule the Catholick Faith as contradictions and absurd but when Men agree in the Faith such Disputes are of no use to them and may prove of dangerous consequence for there are too many who will be sooner disputed out of their Faith than out of their Philosophy which should teach all Catholick Christians as much as it is possible to silence all
foundation of this Sameness and Consubstantiality of Nature in the Eternal Generation of the Son of the Substance of the Father 184 To which they added That the Son receives his whole Substance from the whole Substance of the Father totus ex toto 186 Concerning this mysterious and ineffable Generation Whole of Whole 187 St. Austin teaches That the Divine Nature and Essence must not be considered either as a Genus or Species nor the Divine Persons as Individuals 194 What Medium there is between the Vnity of Singularity and a specifick Vnity of Nature 195 The difference between Three Divine Persons and Three Individual Human Persons 199 SECT VI. A more particular Inquiry what the Catholick Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness and Identity of Substance in the Holy Trinity 207 Petavius's attempt to prove that both the Greek and Latin Fathers taught the Singularity of the Divine Nature Ibid. His Notion of Singularity Considered 208 His Apology for the Fathers who as he says taught a specifick Vnity rejected 211 His Authorities for the Singularity of the Divine Nature Examined 213 By the Sameness and Identity of Nature the Fathers did not mean Singularity but such a Sameness as is between Three real subsisting Persons without the least Change and Variation 217 That the Fathers resolved the Vnity of God into this Sameness and Identity of Nature 221 Some Examples in Nature of the distinction betweeen alius and aliud 227 How the Fathers proved the Vnity of God in opposition to Polytheism from the Sameness and Identity of Nature 230 That these Arguments do not conclude against a Trinity of Divine Persons 232 Gregory Nyssen vindicated from Tritheism and his Answer to Ablabius Explained 236 The Philosophy of the Ancients about Numbers 243 The distinction between the Vnity of Number and the Vnity of Nature opposed to the Charge of Tritheism and a Confutation of a Sabellian Singularity 246 In what sense the Schools asserted the Singularity of the Divine Substanâ—e 248 SECT VII Concerning the Distinction of Persons in the Vnity and Identity of the Divâ—ne Essence The general Account of this 254 That both the Fathers and Schools by a Divine Person understood the Divine Essence and Substance and nothing else 260 This proved from that Ambiguity with which the Fathers are charged in the use of these Terms Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis c. 261 That these Terms Essence c. are distinctly applied to each Person of the Holy Trinity 264 And all those Terms which are more peculiarly appropriated to signify the Divine Persons were always used by Catholick Writers in the Notion of Substance and never thought Catholick in any other sense as Person Hypostasis Suppositum c. 265 That a Divine Person is nothing else but the Divine Nature proved from the Absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature which admits of no Composition as both Fathers and Schoolmen own 272 According to the Doctrine both of Fathers and Schools the Divine Essence and Substance as subsisting distinctly in Three is proper and peculiar to each and incommunicable to one another 273 Whether the Divine Essence either begets or is begotten and how the Fathers and Schools may be reconciled 274 SECT VIII Concerning the Divine Relations 281 The true Notion of Relative Substances or Subsisting Relations explained from the Doctrine of the Schools Ibid. These Divine Relations secure the perfect Vnity of the Divine Essence 287 What is meant by an Absolute Substance and what by Relative Substance Ibid. This applied to the Doctrine of the Trinity 288 Three Absolute Substances are always distinctly and separately Three Three Relative Substances may be essentially One in the same One Individual Nature 289 This account the Fathers give of the Vnity of the Divine Essence 290 Concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they do not signify Personal Relative Substances but singular Absolute Substances 293 The Divine Relations prove the Sameness and Identity of Nature in Three 298 These Divine Relations give us an intelligible Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inseparable Vnion of the Divine Persons and their mutual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inexistence in each other 300 This mutual inbeing can be understood only between the Relatives of the same Individual Essence and Substance 305 And this gives an Account of the Vnity of Operation 308 Concerning the Mutual Consciousness of the Divine Persons 313 The Doctrine of Relations necessary to give us a sensible Notion of a Trinity in Vnity 326 SECT IX A more particular Inquiry into the difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Nature and Person with an Account of some Catholick Forms of Speech relating to the ever Blessed Trinity 334 The Faith and the Philosophy of the Ancients of a different Consideration Ibid. All the Heresies relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation attributed to this one mistake that Essence and Hypostasis are the same 336 This by some charg'd upon Aristotle's Notion of a first Substance Ibid. The Distinction of Nature and Person in Creatures considered 338 Aristotle's first Substance and what the Fathers call Hypostasis is in Creatures the same thing 339 What the Fathers mean by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Hypostasis 340 No real difference between Aristotle and the Fathers in this Matter Ibid. The Fathers by a Common Nature did not mean One Numerical Subsisting Nature common to all the Individuals 341 For what reason they reject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particular singular Nature 343 Hypostasis is Nature with its peculiar Accidents subsisting by it self that these Accidents and Personal Properties do not make but only distinguish Persons 345 The Hypostasis or Person is the common Nature subsisting by it self This proved from the Humanity of our Saviour 346 How improper all these Terms are to explain the Trinity in Vnity 350 How the Catholick Fathers accommodated these Names of Essence and Person to the Explication of this Mystery 352 The Common Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity is the Divinity of the Father common to the Son and Spirit by a perfect Communication whole of whole 354 The true Notion of One Individual Nature Ibid. Essential Internal Productions are in the Individual Vnity of Nature 356 The Distinction between Nature and Persons for that is the true State of the Question not how Nature and Person is distinguished in each Single Divine Person but how One Individual Nature is distinguished from Three Persons in the Individual Vnity of Nature 360 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 362 This applied at large for the Explication and Vindication of several Catholick Forms of Speech concerning the Trinity in Vnity 365 c. The Conclusion with a short Application to the Socinians 385 ERRATA PAge 6. l. 31. d. all p. 9. marg r. quae p. 15. l. 3. r. enow p 86. l. 8 9. r expressions p. 180. l.
23. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 165. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 188. l. 16. marg r. ex iâ—demutabilis p. 208. l. 24. Identity p. 216. l. 5. â— Man's r. Man p. 225. l. 34. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 230. l. 2. r. Identity p. 236. l. 14. marg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 245. l. 10. r. an Angel p. 304. l. 2. marg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 322. l. 12. de Trin. l. 2. marg l. 15. de Trin. l. 7. l. 32 videri p. 347. l. 14. r. his p. 349. l. 12 13. r. where-ever p 350 marg l. 8. r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Curious Reader may observe â—ome other Mistakes which I hope will not disturb the Sense THE PRESENT STATE OF THE SOCINIAN Controversy CHAP. I. SECT I. The Present State of the Socinian Controversy the unreasonableness of it and how to reduce the Dispute to the Original Question THE Faith of the Holy Trinity is so fundamental to the Christian Religion that if Christianity be worth contending for That is For if God have not an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit the whole Mystery of our Redemption by Christ and of our Sanctification by the Spirit which in its Consequences is the whole of the Gospel and distinguishes it from all other Religions is utterly lost Those various Heresies relating to the Divinity Person and Offices of Christ and the Holy Spirit which began to appear even in the Apostolick Age and have ever since under several forms and disguises disturbed the Peace of the Church is proof enough how much the great Enemy of Mankind thinks himself concerned by all possible means to corrupt this Faith and that great unwearied unconquerable Zeal wherewith the Catholick Fathers have always defended this Faith shews of what importance they thought it and therefore it is no wonder and ought to give no scandal to Christians that these Disputes are again revived among us with as much fury and insolence as ever for there never was a more unhappy Season for the Enemy to sow his Tares But that which is most to be lamented is That the lukewarmness of some and the intemperate Zeal of others have given greater scandal to the World and more shaken the Faith of Christians than all the Opposition of our Adversaries could have done I need say no more the Case is too well known and the Evil Effects too visible among us I will make no new Quarrels if I can help it but sincerely endeavour to prevent the Mischiefs of what has already happened as far as is necâ—ssary to secure the Faith of Christians and to wrest those Weapons out of our Enemies hands which some professed Friends have unwarily furnished them with To do this I shall endeavour in the first place to restore this Controversie to its original state and take off those Vizards which make it appear very frightful to ordinary Christians This Dispute about the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity has of late been dressed up anew with some old School-Terms which how proper soever they may be to give Learned Men a more distinct Idea and Conception of that Adorable Mystery only amuse common Christians and confound them instead of teaching them better This as it was at first occasioned by Hereticks who denied or corrupted the Christian Faith which forced the Catholick Fathers to use some unscriptural Termâ— which by degrees improved into great Subtilties and disturbed the Church with very nice and wrangling Disputes so our Modern Socinians at this day place the main strength of their Cause in these Disputes and think it a sufficient Confutation of the Faith of the Ever Blessed Trinity that the Trinitarians themselves cannot agree about the Sense of Person Hypostasis Substance Nature Essence nor in what Sense God is One and Three but advance very different and as they think contrary Hypotheses to reconcile the Unity of God with the distinction of Three Persons in the Godhead As if there were no difference between what is fundamental in this Faith and such Metaphysical Speculations As if no man could believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost without determining all the Disputes of the Schools Learned men may dispute these matters and things may so happen as to make such Disputes necessary but the Faith of Christians may be secured and Heresies may be confuted without them The Faith is plain and certain even all that is necessary to the purposes of Religion but men may leap out of their depths where they can find no footing and when such Questions are asked as no man can certainly answer it is very likely that they will be answered very different ways and upon very different Hypotheses and there is no great hurt in this neither while these different Hypotheses are neither made new Articles of Faith nor new Heresies but serve only for Hypotheses to give a probable Answer to such Questions as ought never to have been asked and to stop the mouths of Hereticks when they charge the Catholick Faith with Nonsense and Contradiction To distinguish rightly between these two will set this Controversy upon its true ancient bottom which will spoil the Triumph of our Adversaries and possibly may rectify the Mistakes and allay and qualify the intemperate Heats and Animosities of those whom a common Faith ought to make Friends SECT II. How to reduce this Dispute concerning the Trinity to Scripture Terms THE Catholick Fathers have always appealed to the Form of Baptism as the Rule and Standard of Faith that as we are baptized so we must believe In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This is a plain simple Faith which every Christian may understand and which every Christian must profess That there is an Eternal Father who has an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit of the same Nature and inseparably united to himself and that this Father Son and Holy Ghost are the joint Object of the Christian Faith and Worship This is the true Christian Faith and this is all that we are concerned to defend against our Adversaries and would men stick to this without engaging in Philosophical Disputes which we know little or nothing of and which the Scripture takes no notice of we should soon find how weak and impotent all the Attempts of Hereticks would prove Whatever Disputes there are about the signification of those words Nature Essence Substance Person Hypostasis Subsistences Relations c. there is no Dispute about the signification of Father Son and Holy Spirit we have natural Idea's belong to these words when applied to Creatures and when God is pleased in Scripture to represent himself to us under thâ—se Characters if we must understand any thing by them we can understand nothing else but what the words signify all the World over only allowing for that infinite distance there is between God and Creatures which requires us to abstract from all material and creature imperfections We
often enough already to the satisfaction of all sober Enquirers who pay a just Veneration to Scripture and shall be done again when a fair occasion offers But the Question under Debate now is Whether we cannot explain and defend the Doctrine of the Trinity without the use of Ecclesiastical or Scholastick Terms and whether the Disputes of Divines about the Use and Signification of such Terms proves any Dâ—sagreement in the Faith when they all consent to the Scripture Explications of it The great Dispute is about the Distinction and Unity of the Godhead and by what Terms to express this Wonderful Distinction and Wonderful Vnion as some of the Fathers call it All sincere Trinitarians do agree That God is Vnus Trinus One and Three but we having nothing in Nature like this we know not by what Names to call it Those who have most critically examined the force of words find them all upon some account or other defective or improper for this purpose That St. Austin well said That in these Sublime Mysteries we can no more express what we conceive of them in Words than we can conceive of them as they are When we profess to believe that there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead the next question is What Three they are That is By what common Name to call them which may be multiplied with them or spoken of them in the Plural Number which St. Austin thinks not easily found The Greeks called them Three Hypostases which signifies Three Individual Substances This seemed hard to the Latins who acknowledged but One Substance in the Godhead and therefore they called them Three Persons though this did not satisfy St. Austin who looked upon Person as an Absolute not a Relative Term and therefore the Plural Predications would not agree with his Rule quae ad se dicuntur that what is predicated absolutely must be predicated only in the Singular Number And in truth if this be a good Rule it is a demonstration that there can be no common Name for these Three for whatever is a common Name for them all must be absolutely predicated of each of them And therefore St. Austin could give no other reason why we say Three Persons and not Three Essences or Three Gods but only this That since we acknowledge there are Three it is fitting to agree upon some common Name to denote the Trinity by and Ecclesiastical Use had given this Signification to the word Person But then besides this the great Dispute is What is meant by a Person when applied to the Three in the Blessed Trinity Some adhere to the old approved Definition of a Person That it is the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature which is the very definition of the Greek Hypostasis as Boetius owns Others are afraid of this for if every Person be an Individual Substance and there are Three Persons they know not how to avoid the Consequence That then there are Three Individual Substances in the Trinity And consequently since we can have no other Notion of the Divine Substance but Infinite Mind and Spirit there must be Three Infinite Minds and Spirits in the Godhead which they think infers Three Gods And therefore they will not allow a Person to be a Substance at least not an Individual Substance but a Mode or at most a Mode of Subsistence or Relation or Property or a Person in the Tragedian or Comedian sense of a Person as one represents and personates another or to signify an Office or Magistracy and so one man may be as many several Persons as he has Offices I can't answer for all these different significations of the word Person as applied to this Sacred Mystery especially as they are used by some Modern Writers for I believe there is no such material difference between the Fathers and the Schools as some men imagine of which more hereafter But as to my present purpose I must profess I can see no necessity why we must find out a Common Name for the Three in the Blessed Trinity when the Scripture has given us no Common Name for them much less why we should dispute eternally about the propriety and use of such words to hazard the Catholick Faith at least the Honour and Reputation of it together with the Peace of the Church If I am asked not only Who but What the Three in the Ever-blessed Trinity are I know no better Answer to make than what the Scripture has taught me That they are God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost which signifies all that can be express'd by any Artificial and Unscriptural words is an Answer liable to no Exceptions or Misrepresentations and in which all must agree who believe a Trinity and it shames and silences all those Disputes which are often occasioned by other words though never so wisely and reasonably chosen This Answer shews us what their Nature is what their Distinction is and what Relation they stand in to each other which is the most perfect knowledge we can have of the Ever-blessed Trinity in this world SECT III. That the Title of GOD attributed in Scripture distinctly to Father Son and Holy Ghost gives us the best Account of their Nature and must determine the Signification of Ecclesiastical Words 1. AS for the first the design of some common Name for these Three is to form some common Notion and Idea of them in which they all agree And is any thing else so common to them Is there any thing else which is common to them but the Name and Nature of God Can any thing else give us so true and perfect a Character and Idea of each of them as this does When we say the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God we attribute every thing to each of them which signifies any Perfection for the Idea of God comprehends all possible Perfections And we reject every thing which has the least signification of Imperfection we abstract our minds from all Material and Creature-Images which Names common to Creatures are apt to impose upon us and when we are forced to apply any such Names to God we learn from hence in what Notion to understand such Words when applied to God Men may very subtilly distinguish between the formal Conceptions of Nature Essence Substance Hypostasis Existence Subsistence Person Personality Suppositality and the like and neither understand God nor Creatures much the better for it But let them but tell us what they mean by these Terms and then every Child can tell whether they belong to Father Son and Holy Ghost or not For as far as they are included in the Notion of God and signify true Divine Perfections so far they belong to all Three For if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then Father Son and Holy Ghost each of them by themselves are whatever is included in the Notion and Idea of
and Institution as far as relates to this Mystery These words Person and Hypostasis were very anciently used without any Definition to determine their Signification till they became matter of dispute Boetius has given us a definition of Person which has been generally allowed of ever since that a Person is an individual Substance of a rational Nature Let us then examine whether this definition can belong to a Divine Person to one who is True and Perfect God As for Substance Boetius tells us That it is essential to the Notion of Person for a Person cannot subsist in Accidents much less in Modes which are less than Accidents and it is certain no other Notion of Person can belong to one who is God For a Person who is God must be Substance in the most Perfect and Absolute sense that is as I have already explained it Perfect Being and Essence As St. Austin expresly tells us That in God to Be and to be a Person is the same thing and that when we say the Person of the Father we mean nothing else but the Substance of the Father and thus it is with respect to the whole Trinity It is certain St. Austin never dream'd of defining a Person much less a Divine Person by a Mode For to make a Person who is God and therefore the most Perfect Being a Mode which if it be any thing is next to nothing no Substance but a meer Modification of Substance is both new Divinity and new Philosophy unknown either to Fathers or Schoolmen But meer Substance can't make a Person unless it be a Living Understanding Substance the Substance of a rational Nature And this must be the Notion of a Person when applied to God for God is Pure Infinite Mind and Intellect the First and Supreme Life and Intellect in whom to Live to Understand and to Be is the same thing as I observed before from St. Austin and if a Divine Person signifies One who is God every Person in the Godhead is Supreme Absolute Life and Intellect And this is what we must understand by a Person when we say That the Father is a Person the Son a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person for no other Notion of a Person can belong to any one who is True and Perfect God There is another Term of great consideration in this definition which still remains to be Explained and that is Individual That a Person is an Individual Substance of a Rational Nature which Boetius opposes to Vniversal Substances which are nothing else but the abstracted Notions of generical or specifick Substances which have no real and actual Subsistence and therefore are not properly Substances but only the Ideas of Substances and therefore are not Persons neither for Substance and Person are only in Singulars and Individuals which Subsist by themselves Thus Human Nature considered in general as common to all Mankind has no actual Subsistence and therefore is not a Human Person but it subsists only in particular Men and that makes every particular Man a Human Person for the Person of the Man is nothing but the Man himself And so St. Austin tells us it is in the Holy Trinity the Person of the Father is the Father himself and the Person of the Son is the Son himself and if Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three they must be Three Persons for each of them is himself and not the other and Three Selfs are Three Persons I and Thou and He are Personal Pronouns I my self Thou thy self He himself by which Argument the Catholick Fathers prove against the Sabellians that Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Persons by these Personal Pronouns which the Scripture applies to them as our Sâ—viour speaks of himself in the first Person I and my Father of his Father in the Second Person I thank Thee O Father of the Holy Ghost in the Third Person when He the Spirit of truth shall come Now I and Thou and He must signifie Three distinct Persons or Three Selfs Person indeed as St. Austin observes is not a Relative Term but is spoken ad se of the thing it self For if Person were a Relative then as we say The Father is the Father of his Son so we must say The Person of the Father is the Person of the Son which is absurd but yet Person must be praedicated Plurally according to the number of Selfs for as many Selfs as there are so many Persons are there for Selfs make numbers because one self is not another Three singular intelligent Selfs singulares intelligentes as Melancton calls them is the proper Notion of Three Persons and in this sense Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Persons if each of them be True and Perfect God For God is certainly himself If the Father be God the Father himself is God if the Son be God the Son himself is God if the Holy Ghost be God the Holy Ghost himself is God This is the plain express Doctrine of Scripture and what every man may understand and what every one who believes a Trinity must profess and no man needs believe more SECT IV. These Names Father Son and Holy Ghost prove the real Distinction of Persons in the Trinity II. THESE Names Father Son and Holy Ghost especially when the Name GOD is Attributed to each of them That the Father is God the Son God the Holy Ghost God proves a real and substantial distinction between them for these are opposite Relations which cannot meet in the same Subject For a Father cannot be Father to himself but to his Son nor can a Son be Son to himself but to his Father nor can the Holy Ghost Proceed from himself nor in this sense be his own Spirit but the Spirit of the Father and Son from whom he Proceeds And therefore the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit nor the Son the Father or Holy Spirit nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son And yet if each of them be God each of them Perfectly is or is Perfect Being and therefore are as Perfectly Distinct as three which perfectly are and are not one another To talk of Three Distinct Beings Substances Minds or Spirits may be Misrepresented by perverse Wits to the prejudice of the Divine Unity though the Catholick Fathers besides Hypostasis did not scruple to use the same or other equivalent Expressions concerning the Holy Trinity when they disputed against the Sabellians yet if we believe a Trinity whether we will or no we must acknowledge Three each of which Perfectly Is or is Perfect Being and no one is the other For if we deny this we must either deny that the Father Is or that the Son Is or that the Holy Ghost Is and to deny either of these is to deny a Trinity And if it be Objected against this That according to St. Austin's Notion though it was not peculiarly his but common to all the Greek and
Latin Fathers nay to the Schoolmen themselves and must be owned by all Men of Sense that esse vivere intelligere sapere velle bonum esse magnum esse c. to be to live to understand to be wise to will to be good and to be great or whatever else we can attribute to the Divine Nature is but unum omnia all one and the same in God I say if it be Objected that the consequence of this is That to say that in this sense of Is the Father Is the Son Is the Holy Ghost Is is equivalent to asserting Three Distinct Substances Minds Spirits Lives Understandings Wills c. in the Trinity I cannot help it St. Austin was never yet charged with Tritheism Let them either deny what St. Austin and the rest of the Fathers teach about this matter and try if they can defend the absolute Sâ—mplicity of the Divine Nature without it or let them deny if they think good that the Father Is the Son Is and the Holy Ghost Is in this Notion of Perfect and Absolute Being or try if they can find such a medium between Perfect Is and is not as can belong to any Being which is True and Perfect God or allow which is the true solution of it that Is and Is and Is Essence and Essence and Essence are but One Eternal Is One Eternal Essence as they are but One God Of which more presently I always was of opinion that these Terms in the plural number ought not to be familiarly used because few Men can conceive of them as they are worthy of God and therefore the Fathers were vâ—ry cautious in using them which they very rarely did but when they were extorted from them by the perverse importunity of Hereticks but I cannot see how it is possible to deny three Selfs or three Is's in the Uâ—ity of the Godhead without denying a Trinity and if each of these Three be himself and not another and each of them Is and Is by himself this is the least we can say of the Ever Blessed Trinity and this is all with respect to their Distinction that we need say of them So that if Father Son and Holy Ghost be so in a true and proper Notion are in truth and reality what these Names of Father Son and Spirit signify That the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a true proper natural Father the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a true proper genuine Son and the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a true proper sense the Spirit of the Father and the Son as the Catholick Fathers always Professed they must be as truly and perfectly Distinct as Father and Son are The only Question then is Whether these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost signify naturally and properly when spoken of the Holy Trinity or are only metaphorical and allusive Names though what they should be Metaphors of is not easy to conceive and as absurd to conceive that there should be any Metaphors in God who is all Perfect Essence and Being The Divine Nature and Perfections which we cannot conceive of as they are may be expressed by Metaphors taken from some thing which is analogous in Creatures upon which account we read of the Hands and Eyes and Ears and Bowels and Mouth of God Creatures may serve for Metaphors for Shadows and Images to represent something of God to us but the reality of all is in God So that we may allow Father and Son in some sense to be Metaphorical Names when applied to God not that God the Father is not in the highest and most perfect sense a Father and his Son a most proper natural genuine Son but because the Divine Generation is so perfect a Communication of the Divine Nature and Being from Father to Son that Human Generations Creature-Fathers and Sons are but obscure imperfect images and resemblances of it When any thing is spoken Metaphorically of God the Metaphor and Image is always in the Creatures the Truth Perfection and Reality of all in God And if this be a certain and universal rule then if God be a Father if he have a Son an only Bâ—gotten Son Begotten Eternally of himself not Made nor Created but Begotten though this Eternal Generation be infinitely above what we can conceive yet it is evident that God the Father is more Properly and Perfectly a Father and his Son more Properly and Perfectly a Son than any Creature-Fathers or Sons are But I think this will admit of no Dispute if we own that God has a Son who is himself True and Perfect God For a Son who is Perfect God is God of God That he is a Son proves that he receives his Nature from his Father for this is Essential to the Notion of a Son That he is Perfect God proves the Perfection of his Generation from the Perfection of his Nature For to be Perfect God of Perfect God is to receive the Whole Perfect Undivided Nature of his Father which is the most perfect Generation that is possible for a Whole to beget a Whole And if God the Father and his Son be Truly and Perfectly Father and Son they must be Truly and Perfectly Distinct That is they are in a proper sense Two and by the same reason Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three And we need no other proof of this but the very Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost if we understand them in a proper and natural Sense SECT V. These Names Father Son and Holy Ghost prove the Unity Sameness Identity of Nature and Godhead III. THESE Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost as they signify and prove a real Distinction between these Three so they also signify and prove the Unity Sameness Identity of Nature and Godhead Which reconciles the Faith of the Trinity with the Faith of one God The same One Divine Essence and Godhead being and subsisting Whole Perfect and Entire in each of these Divine Three I shall Explain and Confirm this matter more at large hereafter and therefore at present shall only briefly represent this Notion and the reason of it One Eternal Self-Originated Divine Nature is One Divinity and One God and nothing can destroy the Unity of God but what destroys the Unity of the Divine Nature by Division or Multiplication And if this be the true Notion of the Unity of God and if it be not I would desire to know why this is not and what is then the Unity of God may be preserved in Three each of whom is True and Perfect God if the same One Divine Nature or Divinity subsists distinctly in them all And the very Characters and Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost do necessarily infer and prove the same One Divinity in them all And therefore the Christian Trinity is so far from contradicting that it establishes the Faith of one God As to explain this in a few words All Christians agree That God whom we call the Father is an
Eternal Self-Originated Being who had no beginning of Being and received his being from no other and that there is no other Self Originated Being but himself This is the Notion which all Mankind have of One God That there is one Infinite Eternal Self-Originated Being or Nature and if there be as it is certain there is but one such Nature and Divinity there can be but One God And this is Established in the Christian Faith which owns but One God the Father who is therefore in Scripture in a peculiar manner called the One God and the Only True God Thus fâ—r all Christians are agreed but here our Arian and Socinian Adversaries stop For how can the Son be God and the Holy Ghost be God if the Father be the only Self-Originated Being and the One True God Now the very Notion of a Son Answers this difficulty or at least proves that so it is however it may exceed our finite Comprehension It is Essential to the Notion of a Son to be of another of him whom we call his Father and to receive the same Nature from him Man begets a Man and God begets God but there is an infinite distance between these two as there is between God and Creatures When Man begets a Man he does not Communicate his own whole entire numerical Nature to his Son but with part of his own Substance Communicates the same specifick Nature to him or a Nature of the same kind and therefore a Man and his Son are two Men as having two particular Natures though specifically the same But if we believe that God has a Son begotten by him of himself I say not created out of nothing nor made of any other prae-existent Nature or Substance but eternally begotten of himself we must acknowledge that the Father and the Son are perfectly One excepting that one is the Father and the other the Son All men who know any thing of the Divine Nature know that God is the most Pure Simple Uncompounded Being and if God who has no parts and cannot be divided into any begets a Son he must Communicate his Whole Undivided Nature to him For to beget a Son is to Communicate his own Nature to him and if he have no parts he cannot Communicate a part but must Communicate the Whole that is he must Communicate his whole self and be a second self in his Son Now a Whole and a Whole of a Whole are certainly two but not two Natures but one Nature not meerly Specifically but Identically One for it is impossible that a Whole which is Communicated without Division or Separation should have the least imaginable diversity from it self so as to become another Nature from it self for a Whole of a Whole must be perfectly and identically the same with that Whole of which it is for a Whole can be but One. This is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sameness and Identity of Nature which the Fathers assert and whereon they found the Unity of the Godhead And this is the meaning of that distinction of the Schools between unum numero and re numerata one in number and in the thing numbred Two must always be allowed to be Two in number as Father and Son are though they are but One in re numeratâ in the Sameness and Identity of Nature as Christ tells us I and my Father are One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Neuter-Gender which must relate to Nature not to Number To distinguish or multiply Natures there must be some real or notional diversity and alterity between them as Boetius observes But a Whole can never differ in the least from the whole of which it is no more than the same Whole can differ from it self and it is this Sameness and Identity which is called a Numerical Unity of Nature and is peculiar to the Divine Nature there being nothing like it in Creatures Not that the Divine Nature considered as in the Father is the same in number with the Divine Nature as communicated to and subsisting distinctly in the Son for then the Father and the Son can't be two for the Person of the Father and his Divinity or Divine Nature is the same and the Person of the Son and his Divine Nature is the same and if this Oneness relate to number there can be but One Person as there is but One Nature but a Numerical Unity of Nature does not exclude a Number of Persons each of whom has the whole Divine Nature Perfectly and Distinctly in himself it does not exclude the actual and perfect communication of the same Divine Nature to more than one but only excludes all imaginable diversity and alterity and what is not aliud is unum that which is not another thing another different Nature is but One That is the Divine Nature is numerically One in opposition to any other Absolute Self-originated Divinity not in opposition to the Eternal Communications of its self to the Son and Holy Spirit If the Divine Nature as actually and distinctly subsisting in Three be as perfectly One as the Idea of God is One as any specifick Notion suppose of Human Nature is One then it is Identically and Numerically one and the same And indeed this is the true reason why the Catholick Fathers so often represent the Unity of the Divine Nature by Allusions and Metaphors signifying a specifick Unity because the Divine Nature as subsisting in Father Son and Holy Ghost is as perfectâ—y one and the same as the specifick Notion and Idea of any Nature is which abstracts from all the diversities and differences which are found in Individuals Which one Observation will help us to expound several disputed passages in the Fathers as I could easily shew were that my present business Father Son and Holy Ghost though they have one undistinguished undiversified Nature and therefore are One in Nature yet are Three in Number because they have this one undivided undistinguished undiversified Nature after a different manner which the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner of Existence or the manner how they come to be which though it sounds very harshly when applied to that which has no beginning of Being as most other expressions do when applied to God and Criticized on by perverse and Comical Wits must be allowed in such a qualified sense as is proper to an Eternal Being or we must deny Eternal Generation and Procession which is though not the beginning yet a Communication of Being And thus the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Mode or manner of Existence and Being is that he is Self-originated and receives his Being from no other the Son 's is that he is Eternally Begotten of the Father and receives his Nature and Being without any beginning from the Father the Holy Ghost's is that he Eternally Proceeds from Father and Son and this is all the distinction that is between them They have but one undivided undiversified Nature but these opposite Relations
necessarily prove them Three in Number as I have already shewn though the Divine Essence the res numerata is but One it being Communicated from Father to Son and from Father and Son to the Holy Ghost Whole of Whole which makes it perfectly one and the same Undivided Undiversified Essence Subsisting Distinctly but not Separately in Three That this is the true Notion both of the Fathers and Schools and all that the wisest Schoolmen meant by the Singularity of the Divine Essence and Nature which they acknowledged to subsist in Tribus Suppositis or Personis whole and entire in Three distinct Persons or Subjects may appear in due time when Men have recovered their Temper so far as to be capable of hearing Reason and of understanding plain Sense But my only design at present is to shew that these Relations in the Ever Blessed Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost Vindicate the Faith of the Trinity from the Imputation of Tritheism Three Gods must signifie Three Absolute Independent Self-originated Dâ—vinities Three such as we acknowledge the Person of the Father to be who is Infinitely Pâ—rfect and is of himself and all the Catholick Fathers acknowledge that Three Fathers would be Three Gods Three such Absolute Beings though equally Perfect and every way alike would be Three Divine Self-originated Natures or Three Individuals of the same specifick Nature that is Three Gods as Three Individuals of Human Nature are Three men But Father Son and Holy Ghost are not Three Absolute Divine Natures nor Three Individuals of One specifick Nature but are Three Singulars of One Individual Nature Communicated whole and entire from Father to Son and from Father and Son to the Holy Ghost So that there is but one and the same Divine Nature in all Three and therefore but One Divinity and One God unless one and the same Divine Nature can be Three Gods To number Three each of whom is himself True and Perfect God does not prove Three Gods unless you can multiply and number Natures too for One Divine Nature is but One God but Three Gods must have Three Appropriate and Incommunicable Divine Natures which the very Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost deny in the Christian Trinity There is but One Self-originated Divinity in the Person of the Father and the very Name of Son proves that he is not of himself but has and is all that he has and is from the Father and is all that the Father is Hâ— iâ— Gâ—d â—f Gâ—d now God of God is Another and is True and Perfect God but is not Another God because he receives all from his Father has the same Divine Nature that his Father has has nothing but what his Father has and has all that his Father has Tâ—tus ex Toto Whole of Whole which is but One Undivided Undiversified One Numerical Whole One God This seems to be the true Reason why St. Austin and after him the Schoolmen lay such stress upon the Relations in the Trinity to salve the Unity of the Divine Nature For by Relations the Schools mean Relationes Subsistentes Subsisting Relations or Relatives not Relations without a Subject which St. Austin rejects as absurd For nothing can be Predicated Relatively which has not some Being and Substance of its own to be the foundation of that Relation A Man who is a Master a Man who is a Servant must be a Man or he could not be the Subject of any Relation either of Master or Servant and thus as he adds Father must signifie a positive Being something that he is himself or else there is nothing to sustain a Relation to another and the like must be said of the Son and Spirit Now these Relations in the Trinity of Father Son and Spirit though each of them have the whole Divine Nature and Substance do yet prove that there are not Three Absolute Independent Divinities but only One Divine Nature and Substance As St. Austin speaks of Father and Son utrunque Substantia utrunque Vna Substantia they are both of them Substance and both of them One Substance for the Son must receive his whole Being from his Father and therefore have the same One Nature and Substance that his Father has which proves that a Trinity of Relatives can be but One God because they can have but One Divine Nature in them all But this is beyond my present design Thus I have given a short view of the Catholick Faith of the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity We are Bâ—ptized into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and if we are Christians we must Believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost and we need not believe nor understand any more than what these Names when applied to God do plainly and necessarily signify This I have explained as easily and familiarly as possibly I could that ordinary Christians who are not skilled in School Terms or Subtilties may know what they are to Believe and see the plain Reasons of it This is what all Christians who sincerely Believe a Trinity are agreed in That there is an Eternal Father who has an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit of the same Nature with himself That the Father is God God of himself The Son is God God of God True and Perfect God Begotten of his Father from all Eternity That the Holy Ghost is God True and Perfect God Eternally Proceeding from Father and Son That the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Ghost Father or Son but they are Three truly and really distinct from each other But that Father Son and Holy Ghost have all the same One Divinity Communicated from the Father to the Son and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit and therefore are but One God All this as I have shewn is necessarily included in the Names and Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost which if they be not empty Names but signify any thing real must signify all this And what is there unintelligible in all this Such a Distinction and such an Unity as is signified in the very Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost necessarily prove that God is Three and One If the Father is himself True and Perfect God the Son himself True and Perfect God the Holy Ghost himself True and Perfect God and the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son then there are Three each of whom is in himself True and perfect God and that is a Divine Trinity And if the Father communicates his whole Nature without division or separation to the Son and Father and Son communicate the same whole Nature to the Holy Spirit they are in the most perfect notion One there being one and the same whole entire perfect Divinity in all Three A Whole a Whole and a Whole are Three in number but are but one Identical Nature for a Whole of a
Sabellians did nor Two different Substances as the Arians did For when God is born of God this Divine Nativity will neither admit a Unity of Person nor a Diversity of Nature For Father and Son he who begets and he who is begotten must be Two Persons and the Son who is begotten of the Substance of his Father must be consubstantial with him It were easy to multiply Quotations to this purpose both out of these and numerous other Ancient Writers but this is Proof enough that the Primitive Fathers would not be frighted out of the true Catholick Faith of a Real and Substantial Trinity by the loud Clamours of Tritheism but rejected such a Notion of One God as confined the Godhead to One Single Solitary Person as Iudaism and an Anti-trinitarian Heresy For we know in what sense the Iews owned but One God viz. in the very sense that the Socinians and all Anti-trinitarians do that is That there is but One who is God but One Divine Person and in this sense these Ancient Fathers rejected it But besides these general Sayings they industriously confute this Notion of the Unity of the Godhead which confines it to one single Person that the One God is so One that there is and can be but One Divine Person who is true and perfect God The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament do expresly teach that there is but one God This the Ancient Hereticks perpetually objected against the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity And St. Hilary observes what danger there is in answering this Objection if it be not done with great caution For it may be equally impious to deny or to affirm it For the True Catholick Faith of One God lies between two such contrary Heresies as are ready to take advantage one way or other whatever Answer you give If you own that there is but One God without taking notice that this One God has an only begotten Son who is True and Perfect God the Arians take advantage of this against the Eternal Godhead of the Son If you say That the Father is God and the Son God and yet there is but One God the Sabellians hence conclude That Father and Son are but One Person as they are One God But in opposition to both these Heresies he tells us That though the Catholick Church did not deny One God yet they taught God and God and denied the Unity of the Godhead both in the Arian and Sabellian Notion of One God And consequently That they professed to believe God and God and God though not Three Gods but One God yet in that very sense which both Ancient and Modern Hereticks call Tritheism There is no dispute but the Scripture does very fully and expresly teach us That there is but One God Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord 6. Deut. 4. which our Saviour himself approves 12. Mark 29. and the Scribe expounds 32. Well master Thou hast said the truth for there is One God and there is none other but He And this is often confirmed both in the Old and New Testament But then the Fathers think that they have an unanswerable Argument to prove That by One God is not meant that there is but One who is God because the same Holy Scriptures which teach us that there is but One God do attribute the Name and Dignity and Power and all the Natural Perfections of God to more than One. St. Hilary explains this Argument at large the sum of which in short is this That we must learn the knowledge of God from Divine Revelation for Humane Understandings which are accustomed to Corporeal and Bodily Images are too weak of themselves to discern and contemplate Divine things nor is there any thing in our selves or in Created Nature that can give us an adequate notion and conception of the Nature and Unity of God We must believe God concerning himself and his own Nature and yield a ready assent to what he reveals to us For we must either deny him to be God as the Heathens do if we reject his Testimony or if we believe him to be God we must conceive no otherwise of him than as he himself hath taught us This is very reasonable if we believe upon God's Authority To believe all that God reveals and to expound the Revelation by it self not to put such a sense upon one part of the Revelation as shall contradict another but to put such a sense upon the words as makes the whole consistent with it self As in the present Dispute concerning the Unity of God The Scripture assures us that there is but One God and we believe that there is but One God Excepting the Valentinians and such kind of Hereticks all Christians both Catholicks and Hereticks agree in this Profession But the Question is In what sense the Scripture teaches that there is but One God Whether this One God signifies One single Divine Person or One God with his Only begotten Son and Eternal Spirit who have the same Nature and Divinity The Arians and Socinians embrace the first Sense of the words That One God is One Divine Person and for this reason will not own Christ or the Holy Spirit to be True and Perfect God because there is but One God and Three Divine Persons they say are Three Gods Now unless we will pretend to understand the Divine Nature and the Divine Unity better than God himself does we must refer this Dispute to Scripture and if we have the same Authority to believe more Divine Persons than One that we have to believe but One God then the Unity of God in the Scripture-notion of it is no Tritheism nor any objection against the belief of a Trinity for there may be but One only God and yet Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the same Godhead This is St. Hilary's Argument and it is a very good one That Moses himself who has taught us that there is but One God has taught us to confess God and God that we have the same Authority to believe the Son of God to be God that we have to believe One God And therefore though we do and must believe One God we must not so believe One God as to deny the Son of God to be God for this is to contradict Moses and the Prophets This Argument he prosecutes at large throughout the IV th and V th Books of the Trinity and alledges all those Old Testament Proofs for the plurality of Divine Persons and for the Divinity of Christ which whatever opinion some Modern Wits and Criticks have of them have been applied to that purpose by all Christian Writers from the beginning of Christianity and were that my present Business might be easily vindicated from the Cavils and Exceptions of Hereticks St. Paul tells us That there is One God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and One Iesus Christ
by whom are all things and we by him 1 Cor. 8.6 St. Hilary finds this God of whom are all things and this Lord by whom are all things in the Mosaical History of the Creation And God said Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters and God made the firmament and divided the waters c. 1. Gen. 6 7. Where as he applies it the Father commands and the Son his Almighty Word makes all things So the Psalmist tells us of the Father He spake and it was done he commanded and it stood fast 33. Psal. 9. Or as it is in the 148 th Psal. 5. He commanded and they were created And by whom they were created St. Iohn tells us In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made 1 Joh. 1 2. This he thinks proves a plain distinction of jubentis Dei facientis Dei God that commands and God that does for common sense will not allow that they should be one single Solitary Person much more reason have we to distinguish them when both the Old and New Testament distinguish them But whatever dispute this may admit that Account Moses gives of the Creation of Man he takes to be an unexceptionable Proof of a Plurality of Divine Persons And God said Let us make man in our image after our likeness So God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him 1. Gen. 26.27 Now if we understand these words as spoken by God in the same sense as we should and ought to understand them had they been spoken by men which St. Hilary lays down as a Principle That God speaks to us as we speak to one another and expects to be understood by us according to the common use and acceptation of such forms of speech then let Vs make man in Our Image after Our Likeness cannot signify a singular and solitary Person for such a form of speech naturally imports a Plurality of Persons and a common Nature and Likeness No single solitary Person speaks to himself to do any thing but only wills and chuses what to do and execâ—â—es his own purposes much less does he speak to himself in the Plural Number which in common use signifies some Companions and Partners in the work Let Vs make cannot signify One single Person nor can Our Image admit Two Persons of an unlike and different Nature when the Image is but one and the same and therefore this must prove that there are more Divine Persons than One and that they have all the same Divine Nature Were God but one single and solitary Person this would be a most unaccountable form of speech and there can be no pretence to put such a harsh sense on the words unless we certainly knew that there was no other Divine Person but he who spoke but then if instead of knowing this we certainly know the contrary that when God made the World he was not alone but had his Eternal Substantial Wisdom the Person of the Eternal Word with him by whom he made the world this puts the matter out of doubt And this St. Hilary proves frâ—m that account which Solomon gives of Wisdom 8 Prov. 22 c. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was Then I was by him as one brought up with him rejoicing always before him And therefore the Father was not alone and did not speak to himself when he made the world his own Wisdom a Divine Eternal Person co-operating with him and rejoicing in the Perfection of his Works But besides this he proves at large that the Angel which so often appeared to Abraham Hagar Iacob to Moses in a Burning Bush and is in express terms called God the Judge of the world the God of Abraham and Isaac and Iacob was not a Created Angel nor God the Father and yet was True and Perfect God even the Son of God who in the fulness of time became Man and adds several Passages in the Psalms and Prophets which plainly own a Divine Person distinct from God the Father to be True and Perfect God I need not tell those who are acquainted with the Writings of the Ancient Fathers that they all insist on the same Arguments to prove the same thing that there is not in any one point a more universal Consent amongst them which is too Venerable an Authority to be over-ruled by Criticism it being no less than a Traditionary Exposition of Scripture from the Apostolick Age. But I am no further concerned in this at present than to shew what Notion the Catholick Fathers had about the Unity of God These Fathers did not fence against the Objection of Tritheism by distinguishing away the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit by making the Son God ex accidenti secundum quid for they knew nothing of an accidental or secundum quid God which I must own sounds to me very like Blasphemy and Contradiction that when this Name God signifies the most necessary and absolutely Perfect Being any Person to whom this Name does naturally and essentially belong should be God by Accident or only in a limited and qualified sense But without fearing the Charge of Tritheism they with Moses and the Prophets own another Divine Person distinct from the Father but as Real and Substantial a Person and as truly and perfectly God as the Father is Insomuch that Tertullian when he had alledgâ—d that Tâ—xt 45. Psal. 6 7. which the Apostle to the Hebrews applies to Christ 1. Heb. Thy throne O Gâ—d is for ever and ever the scepter of thy Kingdom is a right scepter Therefore God thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows was not aâ—raid to add Ecce Duos Deos Behold Two Gods That is Two Divine Pâ—rsons each of whom is by himself truly and essentially God for notwithstanding this he would not say there are Two or Three Gods and gives his reason for it He owned a Plurality of Gods even Tritheism it self in that sense of the word Tritheism which the Arians and Sabellians objected against the Faith of the Trinity as Three Gods signify no more than Three Divine Substantial Persons each of whom is truly and perfectly God as having distinctly in himself the whole and perfect Divine Nature but this he and the other Fathers deny to be Tritheism they are God and God and God but not Three Gods And they think it a sufficient proof as any man would who believes the Scripture that this is not the Scripture-Notion of Tritheism because the same Scripture which teaches us that there is but One God attributes
not only the Name and Title of God but the Divine Nature and Perfections to more Persons than One. And this is the only Answer that need be given and the best Answer that can be given to this Objection of Tritheism for God knows his own Nature and his own Unity best And it is enough for us to acknowledge God to be One as the Scripture teaches him to be One that is that there is but One God but that this One God has an Eternal only begotten Son and an Eternal Spirit in the Unity of the same Godhead This is the account Tertullian gives us of those Expressions when the Scripture asserts that there is but One God and that there is none besides him For without denying the Son we may truly affirm That there is but One only God whose Son he is For though he has a Son he does not lose his Name of the One and only God when he is named without his Sâ—n and so he is when what is said is appropriated to him as the first persâ—n for in the order of Nature aâ—â— of ouâ— Conceptions the Father is befoâ—â—â—he Son and therefore must be named bâ—â—ore him So that there is but One God the Father and besides him there is no other which does not deny the Son but another God which rejects the multitude of False Gods which the Heathens worshipped but the Son as being inseparably united to him is included in the Unity of the Father's Godhead though not named which as he well observes he could not be without making another God of him Had the Father said There is no other God besides me excepting my Son this had made the Son another God a new separate Divinity and would have been as improper as if the Sun should say There is no other Sun besides me excepting my Rays The Sum of which is this That the Title of the One and only God and besides him there is no other God does in a peculiar manner belong to the Father who is the One only God with his Son and Spirit but this does not exclude the Son or Spirit from being true and perfect God for they are not other Gods from the Father but have the same Divinity and are inseparably â—mited to the Father and therefore are included in the â—â—ity of the Godhead without being named whereas thâ—â—r being named would have excepted them out of the Unity of the Godhead and made other Gods of them And though the Son when he is named alâ—ne is called God this does not make Two Gods because he is God only by his Unity with his Father St. Hilary gives much the same account of it That when the Scripture teaches that there is One God and no other God besides him this does not exclude the Son of God from being true and perfect God because the Son is not another God He being of the same Substance with God the Father God of God and inseparably united to him Another God does not signify another Divine Person but another Divinity another separate and independent Principle and Fountain of Deity And besides this St. Hilary endeavours to prove at large from several Texts of the Old Testament that this very expression of one God and no other besides him is applied not only to the Father but to the Son and is very justly applicable to each of them because each of them have a Personal and Incommunicable Unity The Father is the One God and there is none besides him for he is the only Deus Innascibilis the only God who is God of himself without any Communication of the Divine Nature to him from any other Divine Person The Son is the One God and there is none besides him that is the Deus Vnigenitus the only begotten God and there is no other begotten God but he So that each of them is the One God For between One and One that is One of One there is no Second Nature of the Eternal Dâ—ity I shall not dispute these matters now which will be more proper in another place it is enough at present that we learn from them what Sense these Fathers had concerning the Unity of God viz. That it is not the Unity of a Sâ—ngle Person so as to exclude all other Persons from the Name and Nature of God but a Unity of Nature and Principle That there are not Two different Divinities nor Two Principles of Divinity which have no Communication with each other but that there is One Self-originated Being who communicates his own Nature without Division and Separation to his Eternal Son and by and with his Son to his Eternal Spirit Thus St. Hilary concludes this Dispute That to confess One God but not a solitary God that is not one single solitary Person is the Faith of the Church which confesses the Father in the Son But if out of ignorance of this Heavenly Mystery we pretend that One God signifies One single Divine Person we know not God as not owning the Faith of God in God This is plain sense which every Christian may understand and what every one must believe who wiâ—l be a Christian We must believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost that the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son and that each of these Three is in himself as distinguished from the other Two true and perfect God but though they are Three and each of them true and perfect God yet they are not Three Gods because there is but One and the same Divinity in them The same individual numerical Divine Nature being whole perfect undivided in them all originally in the Father by Generation in the Son and by Procession in the Holy Ghost as I have already explained it which is the most perfect Unity we can conceive between Three Wholes or Three each of which have the same whole undivided Nature distinctly in themselves If this will not be allowed to be such a Unity as is included in the Notion of One God that the natural Notion of One God is of One only who is God which is contradictory to the belief of Three each of whom is in himself true and perfect God the answer the Catholick Fathers give to this as I have now shewn ought to satisfy all Christians that this is not the Scripture-notion of One God That there is but One who is God because the same Holy Scriptures which teach us that there is but One God do also teach us that there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead That not only the Father is God as an Infinite Eternal Self-originated Being and upon this account in a peculiar manner called the One and only true God but the Son also is true God and the Holy Ghost true God by the Communication of the same Divine Nature to them Now God knows his own Nature and Unity best and if he declares himself to
be but One God but yet requires us to believe his Eternal Son to be true and perfect God and his Eternal Spirit to be true and perfect God it is certain that the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is very reconcilable with the Unity of God For as far as Revelation must decide this Dispute we are as much obliged to believe That the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God as we are to believe That there is but One God Those who will not acquiesce in this must appeal from Scripture to Natural Reason which is a very absurd and impudent Appeal for the plain sense of it is this That they will believe their own Reason before the Scriptures in matters relating to the Divine Nature and Unity which all wise men acknowledge to be so much above human comprehension That is That they know the Unity of God better than God himself does or which is the same thing That they will never believe any Revelation to come from God or any thing how express soever the words are to be the meaning of the Revelation any farther than their own Reason approves it Of which more elsewhere And yet I dare appeal to any man of a free and unbiass'd Reason in this Cause What is that Natural Notion we have of One God Is it any thing more than that there is and can be but One Eternal Self-originated Being who is the Principle or Cause of all other Beings And does not the Scripture do not all Trinitarians with the whole Catholick Church own this Do not all the Christian Creeds teach us to profess our Faith in One God the Father from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their Godhead Thus far then Scripture and Reason and the Catholick Faith agree Does Reason then deny that God can beget of himself an Eternal Son his own perfect Image and Likeness If it does then indeed Scripture and Reason contradict each other But I believe these men will not pretend to prove from Reason That God could not beget an Eternal Son and if this cannot be proved by Reason as I am certain it never can then Reason does not contradict Scripture which teaches us that God has an only begotten Son And if God have an only begotten Son Reason will teach us that the Son of God must be True and Perfect God and yet not another God because he has one and the same Nature with his Father This is all that any Christian need to believe concerning this matter and all this every Christian may understand and all this every one who sincerely believes the Faith of the Holy Trinity does and must agree in Those who do not I will at any time undertake to prove to be secret Hereticks and Enemies to the Christian Faith and as for those who do I will never dispute with them about some Terms of Art and the Propriety of Words in a matter which is so much above all words and forms of speech And here I leave this matter upon a sure Bottom and here we are ready to join Issue with our Socinian Adversaries Our only Controversy as to the Doctrine of the Trinity with them is Whether the Son and the Holy Spirit each of them be True and Perfect God If we can prove this which has been the Faith of the Catholick Church in all Ages we need dispute no other matters with them nor can any Disputes among our selves give any Support to their Cause A Dispute about Words may look like a difference in Faith when both contending Parties may mean the same thing as those must do who sincerely own and believe That the Son is True and Perfect God and the Holy Ghost is True and Perfect God and that neither of them are the Father nor each other And therefore those different Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity which the Socinians of late have so much triumphed in and made more and greater than really they are and more sensless too by their false Representations can do them no real service among Wise Men tho it may help to amuse the Ignorant If any men have subtilly distinguished away the Catholick Faith they may take them to themselves and increase their Party by them But if this were the Case as I hope it is not it is no Objection against the Catholick Faith that some men openly oppose it and others at least in some mens opinions do secretly undermine it There is reason to guard the Christian Faith against all inconvenient or dangerous Explications which seem to approach near Heresy if this be done with due Christian Temper and Moderation but I hope the Disputes of the Trinitarians are not so irreconcilable but that they will all unite against a Pestilent and Insolent Heresy which now promises it self glorious Successes only from their private Quarrels CHAP. II. An Examination of Some Considerations concerning the Trinity SECT I. Concerning the Ways of managing this Controversy BEfore I put an end to this Discourse it will contribute very much to the better understanding of what I have said and give a clearer Notion of the Use of it to apply these Principles to the Examination of a late Treatise entituled Some Considerations concerning the Trinity The Author I know not he writes with Temper and though he takes the liberty to find fault he does it Civilly and therefore he ought to meet with Civil Usage and so he shall from me as far as the bare Censure of his Principles will admit I was I confess startled at the first entrance to find him own the Vncertainty of our Faith in these Points concerning the Trinity for if after the most perfect Revelation of the Gospel that we must ever expect and the Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church for above Sixteen Hundred years this Faith is still uncertain it is time to leave off all Enquiries about it As for the many absurd and blasphemous Expositions that have been made of this Doctrine if by them he means the Ancient Heresies which infested the Church they are so far from rendring our Faith uncertain that as I shall shew him anon the very Condemnation of those Heresies by the Catholick Church gives us a more certain account what the true Catholick Faith was I agree with him that the warm and indiscreet Management of contrary Parties has been to the Prejudice of Religion among unthinking people who hence conclude the uncertainty of our Faith and it concerns good men to remove this Prejudice by distinguishing the Catholick Faith from the Disputes about Ecclesiastical Words and the Catholick Sense of them and I hope I have made it appear this may be done and then the Faith is secure notwithstanding these Disputes and as for any other Offence or Scandal let those look to it who either give or take it This Considerer dislikes all the Ways and Methods which have hitherto been taken to compose these Disputes 1. He
but yet that Jesus Christ was a Divine and Human Person though Christ was one Person and Jesus another And therefore as the Nicene Creed which we find also in the Ancient Oriental Creeds teaches us to believe in One God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible not to exclude Christ from being the Maker of the World but in opposition to those Hereticks who would not allow the Supreme God who is the Father of Christ to be the Maker of the World but attributed the Creation of this World to one or more Inferior Angels So they add And in One Lord Iesus Christ the only begotten Son of God in opposition to those who made Christ and Jesus Two Persons And yet in this very Heresy we may see what the Ancient Catholick Faith was That Jesus Christ was God and Man as Cerinthus himself owned though he would not unite Christ and Jesus into One Person nor make the Union inseparable The Valentinian Heresy though dressed up after the mode of the Pagan Theology was a manifest Corruption of the Christian Faith under a Pretence of a more perfect knowledge of Divine Mysteries and we may still see the broken Remains of the Catholick Tradition of the Trinity among them Their Pleroma by which they seem to understand the Fulness of the Deity as St. Paul uses that Phrase 2 Col. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily I say this Pleroma consisted of several Aeons or Divine Persons which were propagated from the Unknown and Incomprehensible Father in gradual Descents and all together made up the Compleat and Perfect Deity which were more or fewer according to the various Fancies of Hereticks Now from these wild Conceits we may in some measure learn what the Catholick Faith was That the Godhead was not confined to one Single and Solitary Person but that there is such a Foecundity in the Divine Nature as communicates it self to more Persons than one For had it been the known and received Faith of the Christian Church That there is but One Person in the Godhead as well as but One God there had been no pretence for these Hereticks who called themselves Christians and boasted of a more perfect knowledge of the Christian Faith to have invented such a number of Aeons which they included within their Pleroma as the several Emanations of their Deity And we may observe that most of the Names which they gave to their several Aeons are Scripture-Names and Titles which the Pagan Theology knew nothing of and which they could learn no where but from the Christian Church Basilides I think was one of the first who gave us any distinct account of these Aeons which was new modell'd by Valentinus and other succeeding Hereticks and his first and Supreme Aeon as Epiphanius tells us was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Unbegotten One who only is the Father of all and by others is called the Propater and the Unknown Invisible Incomprehensible Father Now though the Heathens very familiarly call their Supreme God the Father of Gods and Men with respect to his Creating Power yet as the Notion of Father is founded in a substantial Generation as these Hereticks plainly understood it so it is the peculiar Character of God under the Gospel who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ his only begotten Son It is certain the first Person in the Godhead was never called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One that is unbegotten but to distinguish him from One who is begotten the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only begotten who is God also but God oâ— God And it is observable what Tertullian tells us of Heracleon That he made his first Aeâ—n to be illud quod pronunciat which some Criticks not understanding think to be a defect in the Copy but the sense is plain that his first Aeon is he that pronounceth or speaketh by which he represented the Eternal Generation of the Word So that his first Aeon is the Pronouncer or Speaker that is the Father of the Eternal Word which St. Iohn tells us was in the beginning was with God and was God Which shews that this is nothing else but a disguized Corruption of the Catholick Faith concerning the Eternal Generation of the Word from the Eternal Unbegotten Father To confirm this I observe farther That most of the Names which they give to their other Aeons are such Names Titles or Characters as the Scripture gives to Christ or the Holy Spirit which they have multiplied into so many distinct Persons or Aeons such as the Mind Word Prudence Power and Wisdom Truth Life Light the Only begotten the Paraclete and the like Valentinus indeed as Epiphanius observes did model his Thirty Aeons according to Hesiod's Genealogy and Number of Gods and with some manifest allusions to them but yet he retained as many Scripture-Names as he could the better to reconcile unwary people to his fabulous Genealogiâ—s as the hidden and mysterious sense of Scripture And it is impossible such Fables should ever have obtained any Credit had they not been grafted on the Catholick Faith and pretended to improve it with new degrees of Light and Knowledge When these Heresies were pretty well silenced up start Noetus and Sabellius who ran into the other Extreme The Valentinians had corrupted the Doctrine of the Trinity by multiplying Three Divine Persons into Thirty Aeons besides all their other Pagan and Fabulous Conceits about them This offended these men as downright Polytheism as indeed it was no better and to avoid this they reject a Trinity of Real and Substantial Persons for a Trinity of Names that Father Son and Holy Ghost are but Three Names of the same Person who is sometimes called the Father at other times the Son or the Holy Ghost with respect to his different Appearances or Operations Or they made the Son and Holy Ghost not Two Persons but Two Personal Attributes in God his Wisdom or Power Or they made the Trinity but Three Parts of One Compounded God as a Man consists of Body Soul and Spirit which of late have been revived among us under different Names After these men arose Arius and his Followers who out of great Zeal also for the Unity of God framed a New and more Subtile Heresy They were sensible that Father and Son were not Two Names but Two Real Distinct Persons and therefore they attributed the whole entire Divinity to the Father and made the Son not to be God by Nature but the most Perfect and Excellent Creature as Perfect an Image of God as any Creature can be but not Consubstantial with God nor Coequal and Coeternal with him All these Heresies were rejected and condemned by the Catholick Church in their several Ages as soon as they appeared and were taken notice of And this is one very good way to learn what the Catholick Faith was from its Opposition to
those Heresies which the Catholick Church condemned and from the Corrupted Remains of the Ancient Faith which appeared in them For these Hereticks were originally Christians and professed themselves Christians and therefore did not wholly renounce the Christian Faith but grafted their Heresies on it As to confine my self to the Subjâ—ct of the present Dispute What we are to understand by Father Son and Holy Ghost Whether Three Distinct Real Substantial Persons or not each of whom is distinctly by himself True and Perfect God but in the Unity of the same Divine Nature and Godhead Now that this was the received Faith of the Catholick Church we may learn both from the Valentinians Sabellians and Arians Though the Valentinians as I observed before had corrupted the Doctrine of the Trinity either with the Platonick Philosophy as that it self had been corrupted by the Iunior Platonists or with the Pagan Theology yet the Propagation of their Aeons in different Degrees and Descents from the first Supreme Aeon the Unbegotten One and the Invisible and Incomprehensible Father as they stile him shews what they thought the Catholick Faith was concerning the Eternal Generation of the Son and Procession of the Holy Spirit which they took to be a Substantial Generation and Procession and accordingly in imitation of this Faith asserted a Substantial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Emanation of one Aeon from another and which is more none of the Ancient Fathers who wrote against this Heresy as far as I have observed ever quarrel with them upon this account Nay Tertullian though he abominates these Heresies owns this Probole or Emanation in a true Catholick Sense and tells us that these Hereticks borrowed this word from the Catholick Faith though they fitted it to their Heresy And challenges any man to say whether the Divine Word be not produced by the Father and if it be Here says he is the Prolation or Emanation which the true Catholick Faith owns And adds That the fault of this Heresy was not their producing one Aeon from another but that besides the number of their fictitious Aeons they did separate these Emanations and Aeons from their Author that the Aeons knew not the Father nay desired to know him but could not know him and was e'en dissolved with Passion and Desire whereas in the Catholick Faith there is the most Inseparable Union of the Son with the Father and the most Intimate and Perfect Knowledge of him So that Tertullian allows of a Real and Substantial Production of the Person of the Son from the Person of the Father as the Valentinians pretended of their Aeons and asserts that these Hereticks learnt this from the Catholick Faith of the Trinity And that the Church must not reject this Probole Prolation or Emanation in an Orthodox Catholick Use of those words because Hereticks abuse them to countenance their own Heresies As for the Noetians and Sabellians for however they explain the Doctrine of the Trinity whether by Three Names or Three Powers or Three Parts while they Teach That the One God is but One Single Person the Heresy is the same it is impossible the Catholick Church should reject this Heresy without asserting Three Distinct Real Substantial Persons in the Unity of the Godhead each of whom is as True and Perfect God as each of Three Men Peter Iames and Iohn is a True Perfect Distinct Man though these Three Men are not uniâ—ed as the Three Divine Persons are The occasion of this Heresy was That they thought that Three Real Distinct Persons in the Godhead were Three Gods and therefore though being profess'd Christians and consequently baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost they durst not deny Father Son and Holy Ghost yet neither would they own Three Divine Persons but turned them into Three Names or Three Parts of One Person which has much more sense in it than Three Modes though Three Modes of the same Person let them call them Three Personalities if they please is the same Heresy if there be but One Suppositum as One Man may be the Subject of Three or Three and twenty Modes and be but One Human Person still Noetus and Sabellius did certainly apprehend that by Father Son and Holy Ghost the Catholick Church understood Three Distinct Substantial Divine Persons or else why should they charge them with Tritheism upon this account and turn Three Persons into Three Names or Three Parts of One and the same God to avoid the Imputation of Three Gods And if this had not been the belief of the Catholick Church what meant their Zeal against this Heresy For all the Wit of Man can't find a Medium between Sabellianism and Three Divine Substantial Persons A Trinity must be Three Somewhats as it has been lately called and then it must either be One Suppositum or Person under Three Names or Three Modes or compounded of Three Parts or be Three Distinct Suppositums and Persons Now if this had been the Catholick Faith That the Trinity is but One Suppositum or Person under Three Names or Modes c. I cannot imagine why the Catholick Church should have quarrell'd with these Hereticks or they with the Catholick Church unless they both mistook one another But if the Sabellians and Catholicks understood themselves and each other and did intend to contradict each other we certainly know what the Catholick Faith was For there is nothing contradicts a Noetian and Sabellian Trinity but a Trinity of Distinct Substantial Divine Persons And Novatianus well observes That these Hereticks did acknowledge the Divinity of Christ That whoever Christ was it was evident from those Characters given of him in Scripture That he was True and Perfect God And because the Father is True and Perfect God and Christ True and Perfect God for fear of owning Two Gods they make the Father and the Son to be but One and the same Person The Arians denied the Eternal Godhead of Christ and made a Creature of him though the most excellent Creature the Minister and Instrument of God in making the World and the reason of this Heresy was the same viz. for fear of a Plurality of Gods should they allow Christ to be True and Perfect God And this still is a plain evidence what they thought the Catholick Faith to be not only that Christ was True and Real God but that he was Truly and Really a Distinct Person from God the Father so distinct that if they should acknowledge him to be True God he would be a Second God which they thought contradicted the Faith of One God Well Though they would not own him to be True God yet they own him to be a distinct Person from the Father as distinct as God and a Creature are distinct Do the Catholicks now quarrel with the Arians that they have made a Substantial Person of the Son as in reason tâ—ey ought to have done had thâ—y not believed
Contradictions as he cannot require us to believe and consequently That whatever is plainly revealed implies no Contradiction how much soever it may be above our comprehension because God does require us to believe what he plainly reveals this had put an end to this Dispute and left the belief of the Trinity possible whatever difficulties we might apprehend in conceiving it But this great Zeal against believing Contradictions when applied to the belief of the Trinity is a very untoward Insinuation as if the Doctrine of the Trinity as commonly understood were clogg'd with Contradictions and that we must cast all such Contradictions which in the Socinian account is the Doctrine it self out of our Faith and therefore That whatever the Scripture says we must put no such sense on it as implies any Contradiction to our former knowledge This is an admirable Foundation for Considerations concerning the Trinity and what an admirable Superstructure he has rais'd on it we shall soon see I may possibly discourse this Point of Contradictions more at large elsewhere at present I shall only tell this Author That as self-evident as he thinks it this Proposition is false That it is impossible to believe what implies a Contradiction to our former knowledge and that God cannot require us to believe it I grant that all Logical Contradictions which are resolved into is and is not are impossible to be believed because they are impossible to be true and such is his Contradiction about the Whole and its Parts for to say That the Whole is not bigger than any of its Parts is to say That a Whole is a Whole and is not a Whole and that a Part is a Part and is not a Part. But contradictory Ideas may both be true and therefore both be believed and every man believes great numbers of them The Ideas of Heat and Cold White and Black Body and Spirit Extension and No Extension Eternity and Time to have A Beginning and to have No Beginning are contradictory Ideas and yet we believe them all that is we believe and know that there really are such things whose Natures are directly opposite and contrary to each other Now when there are such Contrarieties and Contradictions in Created Nature it may justly be thought very strange to true Considerers that our Natural Ideas should be made the adequate measures of Truth or Falshood of the Possibilities or Impossibilities of things that we must not believe what God reveals concerning himself if it contradicts any Natural Ideas And yet I challenge this Considerer and all the Socinian Sabellian Arian Fraternities to shew me any appearance of Contradictions in the Doctrine of the Trinity but what are of this kind that is not Logical Contradictions but Contradictions to our other Natural Ideas And if our Natural Ideas of Created Nature contradict each other it would be wonderful indeed if the Divine Uncreated Nature should not contradict all our Natural Ideas Every thing we know of God is a direct Contradiction to all the Ideas we have of Creatures an Uncreated and a Created Nature an Infinite and a Finite Nature are direct Contradictions to each other Eternity without Succession Omnipresence without Extension Parts or Place a pure simple Act which is all in one without Composition an Omnipotent Thought which thinks all things into Being and into a Beautiful Order these and such like Ideas of God are direct Contradictions to all the Ideas we have of Creatures and can any Contradiction then to any Ideas of Created Nature be thought a reasonable Objection against believing any thing which God reveals to us concerning himself But of this more hereafter SECT IV. Concerning his State of the Question That One and the Same God is Three Different Persons THese are his Preliminaries Axioms Postulata's all in the strict demonstrative way but now he comes to apply all this more closely to the business in hand but then he very unfortunately stumbles at the Threshold The Proposition he proposes to examine by these Principles is this That One and the same God is Three Different Persons Where he met with this Proposition in these very Terms I know not I 'm sure there is no such Proposition in Scripture nor did I ever meet with it in any Catholick Writer It is very far from giving us a true and adequate Notion of the Catholick Faith concerning the Trinity it is of a doubtful signification and in the most obvious sense of these words which I fear will appear to have been intended by this Considerer is manifest Heresy For if by One and the same God he means That there is but One who is God and That this One and same God is Three different Persons it is the Heresy of Sabellius at least if he would have owned the Term different which inclines more to the signification of diversity than of mere distinction which savours of Arianism and more properly relates to Natures than to Persons We meet with different forms of speech in Catholick Writers concerning the Unity and Trinity in the Godhead all which must be reconciled to form a distinct and compleat Notion of the Trinity That Deus est Vnus Trinus God is One and Three is very Ancient and very Catholick That the Father is the One God in a peculiar and eminent sense is both the Language of Scripture and of the Church That each Person Father Son and Holy Ghost is by himself True and Perfect God is likewise the Doctrine both of the Holy Scriptures and the Catholick Fathers That the Trinity is One God That Father and Son are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnum One Divinity Christ himself teaches us That Father Son and Spirit are also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One St. Iohn teaches us And nothing is more familiar both with the Greek and Latin Fathers than to call the Trinity One God and in consequence of this That One God is the Trinity though this they rather chose to express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity in Three Persons And whoever would give an account of the Catholick Faith of the Trinity must have respect to all these Notions and not content himself with any one of them as to make the best of it the Considerer here does when he only proposes to enquire How One and the same God is Three Persons But he ought to have enquired also in what sense each Person is by himself True and Perfect God and the Person of the Father in a peculiar and eminent sense the One God and to have framed his Notions of Unity and Distinction with an equal regard to all these Catholick Expositions which would have secured him from the Sabellian Heresy which now his Words are very guilty of whatever He himself be But let us now proceed to his Examination of these Terms God Vnity Identity Distinction and Number and Person As to the Notion of a Deity he confesses he has not a
fulâ— and adequate Idea of God but yet he knows which of those distinct Ideas he has in his mind are applicable to God and which are not But the present question does not conceâ—n the Idea of God which I hope we are all agreed in That God is a Being infinitely perfect But whether this Name God in the Question of the Trinity signifies only One who is God or One single Divine Person Or Whether this Name and the perfect Idea which belongs to it be applicable distinctly to Three to Father Son and Holy Ghost That each of them is True and Perfect God and neither of them is each other and all Three but One God This had been the true Explication of the Term God as applied to the Doctrine of the Trinity To have told us what is meant by God when this Name is peculiarly attributed to the Person of the Father when it is attributed to each Person distinctly and when it is jointly attributed to them all That Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God â—t is certain all this must be resolved into the same One Divinity which is perfectly in each of them and inseparaâ—ly and indivisibly in them all And the true stating of his matter had been very proper and would have saved all his other Labour And therefore to save me some labour I will briefly tell him how the Catholick Fathers understood it which is the only possible way I know of reconciling these different Expressions When they tell us That the Person of the Father is in an eminent and peculiar manner the One God by this they understand That the Father alone is self-originated and from himself That the Whole Divinity and Godhead is originally his own which he received from no other Which is the first and most natural notion we have of God and of One God When they say That though the Father in this sense be the One God yet the Son also is True and Perfect God and the Holy Ghost True and Perfect God they ascribe Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost upon account of the Eternal and Perfect Communication of the Divine Nature to them For he who has the True Divine Nature is True and Perfect God And therefore the Son who is eternally begotten of his Father of the Substance of his Father and is Consubstantial with him is True and Perfect God but God of God and the like may be said of the Holy Spirit who eternally proceeds from Father and Son When they teach That the Trinity is One God they mean by it That the same One Divinity does subsist whole and entire indivisibly and inseparably but yet distinctly in them all as I have already explained it So that the Unity of the Godhead gives an account of all these Expressions Why the Father is said to be the One God and yet that the Son is God and the Holy Ghost God and Father Son and Holy Ghost but One God All this is taught in Scripture and is the Faith of the Catholick Church and I would never desire a better Proof of the Truth and Certainty of any Notion than that it takes in the whole Mystery and answers to every part of it which no other account I have ever yet met with can do SECT V. An Examination of his Notions and Ideas of Unity Distinction Person c. AND now the Sabellian Scene opens apace If the Heresy of Sabellius was That there is but One who is God but One Divine Intelligent Person as well as One Divine Nature this our Considerer expresly owns and does his Endeavour to prove it absolutely impossible that it should be otherwise that is That the Catholick Faith asserted and defended by the Catholick Church against Sabellius is absolutely impossible To explain the word Person he tells us It signifies one of these two things either a particular Intelligent Being or an Office Character or some such complex Notion applicable to such a Being If you would know in which of these senses we must understand the word Person when we say there are Three Persons in the Trinity he tells us plainly That the simple Idea of God can be applied but to One single Person in the first sense of the word Person as it signifies a particular Intelligent Being Nature or Principle And that all the Personal Distinction we can conceive in the Deity must be founded on some accessory Ideas extrinsecal to the Divine Nature a certain Combination of which Ideas makes up the second Notion signified by the word Person And for this he appeals to Natural Sentiments mistaking Heresy for Nature And if we fairly and impartially examine our own Thoughts upon this Subject we shall find That when we name God the Father we conceive the Idea of God so far as we are capable of conceiving it as acting so and so under such respects and relations and when we name God the Son we conceive nothing else but the same Idea of God over again under different relations and so likewise of the Holy Ghost Noetus Praxeas or Sabellius never taught their Heresy in more express words than these And what is to be done now Must we dispute this Point over again with the Considerer and confute a Heresy which has been so early so often and so constantly condemned by the Catholick Church For my part I can pretend to say nothing new which has not long since been much better said by the Catholick Fathers and therefore before we part I shall acquaint him with their Judgment in the Case and leave it to rest on their Authority and Reasons But it may not be amiss to mind this Considerer That he has all the Schoolmen as far as I have heard or had opportunity to consult them as well as the Catholick Fathers against him in his Notion of a Person for they all receive Boetius's Definition That a Person is an Individual Substance of a Rational Nature Or it may be the Authority of Melancthon may be more considerable with him who tells us That the Church in this Article of the Trinity understands by Person an Individual Intelligent Incommunicable Substance And adds That the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers distinguish between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there is but One Essence or Nature and Three Hypostases that is Three really subsisting not commentitious vanishing confused but distinct particular Intelligent Persons And the Censure he passes upon Servetus upon this score is very remarkable That Fanatical Fellow Servetus plaid with the word Person and contended That in Latin it anciently signified a Dress or Habit or the distinction of an Office as Râ—scius is sometimes said to act the part of Achilles sometimes of Vlysses Or the Person of a Consul is one thing and the Person of a Slave is another as Cicero speaks that it is a great thing to maintain the Character of the Person of a Prince in the Commonwealth And
this Ancient Signification of the Word he slily wrested and applied to the Article concerning the Three Persons of the Godhead But let us fly from and abhor such wicked Artifices and know That the Church speaks after another manner and that Person signifies an Individual Intelligent Incommunicable Substance And it will be of great use to form and fix this Notion in our minds to contemplate the Baptism of Christ where all Three Persons were most evidently represented and distinguished The Father spoke in an audible Voice This is my beloved Son the Son is seen standing in the River and the Holy Spirit descends on him in a visible Appearance But since the Considerer makes a great Flourish with his Ideas and clear and distinct Conceptions and fetches his Proofs from the most intimate knowledge of Nature he may take it ill if no notice or regard be had of them We see very well where he has been trading and I doubt the Ingenious Author of Human Vnderstanding will have more Disciples of different kinds than he was well aware of in whom he will have no great reason to glory For it requires more Skill than every man is Master of to form simple and distinct Notions and Ideas and to apply them dexterously to their proper Subjects And to refer all men to Natural Ideas and Perceptions when so very few know how to distinguish between Natural Notions and the Prejudices and Prepossessions of Education the Delusions of Fancy and the Byass of Inclination is like the Quakers appeal to the Light within which is just what every man will have it to be Our Considerer reduces all the Notions he can find of Vnity and Distinction to Three Heads The Unity or Distinction of Ideas of Principle and of Position and undertakes to prove from them all That it is impossible or absolutely unconceivable that there should be more than One Intelligent Person in the proper Notion of a Person in the Godhead Now in the first place I would be glad to hear a good reason why the Considerer takes no notice of that old received definition of One that Vnum est Indivisum that is One which is Undivided The most perfect One is that which neither is nor can be divided an absolute perfect Monad which is absolutely and perfectly Simple without any Parts to be divided into And this is the Unity of the Divine Nature as Scripture Fathers Schoolmen and all men of improved and exercised Reason teach and it is strange he should not find this Notion of Unity among all his Natural Ideas which is the only Natural Notion of the Divine Unity and belongs to no other Being And this would have given him a true Catholick Notion of the Unity of God in a Trinity of Persons for all agree That the Divine Nature is indivisibly and inseparably One. And this is another thing I would be glad to know the reason of Why in such an Enquiry concerning the Unity and Distinction of the Trinity he takes no notice of that Old Catholick distinction That God is One in Nature and Three in Persons which would have been a good direction to him what kind of Unity and what distinction to have enquired after What Unity belongs to Nature and what it is which distinguishes Persons But our Considerer has no regard to the different Notions of Nature and Person but applies all his Notions of Unity to a Person which as far as they are true belong to Nature and from the Unity of Nature proves against the Catholick Faith that there can be but One proper Divine Person And there is one thing I am sorry for That having mentioned a very good Notion he let it slip between his fingers without making any use of it He tells us That Identity is nothing else but a repetition of Vnity as Number is of difference This is very Catholick and it is great pity we hear no more of it Upon this Principle the Fathers justify the Unity of the Godhead in a Trinity of Persons For the Divine Nature is but One a perfect Monad and is communicated whole and entire without the least Division or Separation to the Son and Holy Spirit and therefore is perfectly and identically one and the same in all Three for the perfect repetition of a Monad and Unit makes no Number God and God and God are not Three Gods but One God because the same Divine Nature without the least difference or diversity is distinctly in them all and the repetition of what is perfectly the same makes no Number but Father Son and Holy Ghost are three for they are really distinguished from each other not by any difference of Nature but only by Personal differences or the different manner of having the same Nature That the Father has the Whole Divine Nature originally in himself is God of himself The Son receives the same Divine Nature by an Eternal Generation and is God of God And the Holy Ghost in like manner by an Eternal Procession from Father and Son This incommunicably distinguishes Persons that one can never be another and this is difference enough to make a Number not to make Three Gods of them because the Divine Nature is perfectly One and the same in Three but to distinguish them into Three Persons each of whom is True and Perfect God and all but One God Why the Considerer should wave such a Notion as this of Unity and Distinction which any one would have thought his own Notions of Identity and Number must unavoidably have led him into I cannot guess but I hope this may satisfy him that there are other Notions of Unity and Distinction than what he insists on and such as may be as easily understood and which fairly reconcile the belief of Three proper Divine Intelligent Persons with the Unity of the Godhead But let us now briefly consider his Ideas of Unity and Dâ—stinction 1. The first is The Vnity of Idea This he discourses of very confusedly and does not seem well pleased with it himself The Unity of the Idea he places in being perceivable at one view and having one uniform appearance Which makes it one Idea indeed right or wrong but proves no other kind of Unity This he grew sensible of that the reality of things may not answer our Ideas or Appearances and I know not how they shâ—uld unless our Ideas answer the Reality of Things for Things are to be the Patterns for our Ideas not our Ideas for Things But the Considerer by forsaking his good old Rules for new Methods of Thinking has quite mistaken the Question When we enquire into the general Notion of Unity the meaning is not When we conceive of any thing as One but what it is that makes any thing One. The Unity of Idea whether simple or compounded may be Answer enough to the first Question Thaâ— aâ—l that is comprized in one Idea if our Idea be right belongs to one thing but as he
owns we cannot prove that our Idea answers the Reality of Things and therefore I know not what this Rule is good for at all But our general Notion of Unity is of a very different Consideration and our particular Ideas of particular Things contribute nothing to it For the question is not How many Things are united in One Being or How many partial Conceptions are united in One Idea But What it is that makes it One or what the formal Conception of its Unity is But our Considerer takes heart at last from the Unity of the Idea of God to prove that there can be but One Divine Person in a proper sense or but One who is True and Perfect God His Argument is this We cannot conceive that any Object should be truly and adequately represented to any Mind or Vnderstanding under One Idea and truly and adequately represented under Three Ideas And what is the Consâ—quence of this That he tells us plainly That all the Perfections of the Deity though considered separately under different apprehensions by our imperfect Faculties being really but One simple Idea can be applied to but One single Person in the first sense of the word Person as it signifies a particular Intelligent Being Nature and Principle 1. Now in the first place this Argument supposes an Idea which truly and adequately represent its Object and yet our Considerer is so modest as not to pretend to a full and adequate Idea of God And therefore according to his own way he can never conclude from the Idea of God That it can belong but to One single Person because he has not an adequate Idea of the Divine Nature and then there may be something in the Idea of God which he does not comprehend which may make it applicable to more Persons than one Certainly it seems very reasonable when we confess that we have not an adequate Idea of the Dâ—vine Nature to refer this whole Dispute not to Natural Ideas which can never determine it but to Revelation which is more certain and more perfect than our Natural Knowledge 2. I grant That One Object cannot be truly and adequately represented to my mind under One Idea and truly and adequately represented under Three different Ideas But it is as true That One and the same Idea may be truly and adequately applied to Three distinct and different Persons The adequate Idea of Peter can be applied to none but Peter but the Idea of Man or of Human Nature may be truly and adequately applied to Peter Iames and Iohn and to every single human Person in the world The Idea of God as abstracted from the Consideration of a Trinity of Persons is only the Idea of the Divine Nature which is but One and can never be Three different Natures for the Divine Nature always was and always will be but One and the same and this is that One Object which is adequately in his sense represented by One Idea And this is the account the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of God That there is but One Divinity One Divine Nature in Three Persons and thus the Trinity is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One Divinity that One Object represented by the One Idea of God The Divine Persons are not distinguished by any difference of Nature which is One and the same in all but by Personal differences That the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten and the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son These are Three different Ideas for the Three Divine Persons but the Idea of the Divinity is but One as the Divine Nature is One and the same in all Could he indeed prove That the Idea of God is not only One simple Idea but the Idea of One single Person that would be somewhat more to the purpose it would be such an Argument against a Trinity of Persons from the Idea of God as Necessary Existence as included in the Idea of God is for the Being of God But this he can never prove and at best these Arguments from Ideas are thought too fine and subtle by most men 2. His next kind of Unity is a Vnity of Principle that is One thing which has but One Principle of Action And we cannot conceive that One Principle or Nature should be but One and yet Three different Principles and Natures But I suppose he can conceive That if One and the same undivided Principle and Nature be and act in Three these Three are One by the Unity of Principle and Nature And this is the Catholick Faith of the Trinity not Three different Principles and Natures in Three Persons but One and the same Principle and Nature inseparably and indivisibly subsisting and acting in Three Upon account of which Identity of Principle and Operation the Catholick Fathers asserted but One Life Energy and Power not confusedly but distinctly in Three which asserts the Unity of Principle together with the real distinction of true and proper Persons If indeed he can prove from his Vnity of Principle That One Nature and Principle can live subsist and act but in One such a Unity of Principle as this will admit but of One single Person and must overthrow the Catholick Faith of a Real Trinity But though the Unity of Principle does prove That to be but One which has but One Principle it does not prove That this One Nature and Principle can be but in One. 3. His Third kind of Unity is very surprizing especially as applied to the Unity of God it is the Unity of Position of Place or of Vbi When we perceive any Object in a continued Position bounded and fenced out from other things round about it all within such Terms and Limits we call One Bless me thought I How is this applicable to the Unity of God who has no Body no Parts no continued Position can't be bounded and fenced round about nor confined within Terms and Limits and therefore can never have this Vnity of Position which is a very sorry kind of Unity at best His Philosophy belonging to this Head is very admirable but to let that pass he would not be thought to attribute Extension to Spirits but the Idea of a Point is more applicable to Spiritual Beings but a Physical Point is extended still though it be the least conceivable Extension and has parts and therefore can't represent simple Unity and is the Idea of Body not of Spirit Nor does he think local presence or determination any way contained within the Idea of a Spiritual Being and therefore this can't belong to the Unity of a Spirit Well But he is not able to comprehend the Vnion or Separation of Two Spiritual Beings without considering them in the same or different Localities I know not how to help this that he can't conceive of Spirits but only after the manner of Bodies Are Spirits united by Juxta-position of Parts or Penetration of Dimensions If not One Vbi can't unite
them though Separate Vbi's may prove them Separate But still what is all this to the Unity of God Why he tells us It is plain at first sight that we cannot possibly conceive God under any difference of Position I add further That we cannot conceive God under any Position and therefore the Unity of Position can never belong to the Vnity of God But the reason he gives why we can't conceive God under any difference of Position is because we cannot exclude Omnipotence from any imaginable point of Space nor can we include it in it which proves that God has no Position but is present without Position as he is without Extension and without Parts God needs no place to subsist in but is Place to himself and Place to every thing else as the Hebrews called God Makâ—m or Place according to S. Paul's Notion of it That in him we live move and have our being that as all things receive Being by his Almighty Word so all things subsist in Infinite Mind as the Ideas and Notions of things do in Finite Minds God could not create any thing without himself because there is nothing extra without him and this is the Omnipresence of God not his Commensuration to Infinite Space which is a gross Corporeal Representation of Omnipresence by Infinite Extension or Commensuration to Infinite Extension and makes something else as Infinite as God viz. Infinite Space which must be commensurate to God if God be commensurate to Space but the Omnipresence of God is his Comprehension of all things in himself And yet his way of proving the Omnipresence of God from his Omnipotence That we cannot exclude Omnipotence from any imaginable Point of Space if by Omnipresence he means an Essential Omnipresence as he must do here is not so self-evident as he seems to think it The only foundation of it is this That nothing can act where it is not which holds true only where Contact is necessary to Action that is only in Bodies whose Power consists in Contact or touching each other but any Being which acts without Contact as God certainly does may be Omnipotent without being Omnipresent that is may act at an Infinite distance without any Local Presence with the thing on which it acts It is the first time to the best of my remembrance that ever I met with this Notion That 't is the limited Powers and Faculties of Created Beings which are the foundation of all local distinction Finite Creatures indeed have finite and limited Powers but it is not the limitation of their Powers and Faculties but of their Presence which makes a local or Vbi distinction If this were so Power must be proportioned to Presence which we know is false for the greatest things which fill the largest space are not the most powerful Spirits which fill no space at all have the greatest Power and most enlarged Faculties But it is time to see the Pinch of this Argument from the Vnity of Position and the Sum of it is this Whatever is One must be in some One Place or Vbi which distinguishes and separates it from other things That he cannot conceive the distinction of two or three Beings from each other without considering them in so many different Places or Localities That God is Omnipresent and he can no more conceive Three Omnipresent than he can conceive Three straight Lines drawn between the same Points That is in plain English There are not Three Distinct Infinite Spaces for Three Distinct Omnipresent Persons to be in and therefore there cannot be a Trinity of True and Proper Persons but as there is but One Omnipresent Divine Nature so there can be but One single Omnipresent Person and there is an end of the Trinity till we can find room in the world for Three Persons each of whom is Omnipresent I perceive our Considerer has not been so fair and equal as he pretended to be He would not consult the Fathers for fear of Prejudices and Prepossessions but either good Wits jump or he has taken care to consult the Ancient Hereticks for this was the old Sabellian Argument which was long since answered and scorned by Athanasius as he will find in the Chapter of Sabellianism to which I refer him and the Reader But in good earnest does any sober Christian want an Answer to this Argument Does God then fill a Space as Bodies do that Three Divine Omnipresent Persons must have Three separate Localities and be commensurate to Three Infinite Spaces Has God any Place does he subsist in any thing but himself If the Considerer can't conceive any Beings to be distinct without distinct Localities How does he distinguish God from Creatures when he owns that God is in every imaginable Point of Space that is in the very same Vbi's and Localities whereever any Creatures are But do not all Catholick Christians own That there is but One Infinite Inseparable Undivided Nature in Three Persons And must this One Undivided Monad be in Three separate Localities because it subsists in three distinct Persons especially when these distinct Persons are whole and entire in each other as our Saviour assures us I am in the Father and the Father in me And is not this a wonderful demonstration against Three Real and Proper Persons in the Trinity That there cannot be Three such Infinite Omnipresent Persons unless they subsist in Three Infinite and Separate Localities But enough of this in all reason These are the Premises from whence with so much open Assurance and Confidence he draws that Sabellian Conclusion That the Idea of God being really but One simple Idea can be applied but to One single Person in the first sense of the word Person as it signifies a particular Intelligent Being Nature or Principle From whence he says it follows that according to the Notions we are capable of framing of Vnity and Distinction all the Personal distinction we can conceive in the Deity must be founded on some accessory Ideas extrinsecal to the Divine Nature So that there is not a Trinity in the Divine Nature as the Catholick Church has always believed but the Divine Nature which really is but One single Person is a Trinity with respect to something which does not belong to the Divine Nature but is extrinsecal to it Whether these be not New Terms and New Doctrine too unknown to the Catholick Church or known only as condemned Heresies I appeal to all men who will consult any Catholick Historian or any Catholick Father without prejudice And here I might reasonably enough break off for I have followed the Considerer till we have heard him demonstrate against a Trinity of Real Proper Persons in the Unity of the Godhead which puts an end to the whole Dispute about a Trinity in Vnity because there is no such thing He has found out indeed a Unity for God but it is not a Unity in Trinity but the Unity of One single Person and he has
found a Trinity but it is not a Trinity in the Unity of the Divine Nature but a Trinity of extrinsecal accessory Ideas But since he has used some Art in palliating this Heresy it will be necessary to take off the Disguise The first step he makes to it is by seeming to own That there may be some greater Mystery and Obscurity in the Doctrine of the Trinity than that Account which he has given of it But if this Account says he of the Trinity be too easy and falls far short of those high expressions of distinction found in Scripture as I think it does and no other grounded upon any Notions our Souls have framed of Vnity and Distinction can be true or consistent as I have before particularly proved then it necessarily follows That God must be One and Three in some way or manner not conceivable by human Vnderstanding Here he thinks he has found a safe Retreat He asserts and proves as he would have us believe from all the Notions of Distinction and Unity which our minds can frame That God is and can be One in no other Notion than of One single Person in the first and proper sense of a Person for an Intelligent Person and that God neither is nor can be Three in the sense of Three Proper Distinct Persons If you charge him with Sabellianism for this then he retreats to an obscure confused knowledge to such a way and manner of God's being One and Three as is not conceivable by human Understanding Well But will he allow us with this obscure and confused knowledge to believe the Holy Trinity to be Three Divine Proper Distinct Persons and One God in a way and manner unconceivable by Human Vnderstanding By no means This he has proved by all the Notions of Unity and Distinction cannot be true or consistent nor is it possible for us to believe what we do not understand the terms of or what contradicts our former knowledge and we are not bound to believe what is not possible to be believed nor can God in Justice or Goodness require such a Faith of us as we have already heard So that Sabellianism we may believe and must not believe any thing contrary to it and then we may believe that there is something more in it than we understand if we please And therefore we may observe That he is not concerned about any difficulties in the Notion of the Divine Unity which all Catholick Writers have been most concerned for how to reconcile the Unity of God with a Trinity of Divine Persons but that which troubles him most is the Distinction which the Catholick Fathers never disputed about but positively asserted in the most proper and real sense against the Sabellian Hereticks But he seems sensible as well he may be that the Sabellian Notion of Persons falls very short of those high Expressions of Distinction which are found in Scripture And here it is that he allows of an obscure and confused Knowledge When he has rejected a True Personal distinction all other kinds of distinction he can think of will not answer those high expressions of distinction found in Scripture and therefore provided you do not believe them distinct Persons you may believe if you please that there is some other unknown and unconceivable distinction between them This is plainly what he means by his obscure confused Knowledge by his general confused Faith by his general confused Notion of the Trinity and therefore he religiously keeps to that form of words That One and the same God is Three which must be understood in his Notion of One and the same God that is One single Person for all his Notions of Vnity and Distinction are on purpose designed to prove That One God can't be Three in a true and proper Notion of a Person and therefore he never so much as names that question How Three Divine Persons are One God Which can never be reconciled to a Sabellian Unity of a Single Person SECT VI. What it is the Scripture requires us to believe concerning the Trinity THE Considerer having laid the Foundations of Sabellianism in his Natural Sentiments proceeds to examine what the Doctrine of the Scripture is concerning this matter and to reconcile the Scripture to his Natural Sentiments though the more reasonable and safer way had been first to have learnt the Faith from Scripture and then to have corrected the Mistakes of his Natural Sentiments by Scripture I do not intend to enter into a long dispute with him here but shall only let the Reader see what it is he would prove and what he asserts for his whole business in short is to prove That the Sabellian Notion of the Unity of God or of One single Person and of Three Names Titles Characters extrinsecal Respects and Relations is the True Scriture Doctrine of the Trinity This he very freely tells us That the Sum of all that the Scriptures plainly and expresly teach concerning a Trinity is this That there is but One only God and what he means by One only God we have often heard the Author and Maker of all things But that One God ought to be acknowledge and adored by us under those Three different Titles or Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost Which Words are very remarkable He does not say That this One God is to be acknowledged and adored in Three who have the same One Divinity subsisting whole and perfect and distinctly in each of them which is the Catholick Faith But this One God is to be acknowledged and adored by us under these Three different Titles and Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost So that Father Son and Holy Ghost are not the One God for neither of them is God but they are only the different Titles and Characters of the One God And though God when represented by different Characters is God still under each Character yet neither of the Characters is God no more than the Titles and Characters of a Man is the Man Now one might have expected that the Considerer should have proved That the Scripture-Notion of One God is That there is but One single Divine Person in the true and proper Notion of the word Person who is God and that these Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost do not in Scripture signify Three Distinct Real Persons but are only Three Different Titles and Characters of the same One Divine Person This indeed had effectually proved what he pretends to but he was too wise to attempt either The first he says nothing at all of but takes it for granted that he has demonstrated That by his Natural Notions of Unity and Distinction but had he not first demonstrated that nothing could be true and consistent and that God can require us to believe nothing which contradicts his Natural Notions he should have a little enquired what the Notion of Scripture is about this matter But taking it for granted that he
had already demonstrated this That One God signifies One single Person he only proves That the Titles and Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost belong to God and therefore That these Terms must all be so understood as to include the same God the One single Divine Person in their Signification The first I think he proves well enough That these Titles and Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost belong to God and this vindicates him from being a Socinian But when he applies all these Titles and Characters to One and the same God that is in his sense to One and the same single Person this proves him to be a Sabellian for this was the Doctrine of Noetus and Sabellius That these different Titles and Characters did belong but to One single Person who is God He proves That these Titles and Characters Father Son and Holy Ghost do signify God from the forms of Baptism Salutation and Blessing Go teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost The grace of our Lord Iesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all From whence as he adds I infer That all these terms Father Son and Holy Ghost signify God because I cannot possibly conceive 't is agreeable to the nature of the Christian Religion that the Ministers of it should teach baptize or bless the people in any other name but God's I like this Argument very well but if it proves any thing it proves more than he would have it That Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them by himself true and perfect God and not all Three One single Person for it seems altogether as absurd to teach baptize or bless in Three Names and Titles when there is but One single Person signified by those Three Names And therefore his Inference is not very plain That if any One of these Terms signify God they must all Three signify God and if all Three signify God they must all Three signify One and the same God for God is One. This is very artificial but not plain The consequence is plain That if Father Son and Holy Ghost are the Names of God they must all signify One God by the Unity and sameness of Nature because there is but One God but not by the Vnity of Person because the Scripture mentions Three each of whom is God Which proves That God is One in Nature but Three in Persons as the Catholick Church has always believed As for what he adds That the One Supreme God the Lord and Maker of all things is here meant by the word Father is a thing not questioned and therefore Sâ—n and Holy Ghost are terms expressive of the same Divine Nature may in some sense be allowed if he will distinguish between Nature and Person but according to the sense of Scripture and the belief of the Catholick Church Father Son and Hâ—ly Ghost are the names of Three Real Distinct Divine Persons not of One Divine Nature in the sense of One Persâ—n But though we allow this with the Catholick Church That the Father is the One Supreme God we have no reason to allow this to the Considerer who will not allow Father Son or Holy Ghost to be Names of Divine Persons or to be Names or Relations of the Divine Nature considered as the Divine Nature for he says they are extrinsecal that is â—xtra-essential Ideas Titles Characters Respects Relations and therefore Father according to this Hypothesis is not the essential Name of the One Supreme God but given to him for some extrinsical and extra-essential reasons is his Name not by Nature but by Institution and then must be proved to be his Name which the mere form of Baptism cannot do for the Name God is not expressed in it much less does it prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost are One and the same God or One single Person It is evident indeed from other Texts That Father is the Name of God but then it is the Name of God the Father and the Son is the Son of God and the Holy Ghost the Spirit of God the Spirit of the Father and of the Son and this does prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost have the same One Divinity the same One Divine Nature as the very Names and Relations of Father and Son and Spirit prove But surely this does not prove That God the Father and his Son are the same One single Person as well as One God for Father and Son all the world over signify Two distinct Persons for no One Person can be Father and Son to himself nor can the Eternal subsisting Spirit of God be the same Person with that God whose Spirit he is Unless he allows that Father in the form of Baptism is the Name of a Person he can prove nothing from it and if Father be the Name of a Person Son and Holy Ghâ—st must be the Names of Persons also and then the Names and Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost necessarily prove That they are not One single Person but Three Persons Thus he proves the Son to be God from that Religious Worship which is paid to him which does indeed prove him to be God but not the same One Person with the Father Our Considerer is much mistaken if he thinks it sufficient to prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost are the Titles and Characters of the same One single Person who is the One God if he can prove that each of these Names signify One who is God And the truth is if these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost do not signify Persons they cannot signify God for then they are not Names of Nature but something extrinsecal and accessory to the Divine Nature and therefore they may be the external Denominations of him who is God but not the Names of God considered as God and therefore cannot signify God because they do not signify the Divine Nature in the Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost but something extrinsical and accessory that is something which is not essential and therefore which the Divine Nature might be without I hope the Considerer did not think of this Consequence That it is possible that God might neither have been Father Son nor Holy Ghost which yet must be allowed possible if these be mere extrinsecal and accessory Titles and Characters Nay this must be allowed unless we will grant that these Names signify Three Real Subsisting Intelligent Coeternal Persons in the Vnity of the same Godhead But these Three Persons do somewhat puzzle him That God should be called Father Son and Holy Ghost is as easily to be believed as that he should be called Adonai Elohim and Jehovah That the same thing should be signified and expressed by several Names is no such incredible Mystery Which still shews us what it is he believes and would prove in all this That
Father Son and Holy Ghost are but Three Names of that One single Person who is God But as he proceeds if we allow that these terms Father Son and Holy Ghost are all applied to God in Scripture 't is not thought sufficient to say That these are Three several Names which signify God but we are further required to believe That God is One and Three the same God not the same single Person but Three different Hypostases or Persons and that one of these Three Hypostases or Persons is both God and Man These are the Hard Sayings which puzzle some mens understandings This is the Faith of the Catholick Church and will always be Hard Sayings to Sabellian Understandings which they will never be able to reconcile with their Hypothesis of One single Person in the Godhead But let us hear how he clears himself of these difficulties He observes in the first place That these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost are applied to God in Scripture in a different way from what any of his other Names are So far he is in the right but what is this different way In short it is this That the other Names of God signify only partial Conceptions of the Divine Nature such as Self-existence Power c. and are all contained within the same Idea of God and therefore cannot be the foundation of any distinction in the Godhead Let this pass But each of these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost includes the whole Idea we have of God and something more as being extrinsecal and accessory to the Divine Nature and the whole Idea of God full and compleat before the application of these terms Let us examine this first He says Each of these Names includes the whole Idea of God I beseech you how can that be when they signify something extrinsecal and accessory to the Divine Nature and the whole Idea of God may be conceived full and compleat without them For if these Names are not included in the Idea of God which is full and compleat without them which Assertion by the way overthrows the whole Christian Faith of the Trinity how can they include the Idea of God in them which they are not so much as any part of much less the whole and something more I grant the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost may connote the Idea of God as the Name of a King and a Father connote the Idea of a Man who is King and Father which I suppose is all he intends by it but then the King must be a Man and the Father must be a Man to connote the Idea of Man And thus in the Blessed Trinity if these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost connote the Idea of God the Father must be True and Perfect God and the Son must be True and Perfect God and the Holy Ghost must be True and Perfect God for neither Father Son or Holy Ghost connote the Idea of God upon any other account than as the Whole and Perfect Divine Nature subsists in each of them and that makes the whole Idea of God belong to each of them To proceed He tells us That though all these Names are separately and together affirmed of God yet each of them in so peculiar a manner that there are several occasions where when one of these terms is used with relation to God 't would be improper to use either of the other That is when it is proper to call God Father it is improper to call him Son or Holy Ghost and so on the contrary But the reason of this in his Hypothesis is not that their Persons are distinct and incommunicable but that there are several occasions which make such change of Names improper As a Man who is a King a Husband and a Father all these Names do separately and together belong to him but you must have a care of speaking improperly by applying these Names to improper Relations Well however From hence he says it follows that these Three Names of God Father Son and Holy Ghost must denote a Threefold difference of distinction belonging to God I grant it makes a distinction of Names and external Offices and Relations in God but no distinction of Hypostases and Persons which was the distinction to be shewn but this he absolutely rejects for it must be no other difference or distinction but such as is consistent with the Vnity and Simplicity of the Divine Nature This we would all subscribe to did he mean honestly but his Vnity and Simplicity of the Divine Nature is nothing else but the Unity and Simplicity of One single Person and all the distinction he will allow these different Names to make is no more than what One single Person is capable of For each of these Names includes the whole Idea we have of God and something more Very right if we allow these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost to be the Names of true and proper Divine Persons for then each of them is true and perfect God and the whole Idea of God is included in each of them because the whole Divine Nature is in each of them otherwise neither of these Names include the Idea of God but only connote it as I have already observed And what he adds That as far as these Names express the Nature of God they all adequately and exactly signify the same is very true also if by the same he means the same Nature not the same One single Person And then what he adds 'T is the additional signification which makes all the distinction between them is very true also but he ought to have told us what this additional signification this something more than the whole Idea of God is which is included in these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost and then we might have known what this distinction is All the additional signification that I know of is this That Father signifies God includes the whole Idea of God but besides this Father when it signifies God signifies a Self-originated Unbegotten God who is God of himself and begets a Son of his own Nature and Coeternal with himself Son signifies God but begotten God God of God the living and perfect Image of his Father Holy Ghost signifies God but God proceeding eternally from Father and Son in the Unity and Perfection of the same Divine Nature And this is all the difference between them not a difference of Nature but a distinction of True Real Proper Persons The Considerer seems to allow this That Person is a proper Name for this distinction For Father Son and Holy Ghost have plainly a Personal significatiâ—n each of them without any figure of speech being determined to signify some Intelligent Being acting in such a manner as is there related These Words would betray an Unwary Reader to believe the Considerer as Orthodox as the Nicene Fathers and that he did acknowledge Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Three Persons without a Figure as a
Person signifies an Intelligent Being but he has secured himself against this Imputation by an artificial addition some Intelligent Being acting in such or such a manner He will not allow Person to signify absolutely an Intelligent Being but an Intelligent Being with respect to some peculiar manner of acting and thus One single Person in the proper Notion of Person for an Intelligent Being may sustain Three Persons or Personal Characters with reâ—pect to extrinsecal Relations and the different manner of acting The whole Mystery and Sophistry of this is That God who is One single Person is upon different accounts sometimes called the Father sometimes the Sâ—n and sometimes the Holy Ghost and therefore Father Son and Holy Ghost have a Personal signification each of these Names signify Person in a proper sense that is the Person of God but all of them separately and together signify but One and the same single Person for they are all of them attributed to God and God is but One or One Person though this One proper Person may sustain Three figurative Persons or Personal Characters This is plain dealing and this is his Answer to his first Hard Saying That God is One and Three the same God but Three different Hypostases or Persons That God is One and the same single Person under Three Personal Characters which may be called Three Persons because each of them signifies the True and Proper Person of God And here we see in what sense these Gentlemen allow That each Person is Substance is Mind and Spirit and yet that God is but One Substance One Mind and Spirit viz. in the very same sense that this Author affirms that God is but One single Person and yet that the Father is a Person the Son a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person and for the same reason that they decry and abhor Three Substances Three distinct Minds and Spirits in the Godhead though affirmed to be indivisibly and inseparably One Infinite Substance Mind and Spirit for the same reason they reject Three Intelligent Substantial Persons though our Modern Sabellians have been more cautious generally than this Considerer not to own it in express words Now as for these Terms of Three Substances and Three Minds there may be good reason to let them alone tho when rightly explained no reason to condemn them of Heresy but we must insist on Three Distinct Infinite Intelligent Substantial Persons Each of which is Mind and Substance and One is not the Other If they disown this as the Considerer does they are downright Sabellians if they own it we have no farther Dispute about this matter Let us now consider his other Hard Saying That One of these Three Hypâ—stases or Persâ—ns should be both God and Man Now the Hardness of this Saying is not That it is hard to prove from Scripture that so it is or that it is hard to conceive how God and Man can be united which is all that he touches on But it is and always will be a Hard Saying to the Considerer upon another account that is To reconcile it with a Trinity of One proper single Person and Three Personal Characters The Doctrine of the Incarnation is this That the Eternal Son of God became True and Perfect Man by taking the Human Nature into a Personal Union to himself That the Son only became Man not the Father nor the Holy Ghost That two perfect distinct Natures the Divine and Human Nature were without Confusion united in the One Person of Christ and that this One Person is the Eternal Word and Son of God Now if there be but One single Person in the Godhead and Father Son and Holy Ghost are but Three Names or Personal Characters of this One single Person How can the Son be Incarnate and not the Father nor the Holy Ghost It is only a Person that can be Incarnate for a Personal Character can't be Incarnate without the Person and if there be but One single Person and this same One Person is Father Son and Holy Ghost it is impossible that that Person who is the Son should be Incarnate but the Person who is the Father and the Holy Ghost must be Incarnate also because the same Person who is the Son is the Father and the Holy Ghost The short Question is this Whether a True Proper Divine Person was Incarnate in the Incarnation of Christ If not then Christ was not a Divine Person how Divine soever he might be upon other accounts the Divine Nature did not persâ—nally subsist in him he was not personally True and Perfect God and then the Person of Christ was no more than a Man whatever Divine Influences he might receive from God But if the Divine Nature were truly and properly Incarnate in the Person of Christ then if there be but One single Divine Person in the Godhead but One Divine Nature in the sense of One single Person then the whole Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost which are but One True and Proper Person was Incarnate in Christ. This is the true difficulty and he is so wise as to take no notice of it It does not appear to me that he believes one word concerning the Incarnation of God or of a True Divine Person he says He that is in Scripture called the Son of God did appear in the likeness of men He certainly was a True Man but that is not our present dispute Was he in his own Person True and Perfect God Was he a Human Person or the Person of the Son of God appearing in Human Nature He was he says in the Form of God before he took the Nature of Man upon him This sounds well but why does he not speak out and tell us what this Form of God is Whether the True Divine Nature subsisting in him a True Divine Person Well But God did suffer himself to be worshipped and adored in and by the Man Christ Iesus the least that can be inferred from which is That God was more immediately and peculiarly present in Christ than ever he was said to have been any where else as in the Heavens the Jewish Temple between the Cherubims in Prophets and Holy Men who spake as they were moved by the Spirit Now all this might have been spared would he but have said That the Person Iesus Christ was worshipped with Divine Honours as being in his own Person True and Perfect God as well as Man and without saying this he says nothing to prove that Christ is the Son of God Incarnate To say That God did suffer himself to be worshipped in and by the Man Christ Iesus as he was worshipped in the Heavens in the Jewish Temple between the Cherubims for that must be the force of the Comparison does no more prove Christ to be God than it proves the Heavens the Iewish Temple and the Cherubims to be God It may prove a more perfect symbolical Presence of God in Christ which he calls the Fulness
of the Godhead but not the Incarnation of the Son of God But this is not the Doctrine of Scripture merely to say That God suffers himself to be worshipped in the Man Christ Iesus as if God and the Man Christ Iesus were not One Person but that he commands us to worship that Person who is called Christ Jesus not as a Man in whom the Power of God dwells and is present as in the Heavens or in the Jewish Temple or in the Prophets and Holy Men who were never for this reason thought the Objects of Worship but as his own Eternal Son Incarnate That all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father which does not only signify to honour the Father in the Son but to pay Divine Honours to the Person of the Son which makes them distinct Objects of Worship and therefore True and Proper Persons not Personal Characters which may be distinct Reasons of Worship but are not distinct Objects But we shall better understand this by the account he gives of the Union of God and Man In what manner Soul and Body or God and Man are united is not the question for we know nothing how this Physical Union is made but the question is concerning the Nature and Kind of this Union Whether as the Soul and Body are united in One Person so as to be One Man so God and Man are united in One Person That as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is One Man so God and Man is One Christ. Whether the Divine and Human Natures are united in One Person or God be united to Man only as an assisting Principle by a perpetual and constant Influx of Divine Powers and Virtues These two are vastly different The first indeed always includes the second in the most perfect manner but the second does not always infer the first A Personal Union is always a Union of Life Influence and Power as he describes the Vnion of Soul and Body That there is some Intelligent Power that makes use of the Organs of my Body and acts in conjunction with the motions there produced This is all true and necessarily consequent upon a Personal Union but a very lame account of the Vital Union of Soul and Body for thus Angels may use the Bodies they assume without a Personal Union But a conscious Life Sensation and Government which makes One self is a great deal more than to act in conjunction with the Motions of the Body The Union of Influence and Power may be without Personal Union and therefore does not always make One Person It is the first we enquire after it is the first the Scripture teaches That the Word was made Flesh That God sent forth his Son made of a woman This is the Catholick Faith of the Incarnation but this the Considerer takes no notice of but all he says relates only to the Union of Influence and Power And I may says he as well consider God united to Man when he so acts by the Ministry and Operation of Man that the Actions of God seem conveyed to us the same way as the actions of one man are to another But does this make God True and Perfect Man This falls short of the conjunct Operations of Soul and Body which are much more close and intimate than the actions of one man are to another however to be sure the actions of one man upon another do not make Two such Men One Person nor therefore can the like Influence of God on Man make God and Man One Person But he proceeds Had those who upon some occasions spake by the Extraordinary Assistance of a Divine Power been constantly so directed and assisted how could they have distinguished the Motions of their Souls from the Impressions of God Just as they did when they were sometimes thus assisted for External Impressions are always distinguishable from Internal Motions But suppose they could not distinguish them does this prove that God is Incarnate in such men or would it be a reason to worship such men as God He adds And why then should we not think such an extraordinary Power as this as much united to such men as that common ordinary Power we call the Soul is to those Bodies in which it acts and exerts it self The Answer is plain because it would be an External not an Internal Principle of Life and Motion and Sensation how constant soever its Influences were He calls it an Extraordinary Power which shews that it is not a Natural Principle of Action it is an Extraordinary Power united to a Man and therefore the Man is the Person this Extraordinary Power only an external assisting Principle of the same kind with that in Prophets though more constant and regular in its actings But here is nothing of Incarnation in all this Is this Extraordinary Power a Divine Subsisting Person in the true and proper Notion of a Person Is it the Son of God that Eternal Word which was in the beginning was with God and was God Is this Extraordinary Power so united to Human Nature as to become Man Is it the Person of Christ Jesus who was conceived in the Womb of the Virgin lived in the World as a Man suffered and died and rose again from the dead and now sits at the Right Hand of God in the highest Heavens Not one word of all this which is the true Mystery and the only Use of this Doctrine of the Incarnation whereon all our Hopes of Salvation by Christ depend This Extraordinary Power is not a Person but such a constant regular Inspiration as he says some are of opinion the Soul of man is But whether that be so or not as he thinks mâ—st probably it is not which yet argues some kind of Inclination to it yet it seems to him plain from Scripture that such a Power as we ascribe to God he will not say such a Power as is God or a True Divine Person did as constantly and regularly act in and through Christ as the Human Soul is perceived to do in any other man That such a Power did constantly appear and act in Christ is true but whether by Nature or by a constant and regular Inspiration is the Question Our Saviour proves his Divine Nature from his Works our Considerer thinks it proves no more than a constant and regular Inspiration The first is necessary to the Catholick Faith of the Incarnation That the Word was made Flesh the second proves him only to be an extraordinary and perpetual Prophet The first makes him True God-Man the second makes him only a Divine Man And this is all he can mean by this Power regularly and constantly acting in and through Christ For if Christ be God-Man he is this Divine Power in his own Person it is his Divine Nature not an external adventitious Principle how regularly and constantly soever it acts it is not merely an uninterrupted Presence and Concurrence of the Deity with the Man Christ Jesus
as he represents it but the Personal Union of the Divine Nature of Christ to Human Nature He was not only as conscious of all the Divine Perfections in himself as a man is conscious of his own thoughts which yet by the way is absolutely impossible without being True and Perfect God in his own Person but he knew himself to be God the Eternal Son of God not the same Person with his Father but One with him Were a man thus regularly and constantly Inspired he would know that he was thus Inspired and he would also know that these Divine Perfections are not in himself not seated in his own Human Person nor under the Conduct of his own Will as his own Natural Powers are and therefore must know himself to be a mere Man still not God-Man So that this constant and regular Inspiration this uninterrupted Presence and Concurrence of the Deity which is all he allows in this matter cannot make any Person God-Man This Inspiration is not a subsisting Person is not the Person of the Son of God is not Incarnate by its Union to Man no more than it is Incarnate in other Prophets The Man is the Person and therefore a mere Creature still tho never so Divinely Inspired This is such an Incarnation as Socinians themselves own in as high expressions as the Considerer can invent Cerinthus owned something more That Christ who descended on Iesus at his Baptism was a Divine Person not a mere Inspiration and rested on him and was most intimately united to him till his Crucifixion That Sect of the Noetians and Sabellians who were called Patripassians for they do not seem by the accounts we have of them to have been all of that mind did acknowledge the Incarnation of God in a true and proper sense as the Catholick Church did the Incarnation of Christ But then their Trinity being but One proper single Divine Person distinguished by Three Names or Personal Characters which is the express Doctrine of the Considerer their whole Trinity was Incarnate suffered and died in the Incarnation and Sufferings of Christ the Father as well as the Son as it must of necessity be if there be but One Divine Person who is Father Son and Holy Ghost and if this One Person is in a true and proper sense Incarnate But this the Catholick Church abhorred and condemned under the name of the Patripassian Heresy Others of them were Sabellians in the Doctrine of the Trinity but Photinians or Samosatenians that is Socinians as to the Doctrine of the Incarnation as Athanasius often intimates And if I understand him this is the Considerer's way who believes a Trinity in One single Person and an Inspired Man for a God Incarnate And thus we have lost the Trinity and Incarnation and must part with every thing which is peculiar and essential to Christianity with them And now one would wonder after all this what he has to say more about the Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation and yet this is his next Enquiry What the Scriptures necessarily oblige us to believe in this Point that is concerning the Trinity and Incarnation Though he has been careful all along never to use this term Incarnation as being sensible that all he said about God-Man would not reach the Catholick Notion of Incarnation When I met with this Enquiry I was in hope that there was something behind to unsay all that he had hitherto said for if what he has already said be true it is certain the Scripture requires us to believe nothing about them But upon Examination I found that the Question was fallaciously stated and the true meaning of it was What the Scriptures oblige us to believe instead of what has hitherto passed for the true Catholick Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation I shall not dispute this Point with him now to shew what he means will be Confutation enough We must not he says look upon the Doctrine of the Trinity as a nice abstracted Speculation designed for the exercise of our Vnderstandings but as a plainer Revelation of God's Love and Good Will towards men and a greater Motive and Incitement to Piety than ever we had before this Doctrine was delivered This we grant That the Christian Faith is not designed merely for Speculation but for Practice but yet all the Doctrines of Faith are matters of Speculation and the Doctrine it self must be believed in order to Practice or else the Revelation of it is of no use at all The Question then is Whether we must not believe the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation Or how much we must believe of them Must we not believe That God has in a true and proper sense an Eternal and Only-begotten Son begotten from Eternity of his own Substance his True Perfect Living Subsisting Image Must we not believe That this Eternal Son of God did in a true proper Notion become Man by uniting Human Nature to his own Person and that in Human Nature he suffered and died for the Redemption of Mankind Truly No if I understand him All this is a nice abstracted Speculation and a very perplexing exercise of our Vnderstandings and we are bound to understand no more by God's giving his own Son to dye for us but his Love and Gâ—od Will to Mankind as it is a great Motive and Excitement to Piety But how can we learn God's Love and Good Will to Mankind from this Doctrine if it be not true if God have no Eternal Son and therefore did not give his Eternal Son to become Man and to suffer and dye for us The Gospel proves the great Love of God to Sinners by the Incarnation Death and Sufferings of his Son that if we do not believe this Doctrine strictly and literally true we lose the Gospel Proof of God's Love to Sinners and of the Virtue and Efficacy of Christ's Death and Sacrifice to expiate our sins and of the Power of his Intercession as the Eternal Only-begotten and Well-beloved Son of God But our Considerer will not allow this These Titles and Relations must be chiefly câ—nsidered with reference to the great Work of Man's Salvation But must they not be considered as Three distinct proper Persons in the Unity of the Godhead who have their distinct Parts and Offices in the Redemption of Mankind No but distinct Relations and Offices of One and the same single Divine Person who is the One Supreme God and is All in One Father Son and Holy Ghâ—st Saviour Mediator Comforter But how then can these Titles and Relations signify an Eternal Distinction in the Godhead an Eternal Fâ—tâ—â—r an Eternal Son and an Eâ—ernal Spirit when thâ—se Offices relating only to Man's Salvation were not Eternal This he resolves into the Eternal Purpose and Decree of God to redeem Mankind by the Death and constant Mediation of a Man chosen and enabled for this work by the Fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him And in consideration of
distinct Persons for if they be Two Persons then the Son is as True and Real a Person as the Father is This I have already taken notice of and need not now repeat it only I cannot but observe what Athanasius tells us of these Hereticks That when they were convinced by the plain Evidence of Scripture that God the Father and Christ who called himself the Son of God were Two Persons they then took Courage and owned Christ to be a Person but not a Divine Person as the Eternal Word of God but only a Human Person as he was Man But Athanasius tells them That this was neither better nor worse than the Heresy of Paulus Samosatenus or what we now call Socinianism to make Christ a mere Man for he can be no more if the Divine Word which St. Iohn tells us was Incarnate be not the Person If the Word Incarnate be the Person then Christ is God-Man if the Man be the Person he can be no more than a Man This Athanasius confutes at large and proves That what Christ says of himself cannot belong to a mere Man But that which I would observe is this That both these Hereticks who denied the Divine Word to be a Person and Athanasius and the other Catholick Fathers who affirmed him to be a Person agreed very well in the Notion of a Person viz. That a Person is a distinct intelligent Being who does really and actually subsist and subsists distinctly from all other intelligent Beings That the Divine Word in the Godhead is such a Person as a Man is in Human Nature Such a Person these Hereticks would allow Christ to be considered as a Man and such a Person Athanasius affirms Christ to be considered as God or the Divine Word for otherwise they wrangle about words and do not oppose each other The Fathers proved That Christ was a Person and a distinct Person from the Father by those Texts which represent him as speaking to and of his Father and which attribute many Personal Acts to him The Sabellians could not deny but that these were Personal Acts and did prove Christ to be a real subsisting Person but then would not allow the Word to be the Person but only the Man Christ Jesus to be the Person The Fathers on the other hand allow their Notion of a Person which is the only true intelligible Notion but prove That the Divine Word which was Incarnate not merely the Man Christ Jesus was this Person and therefore that this Divine Word is a real substantial subsisting Word not like the Word of a man which is a transient Act but has no subsistence of its own The Sabellians would have allowed a Trinity of Persons in any other Notion of a Person than as a Person signifies a real subsisting intelligent Being but the Catholick Fathers would own no other Notion of Person but this and taught that there were Three Persons in the Trinity in the same sense in which the Sabellians denied there were Three Persons Three such Persons as they affirmed there was but One that the Son and Holy Ghost were Divine Persons in the same sense that the Sabellians owned the Father to be a Person that is Three such Persons as they called Three Gods The reason of this I 'm sure is not to be answered That if the Catholick Fathers understood what they did when they opposed the Sabellians who made the Divine Word only to be the Word of a Divine Person but not a Divine Person himself they must assert the Divine Word in a strict and proper sense to be a Divine Person and not merely the transient Word of a Person which has no subsistence which is a more sensible Argument than all the Criticisms about Persona and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet they express themselves so fully and clearly in this matter that there is no need of guâ—ssing at their meaning Tertullian reduces this Dispute to this one single Question which is the true state of it whether the Son and Word of God considered as distinct from God the Father be a Substance and has a Subsistence of his own Which he expresly affirms and offers his reasons for the Proof of it This he tells us is necessary to make the Word a real Being and Person Res Persona that he have a real Substance and a Substance of his own proper to himself per Substantioe proprietatem without which he cannot be Second to God nor the Father and the Son God and his Word be Two Now for the Son and the Word to be a substantial Being per proprietatem Substantioe by a Substance proper to himself as distinguished from God the Father must signify That the Personal Substance of the Son is not the same but a distinct Substance from the Personal Substance of God the Father so distinct that the Father and Son are Two Persons in the same sense and notion that the Father is One Person In answer to their Objection That the Word of God was but like the Word of a Man which was nothing else but a Voice and Sound a Vibration of the Air which conveyed some Notions to the Mind but was it self Emptiness and Nothing without any Substance of its own he answers That God himself is the most real and perfect Substance and therefore whatever proceeds from or is begotten of his Substance must be a real substantial Being much less can the Son and Word who gave Being to all other Substances be an insubstantial Nothing himself For tho there may be equivocal Causes which may produce things of a different nature from themselves yet nothing can produce nothing He argues farther That this Word is called the Son of God and God The Word was with God and the Word was God And that Word which is the Son of God and himself God can't be an insubstantial Nothing unless God himself be Nothing If God begets a Son he must be a substantial Person as all Creature-Sons are much more the Son of God And such a Son who is himself God must have all the Reality and Perfections which belong to the Notion of God But he argues farther from what St. Paul tells us That he was in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God In Effigie in the Image of God Now says he in what Image of God was he Certainly in another but not in none The meaning of which is That every Person as a Person has his own Personal Image but thus he was not the Personal Image of the Father because he was not the same Person with the Father but yet if he was the Image of God he must be his True Substantial though not his Personal Image the true living Image of his Father's Person but not his Person He seems indeed in what follows to have entertained too gross and corporeal imaginations of the Substance and Image of God but this was his own Mistake and
ask for or to conceive what is the Place of God of the Word or of the Holy Spirit And if a man will deny that the Son is or was begotten because he cannot conceive nor find out the place of his Essence or Substance for the same reason he may deny that there is a Father or that there is a God So that Athanasius acknowledges the Son to be as true and substantial a Son as the Father is a substantial Father and that he does as perfectly and compleatly subsist by himself as the Father does but denies that it hence follows as the Sabellians objected That the Son if he be a distinct substantial Person himself must be divided and parted from the Substance of his Father and that if he subsist distinctly by himself he must subsist in a separate place from his Father that this distinction of Persons and Subsistence cannot be conceived without a Local Separation For he tells them All these Mistakes are owing to Corporeal Imaginations that they conceive of God after the manner of Bodies that because Body cannot generate another without parting and dividing of Substance nor subsist without being in some place nor subsist distinctly without being in distinct and separate places therefore if God beget a Son and this Son subsist distinctly by himself this Son must go out of the Divine Substance and be locally separated from God the Father as a human Son is from his Father whereas the Divine Nature and Substance cannot be divided nor does God subsist in a place and therefore the Son may be substantially begotten of the Father and subsist distinctly by himself without any division of the Divine Substance or separation of place Let us now proceed to a Third sort of these Hereticks who did allow a real and substantial difference between Father Son and Holy Ghost but made God a compound Being but one Person as well as one God and that Father Son and Holy Ghost were the Three Parts of this One God This St. Austin calls Triformis Deus and tells us That these Hereticks did not allow the Father to be Perfect in himself nor the Son Perfect in himself nor the Holy Ghost Perfect in himself that neither of these considered by themselves were Perfect God but that all Three together made one Compleat and Perfect God This all the Catholick Fathers unanimously reject and for the same reasons because there can be no composition in the pure and simple Nature of God and it was the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church That each Person is by himself True and Perfect God not an incompleat Part of the Deity Thus Athanasius warns us against this Heresy which conceives the Trinity like Three Bodily Parts inseparably united to each other which he says is an ungodly reasoning contrary to the Nature of Perfect Unbodied Beings and therefore attributes the Perfection of the Godhead to each Person who are a real Trinity inseparably united in the same Form and Nature That the Father is Perfect Essence and Being without any defect the Root and Fountain of the Son and Spirit That the Son in the Fulness of the Deity is the Living Word and Perfect Offspring of the Father That the Spirit is the Fulness of the Son not Part of another Being but Whole and Entire in himself That we must conceive them inseparably united to each other but yet Three real subsisting Persons in the same Form and Species which is originally in the Father shines in the Son and is manifested by the Holy Spirit And therefore he adds That he did not compound the Trinity nor force it into a Monad or Unit that is One single Person to preserve the Unity of the Godhead nor conceive of God as of a Man who is compounded of Three Parts Spirit Soul and Body for such a composition cannot belong to a simple Nature This is the constant language of the ancient Writers That the Divine Nature is not compounded of Parts nor is God a compound Being that each Person in the Trinity is a complete and perfect Person and Three complete and perfect Persons cannot be One by Composition as Three incomplete Parts are that each Person by himself is perfect God and perfect Essence though when we unite them and number Three we acknowledge but One perfect God for the Deity is not compounded but in Three each of which is complete and perfect there is One perfect Being without Composition and without Parts that is the same One Divine Nature subsisting distinctly not by Parts or Composition but Whole and Entire in Three Let us now then consider the true state of the Question between these Sabellians and the Catholick Fathers These Hereticks owned at last Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Three distinct Substances but not Three substantial Wholes but Three substantial Parts which by their Union and Composition made up One whole intire God The Catholick Fathers join with them so far as to own these Divine Persons to be Three substantial subsisting Persons but reject their Notion of a compounded God or Three Parts of the Deity with the utmost abhorrence and affirm that each Person is by himself entire and perfect God perfect and complete Divine Essence or Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Damascen speaks and that they are not One God by Composition or as One Person is One God but as Three complete and perfect Persons each of which is perfect God can be One God Now I think after this we need not dispute what the Metaphysical Notions of Person and Personality are for a Person in this Sacred Mystery signifies One who is true and perfect God and therefore is whatever God is for the true and perfect definition of God must belong to every Person who is true and perfect God If then we acknowledge God to be Infinite Substance Mind Life Knowledge Power every Person who is God must be all this and if each Person be true and perfect God and yet no One Person is the other nor the Motion Affection or personal Power nor part of the other then each Person is distinctly and by himself complete and perfect God and therefore has distinctly in himself all those Attributes and Perfections which belong to the perfect Notion and Idea of God and to make any Person less than what God is is to make him no God But Athanasius has another Argument against the Sabellian compounded Deity which must put all Compositions of the Deity for ever out of countenance The Scripture assures us that God sends his Son and that the Son sends the Holy Ghost whereas were the Father Son and Holy Ghost Three inseparable Parts of one compounded Deity how could this One God Father Son and Holy Ghost send part of himself and one part of the same One God send another To send and to be sent necessarily supposes Persons really and substantially distinct such as can give and receive and execute Commands who
Persons but attribute true and perfect Divinity only to the Father and make the Son a Creature though the most excellent Creature made before the World and as like to God as any Creature can be and the Minister of God in making the World This Heresy was condemned by the first general Council assembled at Nice and if we would understand the Nicene Creed we must expound it in opposition to the Arian Heresy without running into the other Extreme of Sabellianism And therefore when we are taught to believe in One Lord Iesus Christ the Only begotten Son of God begotten of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light Very God of very God begotten not made being of One Substance with the Father by whom all things were made Wemust understand a Son who is a distinct Person from his Father as the Arians allowed him to be but not a made or created Son as they taught but a Son by Nature begotten of his Father's substance and that not in Time but from all Eternity and therefore not a Creature but God by Nature true and perfect God as God of God begotten of God and therefore of One Substance with the Father not in the Sabellian sense as One Substance is One Person but as One Substance signifies the same Nature in opposition to the Arians who made him not only a distinct Person but of a different Nature like his Father but not the same not of the substance of his Father but a new created Substance made out of nothing as all other Creatures are The opposition of this Creed to the Arian Heresy is certainly the best way of expounding it and then we find nothing in it but the true ancient Catholick Faith of the real distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence But the present Inquiry is What is the true Notion of the Homousion or One Substance of Father and Son and besides that positive account the Fathers give us of it we may learn this from those false Glosses and Interpretations which they reject and those Rules they give for the expounding these words SECT I. The true Sense of the Homoousion from those Misrepresentations which were made of it and the Answers which were given by the Nicene Fathers to such Objections 1. FIrst then Let us consider what Misrepresentations were made of this disputed word Consubstantial by the Enemies of the Catholick Faith and what Answers the Fathers gave to such Objections St. Hilary mentions three in the beginning of his 4 th Book of the Trinity and I shall consider them in the Order in which he sets them down 1. The first is that this word Homoousion or Consubstantial is no better than Sabellianism that it makes the Father and the Son to be but One by One singular Substance which being Infinite extended it self into the Virgin 's Womb and taking a Body of her in that Body took the Name of Son and thus they say some former Bishops understood it and is therefore to be rejected as Heretical which as he adds is the first misrepresentation of the Homoousion Thus he observes in his Book de Synodis that the Fathers in the Council of Antioch which condemned Paulus Samosatenus did also reject the Homoousion because Paulus thereby understood the singularity of the Divine Nature and Substance which destroys the real personal distinction between Father and Son and adds that the Church though it retained the word Homoousion still rejects that sense of it as profane The Learned Dr. Bull notwithstanding St. Hilary's Authority can't believe that either Paulus or Sabellius did upon choice own the Homoousion but only put a forced and unnatural sense of it to favour their Heresies and seems to have very good reason on his side but that is not the present question How perversly soever Hereticks understood this word the Nicene Fathers rejected this sense as profane and heretical Now if One Substance does not signify One singular Substance in the Sabellian Notion of it which leaves only a Trinity of Names or Modes instead of a Trinity of Persons then Three consubstantial Persons must signisy Three substantial Persons who have the same Nature and Essence but not the same singular Substance And St. Basil tells us that this is the proper acceptation of the word Homoousion which is directly opposed to the Sabellian as well as to the Arian Heresy as it destroys the Identity of Hypostasis and gives us a complete and perfect Notion of distinct Persons for the same thing is not consubstantial to it self but to another that there must be another and another to make two that are consubstantial Another Objection against the Homoousion was this That to be consubstantial or of One Substance signifies the communion of Two in some other thing which is in order of Nature before them both as if there were some prior Substance or Matter of which they both did partake so as to have the whole Substance between them which makes them consubstantial or of one Substance both partaking of the same Being Nature or Substance which was before them both and therefore they rejected the Homoousion because it did not preserve the relation between the Son and the Father and made the Father later than that Substance or Matter which is common to him with the Son This also St. Hilary tells us the Church rejects and abominates for nothing can so much as in thought be before the Substance of the Father and the relation between Father and Son signifies to beget and to be begotten not to be both made of the same Substance A third Reason they assigned against this word Homoousion was this That to be Consubstantial or of One Substance in the strict and proper acceptation of these words signifies that the generation of the Son is by the division of the Father's Substance as if he were cut out of him and One Substance divided into Two Persons and so Father and Son are of One Substance as a part cut out of the whole is of the same nature with that from whence it is taken This was objected against the Homoousion in the time of the Nicene Council while this word was under debate which Socrates gives a more particular account of The reason those Bishops who refused to subscribe to the Nicene Faith gave against the Homoousion was this That that only can be said to be Consubstantial which is of another either by division or by efflux and emanation or by prolation or eruption by eruption as the branches sprout out of the root by efflux according to the manner of human generations by division as the same mass of Gold may be divided into two or three golden Cups but the Son is of the Father neither of these ways and therefore they rejected this Faith and ridiculed the Homoousion For this very reason Eusebius of Caesarea was for some time in suspense about the
begotten of his Fathers Substance the Son of God who in his own proper Person is true and perfect God not a part of God but all that God is not One God as One Person with the Father but as having the true Divine Nature distinctly in his own Person This is a Demonstration that the Nicene Consubstantiality is the Consubstantiality of Two real substantial Persons who have the same Nature distinctly subsisting in each of them 2 Another Rule for expounding the Homoousion is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are equipollent terms that to be of one Substance and to be in all things alike to each other signify the same thing I know the Fathers condemned the Arian Homoiousion for they asserted That the Son was like the Father in opposition to his being of the same Nature with the Father and therefore this was an imperfect likeness and resemblance or indeed no likeness at all for a created and uncreated Nature are at such an infinite distance as to have no true and real likeness to each other to be sure not such a likeness as there must be between a Son and a Father Nay sometimes they would not allow that likeness can be properly applied to two individual Natures of the same species as to two individual human Natures which are not like to each other but are the same But yet whether it was proper or improper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be upon all accounts and every way perfectly alike was allowed to be very Orthodox and therefore St. Hilary in his Book de Synodis approves several Oriental Creeds as very Orthodox though they left out the Homoousion because they in the most express terms confessed the perfect likeness and similitude of Nature between Father and Son which they guarded with the utmost Caution against the perverse Interpretations both of the Sabellian and Arian Hereticks And he disputes at large That perfect similitude is a sameness and equality of Nature and calls God to witness that before he ever heard of those words Homoousion and Homoiousion he always thought that what is signified by both these words is the same that perfect likeness of Nature is the sameness of Nature for nothing can be perfectly alike which has not the same Nature And this he says he learnt from the Evangelists and Apostles before ever he heard of the Nicene Faith which he had not heard of till a little before he was banished for that Faith This observation is of great use as St. Hilary notes to confute Sabellianism and to fix the true sense of the Homoousion for if to be Consubstantial or of one Nature signifies a perfect likeness similitude and equality of Nature Consubstantiality must at least signify Two who are thus consubstantial as likeness similitude and equality does and these Two must have One and the same Nature not in the sense of Singularity and Sabellian Unity but of likeness and similitude that Father and Son are One Substance not as One Person is One with himself but as Two Persons are One by a perfect likeness and similitude of Nature which must be the true meaning of Consubstantial if Consubstantiality and likeness of Nature be the same 3. I observe farther That the Catholick Fathers did not make the Homoousion the Rule of Faith that whatever sense some critical Wits can put on it must therefore be owned for the Catholick Faith but they chose it as the most comprehensive word to comprize the true Catholick Faith and to detect the Frauds of Hereticks They taught no new Faith by this word but what the Catholick Church had always taught but secured the Faith by it against the shifts and evasions of Hâ—reticks This is the defence they made to the Arian Objection That it was an unscriptural word they confessed the word Homoousios was not to be found in Scripture but the Faith expressed by that word was Thus St. Austin answers Pascentius and tells us That Christ himself has taught us the Homoousion where he says I am in the Father and the Father in me and I and my Father are One and expounds this of the Unity Dignity and Equality of Nature And adds That it is not the word but the thing signified by that word which is so terrible to Hereticks and if they would dispute to purpose they must not reject the word but the doctrine it contains And thus Laurentius who presided in that Dispute gives judgment in this Controversy That the Homoousion was not the Name of the Christian Faith but signified the Equality of the Trinity and that though this word be not in Scripture yet the thing signified by it is true and we must believe honourably of the Unity lest we injure the Trinity We may find enough to this purpose in Athanasius De Decret Syn. Nic. and elsewhere of which more presently And therefore St. Hilary in his Book de Synodis which he wrote to some Catholick Bishops who were very Orthodox in the Faith and yet doubted of this word Homoousion tells them That they are to consider what the Synod intended by that word and not reject the word unless they rejected the Faith taught by it and would profess those Arian Doctrines which the Council condemned in it This is the constant language of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers when the Dispute is concerning the use of this word which gives us this certain Rule for expounding the Homoousion that we must understand it in no other sense than what the Nicene Fathers intended by it for if we do we may acknowledge the Homoousion and yet deny the Nicene Faith What they taught by this word that we must own and what they rejected by it we must reject And though we may fancy that this word signifies more than what the Nicene Fathers understood by it as we have heard what perverse Senses the Hereticks fixt on it yet it being not a Scriptural but an Ecclesiastical word it must be expounded to that Sense and no other which placed it in the Creed SECT III What the Nicene Fathers meant by the Homoousion AND this brings me to a more particular Account of the Homoousion and what the Nicene Fathers understood by it Eusebius Pamphili who at first doubted about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christ was of the substance of the Father and consubstantial or of One Substance with him gives an account to his Coesareans of the Reasons which moved him afterwards to subscribe to that Form of Faith as appears by his Letter to them recorded in Socrates his Ecclesiastical History He tells them That he did not admit these words without due examination but when he found there was nothing meant by them but what was truly Catholick and Orthodox he complied for Peace sake For by the Son 's being of his Father's Substance they meant no more than
the number of Creatures and deny him to be a Creature 5. When they ascribe such things to the Son as are proper and peculiar only to the True God 6. When they affirm the Son of God not only to be God but expresly own him to be true God God by Nature and One God with the Father This is the true Notion of the Homoousion and now let any man judge Whether a Consubstantial Trinity be a Trinity of Personal Characters Relations or Names or of Real Substantial Subsisting Persons If we will allow either the Nicene Fathers or the Arian Bishops to be well in their wits can we think that there would have been any such Disputes between them as whether the Son be Coeternal with the Father or had a Beginning whether there were any time the least conceivable moment before the Son was whether he was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 created out of nothing as all other Creatures are or begotten of the Substance of the Father and is the true genuine natural Son of God or a Son only by Adoption whether he be true perfect God in opposition to the most perfect created Nature or be only a made and Creature-God whether he be Consubstantial with the Father or have only a Nature like the Fathers but not the same and whether he be like his Father in all things in Substance and Essence or only in Will and Affection I say Could any men in their wits dispute such matters as these unless both sides were agreed that the Son is a Real Substantial Son as human Sons are who are begotten of the Substance of their Parents that he has a Subsistence of his own distinct from his Father's Subsistence that he has a Substance of his own eternally begotten of his Father's Substance and therefore the same but proper and peculiar to his own Person which makes him the Son and not the Father For till these things are agreed there is no foundation for the other Disputes for if the Son have no real Subsistence of his own who would dispute whether he began to subsist in time or did subsist from all Eternity If he have no Substance of his own is it not ludicrous to dispute whether he be of the Father that is have his Substance of his Father's Substance or be a new created Substance as like his Father's Substance as a created Substance can be but not the same For if he have no distinct Substance of his own neither of these can be true To what purpose is it to dispute whether he be a begotten or created God if he be not as true and perfect a Person and as true and perfect God upon the Catholick Hypothesis in his own Person as the Father himself is In short to conclude this Argument If the Homoousion signifies that the Son of God who is Consubstantial to his Father is no Creature was not made out of Nothing had no Beginning of Being is of his Father's Substance begotten of his Substance from all Eternity a true and perfect Son of a true and perfect Father and upon all accounts the very same that the Father is excepting that he is the Son and not the Father it is impossible the Nicene Fathers should have been either Sabellians or Modalists SECT IV. A more particular Inquiry into the full Signification of the Homoousion with respect to the Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature THAT the Nicene Fathers did by the Homoousion or One Substance of the Godhead understand something like what we call a Specifick Sameness and Vnity of Nature might be proved by numerous Quotations had it not been sufficiently done already by Petavius Curcelloeus Dr. Cudworth and others whoever will be pleased to read the Testimonies they produce in this Cause will never be able to make any other tolerable Sense of them They apply this word Homoousion to things which are specifically One or which have the same Specifick Nature as a Tree and its Branches a Fountain and River as they call God the Father the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Root and Fountain of the Son and Holy Spirit the Sun and its Rays and Splendor as Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the brightness and refulgency of his Father's Glory They prove that Christ has the same Nature with his Father because all true natural genuine Sons have so and therefore if he be as truly and properly the Son of God as Isaac was the son of Abraham he must be Consubstantial to God the Father as Isaac was to Abraham which we know is a Specifick Vnity of Nature And the Council of Chalcedon expresly affirms That Christ is Consubstantial to his Father as to his Godhead or Divine Nature and Consubstantial to us as to his Manhood or Human Nature and if the Homoousion signifies the same or something analogous in both we know what this sameness of Nature means for it is impossible to reconcile this to one singular Nature and Unity Christ is not Consubstantial to us upon account of the same singular human Nature in him and in all Mankind for every Man has a particular human Nature of his own and so had Christ but the Nature is specifically the same in Christ and in us that is it is a true human Nature and this makes Christ and us Consubstantial And if there be any thing like this though in a more perfect degree in the Consubstantiality of Father and Son it must signify not one singular Nature which cannot be said to be Consubstantial to it self but the Consubstantiality of Two Persons really and substantially distinct but united in the same common Nature or the same Divinity And therefore nothing is more common than to render the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unius generis and by such like words as every one knows signify a Specifick Vnity That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One Divinity and One Divine Essence is a common Nature the same in all Three Persons communicated by the Father to the Son and by Father and Son to the Holy Spirit is so universally acknowledged that it needs no proof the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently occur in the writings of the Nicene Fathers which signify the One Divinity to be a common Nature to the Three Divine Persons This is the very account St. Basil gives of the difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence and Person that Essence signifies a common Nature which is in more than One and may be spoken of more than One as a species is predicated of its Individuals Man is a common Name for all Men because Humanity is a common Nature which is alike in Peter and Iohn and Iames and all the Men in the World But Hypostasis or Person though it signifies the Nature also yet not in that general Notion as common to all of the same
it signified two made of the same Substance by the division and partition of it as two Shillings cut out of the same piece of Silver besides all other Blasphemies the same Father tells us That this destroys the Faith both of Father and Son for in this Sense to be of one Substance can make them no more than Brothers And I need not observe that all the Fathers prove the Son to be Consubstantial to the Father because he was not made nor created but begotten of his Father's Substance which does not refer merely to a specifick Sameness of Nature but to the substantial Communication of the same Nature from Father to Son which is therefore not in meer Notion and Idea but substantially the same in both for they would not allow that a mere specifick Sameness of Nature made Two Persons Consubstantial unless one of them received his Nature and Substance from the other And this seems no improbable account why the Nicene Fathers in their Anathema's added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they teach that the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Substance of his Father in opposition to his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of nothing they must by the Substance of the Father mean that Divine Nature and Substance which is the Person of the Father for there is no other Notion of begetting a Son of his Father's Substance nor is any other sense of the words directly and immediately opposed to his being made of nothing But then since Ousia does often signify a specifick Nature which the Philosophers call a second Substance to prevent this mistake they added Hypostasis which signifies a first Substance or a subsisting Nature and condemn those who say the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of another Nature specifically different from the Nature of the Father as the Arians taught or that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of any other Substance than that which is the Substance of the Father and consequently not begotten of the Father for both these are essential to the Notion of the Homoousion to have the same Nature for kind or the true perfect Divine Nature and to receive this Nature from the Father by a substantial Generation and the Council condemns those who deny both or either of these I must add one thing more to make this Notion complete that as the Son is begotten of the Substance of the Father so he receives his whole Substance from the whole Substance of the Father This is the constant Doctrine of the Fathers That the Son is Totus ex Toto Whole of Whole That the Divine Generation is not like Human Generations by corporeal Passions by a division of the Father's Substance by a partial efflux or emanation but the Father without any division diminution or alteration of his own Substance communicates his whole Divine Nature to the Son That the Son is perfectly and entirely all and the same that the Father is Thus they expound those sayings of our Saviour All that the Father hath is mine All things are delivered unto me of my Father As the Father hath life in himself so hath he given to the Son also to have life in himself Not to signify an external arbitrary Gift and Donation but the Eternal Communication of his whole Divine Nature to the Son that he is Life of Lâ—fe Light of Light God of God Very God of Very God For this Reason the Arians rejected the Homoousion because they thought it absolutely impossible that the Father should beget a Son of his own Substance without a division of his Substance that he should communicate the whole Dâ—vine Nature to his Son and have the same whole Divine Nature himself And the Fathers allow that this is above Human Comprehension as the Divine Nature it self is but think those men little consider the true measure of Human Understanding who will not believe that God has a Son because they cannot comprehend the inessable Mystery of the Eternal Generation The Scripture assures us that God has a Son that Eternal Word which was in the Beginning was with God and was God The very Notion of a Son signifies that he has the same Nature with his Father and receives his Being and Nature from his Father is Substance of his Father's Substance for thus all other Sons receive their nature and substance from their Parents The absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature whiâ—h has no Corporeity no Composition no Parts and therefore can be divided into none proves that the Divine Generation can have nothing like to Human Generations no more than God is like a man and therefore must be as much above Human Comprehension as the Divine Nature is We certainly know what it is not That it is not by any separation or division of Substance for the Divine Nature is a pure simple indivisible Monade but how this Monade can communicate it self we cannot tell But this we know That if a Monade does generate it must generate a perfect whole for when the whole is a simple indivisible uncompounded Monade it must generate its whole or nothing Thus much is evident That to communicate a whole perfect undivided Nature and Substance is the most perfect Generation He is the most perfect Father who communicates his whole Substance to his Son without division or separation who without ceasing to be what he was himself begets a Son wholly and perfectly the same with himself For the more perfectly One Father and Son are the more perfect is the Generation and they cannot be more One than to be One and the same Substance communicated whole and entire from Father to Son There is nothing like this in human Births for the imperfection of created Nature will not admit it the Father communicates the first Seeds and Principles of Life with part of his Substance but the Child is nourished grows and encreases to its just proportion by adventitious matter which never was the Substance of the Father and therefore Father and Son are not One Substance though the Father communicates the same specifick Nature with part of his Substance to his Son Now though we cannot conceive how a whole begets a whole yet we must grant that this is the most perfect Generation for to generate is to communicate Nature and Substance to beget 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another self as the Ancients speak of the Divine Generation and then the more perfectly the Son is the Father's self the more perfect the Generation is and therefore thus God must beget a Son if he begets at all for he must beget in the most perfect manner And thus the Son must be begotten if he be begotten at all for if he be a Son he must be of his Father's Substance and that not a part but the whole for the Divine Substance must be a perfect indivisible Inseparable Monade This Eternal Generation of the Son is
a great and unconceivable Mystery and has always been owned to be so by the Catholick Church we have no Notion or Idea of it but no more have we of the Eternal Existence of the Divine Nature it self without any Cause or Beginning or of the Creation of all things out of nothing or of the Natural Production and Propagation of Created Beings our present Inquiry is not concerning the Mystery of the Eternal Generation but concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature in Father and Son in what sense they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance and that the Eternal Generation gives an account of For if the Father communicate his whole Nature and Substance to the Son without division and separation which is the Catholick Faith the Son must of necessity have the same one Substance with the Father for a whole same of a whole same cannot be another and therefore must be the same One Substance whole of whole St. Athanasius reasons very subtilly against the Arians upon this Point They taught that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made of nothing as other Creatures are Then says he he must be the Son of God by participation what is it then he partakes of Other Creatures are the Sons of God by the participation of the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit is given by the Son not the Son as the Eternal Son of God sanctified by the Spirit for the Spirit receives all from Father and Son not the Son from the Spirit He must then partake of the Father But what is that and whence is it If that he partakes of be something Extra-essential to the Father which is not the Father's Nature and Essence then he does not partake of the Father but of that Extra-essential Being whatever it is and then he is not second to the Father that whereof he partakes being before him nor is he the Son of the Father but of that Extra-essential Being or Nature by the participation of which he obtains the Title and Character of Son and God But this is very absurd since the Father calls him his Beloved Son and the Son calls God his own Father and therefore is not a Son by Extra-essential Participations but Son is the name of him who participates in the Nature and Substance of the Father But then again If that which is participated of the Father be not the Nature and Essence of the Son the same Absurdity returns there being some middle Term between these two To be of the Father and the Nature of the Son whatever that Nature be which proves that the Nature of the Son is not of the Father and therefore he is not the Son of the Father for Nature makes a Son All this being so absurd it is necessary to own That the true genuine Son of God is all that He is of the Essence and Substance of the Father For when God is thus wholly and perfectly participated it is the same thing as to say that God begets and to beget signifies that he begets a Son And therefore though all things by the Grace of God partake of the Son he will not allow us to say That the Son partakes of any thing which implies that the Son is one thing and that which he partakes of is another But that which is the participation of the Father that is the Son This is the most Natural and Essential Unity that is possible to be conceived That the whole Son is nothing else but the whole entire immediate participation of the Father's Substance and therefore must be as perfectly One with the Father as the Father is One for there is but one and the same Substance which is the Substance of the Father and by an Eternal and Ineffable Generation the Substance also of the Son Though Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Real distinct Persons and each of them have the whole entire Divine Nature in himself yet there is but One Divine Nature One Divinity in them all and therefore they are but One God This is the Account St. Hilary gives why we may say God is One and One and One but not Three Gods Because the Divine Nature is not multiplied with the Persons Thus speaking of the Father and Son he tells us That the Son is One of One and therefore they are both One For between One and One that is One of One there is no Sâ—cond Nature of the Eternal Divinity For as he adds elsewhere The Nature of the Father is born in the Nativity of the Son and for this Reason the Father and Son are One God because the Son is God of the Nature of God But their being thus One does not destroy the subsisting Nature of the Son but in God and God preserves the Nature of One God And therefore the true absolute and perfect Profession of our Faith is To confess God of God and God in God not after the manner of Bodies but by Divine Powers not by transfusion of Nature into Nature but by the Mystery and Power of the Divine Nature For God is of God not by dissection protension or derivation but by the Power of the Divine Nature subsists by his Birth in the same Nature Not so the same Nature that he who is born is he himself who begets for how is that possible since he is begotten but he who is begotten subsists in the same whole entire Nature which is his whole entire Nature who begets And this Perfect Unity Sameness Identity of Nature he resolves into the Mystery of the Divine Generation Virtute Naturoe Mysterio potestate Naturoe for since he is not begotten of any other Substance or Nature but of his Father's Substance and that not after the manner of Bodies by dissection protension or derivation but by the Mysterious Power of the Divinity which communicates it self whole and perfect there must be the same One Divinity in both And he appeals to every man's Understanding what the natural Interpretation of these words are That the Son is of the Father for can of the Father signify that he is of any other than the Father or that he is of nothing or that he is the Father himself He is not of another because he is of the Father for a Son cannot be God if he have any other Father but God and therefore is God of God He cannot be of nothing because he is of the Father and whoever is begotten must be begotten of the Nature of him who begets He is not the Father himself because he is of the Father and the Birth of the Son speaks a necessary relation to the Father Now a Son who is so of the substance of the Father as to be nothing but what he is from the Father and to be all that the Father is whole of whole must have the same One Nature Substance and Divinity with the Father for whole of whole must be the
be Three Gods but when there is but One Eternal Father though he have an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit there can be but One God Now what is the meaning of this Is it because none is or can be God True and Perfect God but he who is God of himself Self-originated and Unbegotten This would destroy the Perfect Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and answer the Objection of Tritheism by denying the Trinity And it is certain this could not be their meaning because they owned the Sameness and Equality of Nature of Majesty and Glory of Wisdom and Power in Father Son and Holy Ghost only allowed the Prerogative of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the name and relation of Father And when the Arians woul◠prove the diversity of Nature between Father and Son by this Argument That the Father is unbegotten and the Son begotten they denied that this inferred the least difference or inequality of Nature Now if the Divine Essence be God and there be a perfect equality of Nature between Father Son and Holy Ghost though the Father be unbegotten the Son begotten and the Holy Ghost proceeds from both I desire to know Why Three Persons each of which is True and Perfect God though one be unbegotten another begotten and a third proceeds be not as much Three Gods as Three that are unbegotten are Three Gods The natural Notion of God is an Eternal Unmade Uncreated Essence which gives being to all Creatures but neither Begotten nor Unbegotten belongs to the natural Notion of God but is matter of pure Revelation and therefore Three that are Eternal as to the natural Notion of God are as much Three Gods as Three that are Unbegotten The true Account of it then is this That One Father who is unbegotten himself but begets a Son is but One eternal Divine Essence which he eternally communicates whole and undivided to the Son and therefore is but One Divine Essence still and therefore but One God whereas Three Unbegottens who do not communicate in each other and neither give to nor receive from any other must be Three absolute independent Divine Essences and therefore Three Gods And therefore they do not call the Father the One God merely because he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unbegotten but as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Fountain of the Deity who communicates his own whole Divine Nature and Essence to the Son and Holy Spirit For this reason Athanasius condemns Sabellius for saying that there is but One only God in the Iewish Notion of One God not meaning thereby that there is but One only who is unbegotten and who only is the Fountain of the Deity but that there is but One God as having no Son nor living Word or true Wisdom It were easy to enlarge here and to improve this Observation for the Explication of several difficult Passages in the Fathers but this may satisfy us that the Catholick Fathers by One Substance did not mean a meer specifick but a natural and essential Unity SECT VI. A more particular Inquiry what the Catholick Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness and Identity of Substance in the Holy Trinity WHat I have discoursed in the last Section concerning the Homoousion and One Substance of the Godhead will receive a new Light if we consider what the Catholick Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness Identity and Inseparability of Essence and Substance whereby they explain the Unity of the Divine Substance and the Unity of the Godhead The Learned Jesuit Petavius has two large Chapters to prove that both the Greek and Latin Fathers did assert the Singularity and Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature and Substance And I freely grant That as Singularity is opposed to a mere specifick Unity he has unanswerably proved it but why he or the Schools should chuse a word to represent the Sense of the Catholick Fathers by concerning the Unity of the Divine Substance which they themselves rejected as Sabellianism I can't account for for singularis solitarius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Singularity of Nature and Substance were rejected as suspected terms at least though they allowed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness and Identity of Nature the Vnitas but not Vnio the Unity but not Union which St. Hilary so often calls impia Vnio a wicked Union as destroying the real distinction of Persons and consequently the true Faith of Father Son and Holy Ghost And to do Petavius right he rejects such a notion of singularity as denies the Divinity to be a Common Nature as if it could subsist only in One Person or Hypostasis which he owns to be Sabellianism and that for this reason some of the Fathers he might have said most if not all the Ancient Fathers did reject the use of such words and taught That the Divine Nature is One as any other Nature is which is common to more than one And acknowledges that St. Hilary St. Ambrose St. Austin and others do expresly deny that God is a singular Being and reject the Notion of singularity from the Divine Essence Now such a singularity as this as admits of a real and substantial Communication of the Divine Nature whole of whole to the Son and Holy Spirit is certainly the Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers and what they meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness or Identity of Nature in Father Son and Holy Ghost in which they placed the Unity of the Godhead That there must be this Sameness and Identy of Nature in all Three Divine Persons is evident from the last Section for a whole of a whole must be identically the same Whole not so the same as one singular Whole is the same with it self but as the same Whole which thrice subsists without the least conceivable difference is the same with it self in Three And that this is what the Fathers meant by that Sameness of Nature wherein they placed the Unity of the Godhead it were easy to prove by numerous Authorities but some few may serve in so plain a Case One St. Hilary will furnish us with Testimonies enow of this nature He places the Sameness of Nature between Father and Son in this That the Son has by his Eternal Nativity the Nature of the Father without the least dissimilitude or diversity indifferens indissimilis indiscreta Natura and this makes the Father and Son One God But then at the same time he carefully and expresly rejects the Notion of Singularity Solitude and Union Petavius quotes several Passages out of St. Hilary to prove this Singularity of the Divine Essence but all that they amount to and all that he pretends to prove by them is That the Unity between Father and Son is greater than a Specifick Unity or a Communion in the same Specifick Nature
and this I readily grant and he might if he had pleased have transcribed half St. Hilary de Trinitate de Synodis to the same purpose And this is so universally the Doctrine of all the Greek and Latin Fathers that there was no difficulty in multiplying Authorities to this purpose And I dare appeal to any man who is competently skill'd in these Matters and will impartially examine the Testimonies Petavius has produced for the Singularity of the Divine Essence Whether the most pertinent of them all prove any more than this That the Nature of the Father without the least alteration or diversity is communicated whole and perfect without any division or separation of Substance to the Son of which more presently not that the same singular Nature and Substance which is the Person of the Father is also the Person of the Son which makes the Father and Son to be but One Person as well as One Nature and Substance but so One that the One Nature Substance and Divinity which is the Father is wholly and perfectly the same in the Son excepting this That one is the Father and the other the Son Which is not the Unity of Singularity which is properly the Unity of a Person but the Unity of Identity and Sameness which is the Unity of One Individual Nature which is common to more than one I don't intend to transcribe all the Quotations of Petavius which he has alledged to this purpose but yet I will give such a general View of them as may satisfy any impartial Reader as to this Point not to confute Petavius who as I have already observed rejects the Sabellian Singularity but to undeceive those who mistake Petavius and the Schools too as will appear more hereafter I shall only premise That it had become the Learning and Acuteness of Petavius to have reconciled the Fathers with themselves for they were Wise Men and true Reasoners and knew very well what a Contradiction meant and therefore we ought not easily to believe that they perpetually contradicted themselves He acknowledges and proves That the Catholick Fathers did teach a Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature That Father Son and Holy Ghost have One Divinity as Peter Iames and Iohn have one Human Nature and he alledges the Authorities of the same Fathers to prove the Singularity of the Divine Nature That it is an exact perfect indivisible Monad And this also they do plainly teach But then he should have considered how to have reconciled these two for it is certain that if the Divine Nature be an indivisible Monad it can't be a Species in the common Notion of a Species and if it have any thing anolagous to a Species it can't be a singular Monad because it must be a common Nature which subsists in more than one and Singularity is properly the Unity of a Person not of a common Nature Petavius was very sensible how inconsistent these two kinds of Unity are and yet that the Fathers did most commonly explain the Unity of the Divine Nature by a Specifick Unity and did more cautiously mention the Unity of Singularity he might have said did absolutely reject it as St. Hilary does in a hundred places And was not this a much better reason so to qualify the Notions of a Specifick Unity and Singularity of Nature as to reconcile them to each other than to make the Fathers contradict themselves which destroys three parts of their Reasoning about the Unity of the Godhead and very much weakens the Authoity of all the rest The Apology which Petavius makes for the Fathers will by no means salve this matter He tells us That if we speak of God according to the exact Rules of Philosophy the Three Divine Persons are not so of One Substance or Homoousion as Peter Paul and Iohn and so far he is in the Right as I have already shewn But then what he adds is a very heavy Charge upon the Catholick Fathers That they taught this almost in every Dispute they had with the Arians Now if this be true what Apology can be made for them for it seems they confuted the Arians upon false and dangerous Principles and were either ignorant themselves of the true Catholick Faith or did prevaricate in it But let us hear what Excuse he makes for them He says They are not to be blamed for this nor accused of Ignorance as if they understood nothing of the Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence and owned no other Unity but what is like the Unity of Human Nature for they did know the first but very prudently used the Specifick Unity as an Example whereby to represent the Divine Unity But if there be nothing in the Divine Nature which is analogous to this Specifick Unity and may be truly and properly represented by it as the best Image we have in Nature I cannot understand either the Prudence or Honesty of this Yes he says they were to take Care so to oppose Arianism as to avoid Sabellianism which otherwise they might easily slip into And therefore so tempered their Style as to speak more sparingly of that highest Unity and Conjunction which Gregory Nyssen calls a Perfect Monad lest they should seem to favour a Sabellian Solitude and Singularity but did more freely use the Examples of a Specifick Unity which was sufficient to confute the Arians who asserted the Diversity and Dissimilitude of Nature between Father and Son which cannot be between those of the same Kind and Species and yet at the same time shewed how far they were from Sabellianism That this is a very false account of the matter appears from the former Sections of this Chapter and will appear more fully from what is to follow but if it were true it would be a very scandalous account for the sum of it is this That to oppose Sabellianism and Arianism the ancient Fathers advanced a false Notion of the Divine Unity and dissembled the true one Which is no great commendation of the Catholick Faith that it needs such Arts nor of the Catholick Fathers to use them when both these sorts of Hereticks as I have often observed charged the Catholick Faith with Tritheism and made that the very Reason of their Heresies Can any man think it prudent in these Fathers to conceal or very cautiously mention the true Notion of the Divine Unity and to insist on a Specifick Unity which if we believe Petavius is no better than Tritheism which would rather have confirmed them in their Heresies than have confuted them These two Heresies being in two extreams the Catholick Faith must be in the middle and the only true Medium between them is a real distinction of Persons without the least diversity of Nature and this is what they meant both by their Monad and Specifick Unity the perfect Sameness and Identity of Essence actually indivisibly inseparably subsisting in Three a thrice subsisting Monad or Individual Essence or Substance but not
one Singular and Solitary Substance And if this be all that Petavius means as he seems to own we are agreed in this Point But because some think that he means more and sometimes he says what seems to imply more I shall shew that he has proved no more He begins with Athanasius who tells us That the Father gives all to the Son and yet that the Father hath the same All himself for the Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Father Which only proves That the Father communicates his own Whole Nature to the Son that he gives the Whole to the Son and has the whole himself which is the Same but not One Singular Solitary Godhead for it is the Whole in Two But yet it is the Godhead of the Son and the Godhead of the Father And the Father and Son are Two but yet the Godhead an inseparable indivisible Monad And therefore this Wonderful Divine Monad must not be divided into Three Godheads And having quoted some other Passages of that Father to the same purpose he concludes with a very remarkable one out of his Exposition of Faith That we must not conceive Three Divided and Separate Hypostates in the Godhead after the manner of Bodies as it is among men which like the Pagans would introduce a plurality of Gods But as the River which proceeds from the Fountain is not divided from it though they have Two Forms and Two Names for the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father but the Father is the Father of the Son and the Son the Son of the Father For as the Fountain is not the River nor the River the Fountain but both are One and the self-same Water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flows out of the Fountain into the River and so is the very same in both so is that Divinity which is communicated from the Father to the Son without any Efflux Emanation or Division This Petavius lays great Stress on and it is a most express Testimony against such a meer Specifick Unity in the Godhead as there is between Three Individuals of the same Species as between Three Men. But then it is as express and positive a Testimony against a Singular and Solitary Divinity and confirms the Notion of the perfect Communication of the same Individual Nature and Godhead from the Father to the Son which is as perfectly One and the Same in both as the Water is which flows out of the Fountain into the River But with this difference That the manner of Communication is not the same not by Efflux and Emanation after the manner of Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I wonder Petavius should translâ—te perenniter not as Waters flow out of the Fountain which the Catholick Fathers always disowned but by the Ineffable Mystery of the Eternal Generation as I have shewn above The next Father he appeals to is Gregory Nazianzen whom at other times he has much ado to excuse from Tritheism And he tells us That there is but One God because there is but One Divinity and those who are of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this One God that is the Son and Holy Spirit are reduced to One tho' we believe them to be Three viz. by that One Dâ—vinity which perfectly subsists in each of them And adds If we may express this in short it is One Vndivided Divinity in Three Distinct Persons for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must here signifie not Divided or Separate but Distinct like the Vnion of Three Sâ—ns which would give but One Vndistinguished Light One would wonder how this should prove One Singular Divinity which it expresly rejects unless Three Suns are One Single Solitary Sun and give but One Single Solitary Light Such Expressions as these prove no more than One Undivided Divinity in Three not One Singular Divinity But the same Father starts an Objection That since the wisest Philosophers owned but One Divinity in all their Gods as we acknowledge but One Humanity in all Mankind and yet they believed Many Gods as we acknowledge there are Many Men though but One Common Humanity Why must not we confess That Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Gods also though they have but One Common Divinity This Petavius says Causoe jugulum petit and it is indeed an unanswerable Objection against a meer Specifick Unity of Nature which is Multiplied in Individuals and therefore must Multiply Gods as well as Men but the Perfect Communication of the Same Whole Individual Nature does not Multiply Natures or Divinities though it Multiplies Persons And this is the very Answer Greg. Naz. gives which I had observed before from Damascen the distinction between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there is not One Common Subsisting Human Nature in all Men and therefore Human Nature is One only in Notion not in Reality every Particular Man's having a Particular Human Nature of his own and therefore there are as many Men as there are Subsisting Human Natures but the Divine Nature is One and Common not in meer Notion and Idea but by an Actual Communication without Division or Separation This proves it to be One Individual but not a Singular Nature for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and One Undivided Divinity though in a Wonderful and Ineffable manner it Actually Subsists in Three can be but One God His other Quotations out of the Greek Fathers are all to the same purpose and are resolved into the force of such words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their rejecting not only Three Gods but Three Natures Three Essences Three Divinities and that not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which specifically differ from each other but even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which are specifically the same as Sophronius speaks which are unanswerable Testimonies against a mere Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature but confirms what I have all along asserted That the same One Undivided Divinity subsists actually and inseparably but distinctly in Three and therefore is One common Individual but not a Singular Nature And the Latin Fathers to whom he appeals in Chap. 14 speak all to the same purpose and one Answer serves them all To give an Account of the Meaning and Reason of these Expressions which Petavius insists on to prove the Singularity of the Divine Essence will be much more instructing and satisfactory than to comment upon every particular Quotation And therefore I shall 1. Enquire what the Fathers meant by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sameness and Identity of Nature 2. How they proved the Unity of the Godhead from this Sameness of Nature 3. How they distinguish'd the Divine Persons in this Sameness of Nature 1. As for the first That the Fathers by this Sameness and Identity of Nature did not mean One singular solitary Personal Nature is abundantly
evident from what I have already discours'd The Fathers in opposition to Sabellius universally rejected One singular solitary Nature and Substance as destroying a Trinity of Real Persons for in their Philosophy One singular Substance is but One Person and therefore Three Persons each of which is by himself True and Perfect Substance can't be One singular Substance which is Proof enough that when they explain the Unity of the Divine Substance by its Sameness and Identity they could not by this Sameness and Identity mean Singularity but such a Sameness as is between Real Distinct Subsisting Substantial Persons who are every way alike without the least Change or Variation Which the Greek Fathers commonly call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Fathers as St. Hilary especially Indifferens Indissimilis Natura That this is the True Notion of this Sameness and Identity of Nature appears from those Representations which the Catholick Fathers make of it viz. That it is such a Sameness and Identity as there is between a Perfect Living Subsisting Word and that Perfect Mind whose Word it is such a Sameness as is between Father and Son between the Prototype and the Image between the Seal and the Impression between Life of Life Wisdom of Wisdom Power of Power c. neither of which is the other and yet both are the same That God hath an Eternal Word which was in the Beginning was with God and was God that this Eternal Word was the Son of God and this Son the Perfect Likeness and Image of his Father the Brightness of his Glory and the Express Character of his Substance is the known Doctrine of the Scripture and Fathers That this Word is not like the Word of a Man but the Substantial Essential Living Subsisting Omnipotent Word and this Son a True Natural Genuine Son and this Image a Substantial Living Image and a Living Substantial Character of the Father that this Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Distinct Person from him whose Word he is that the Son is not the Father nor the Father the Son but that they are alius alius that the Image is not the Prototype nor the Prototype the Image nor the Chararacter and Impression that whose Character it is I have already proved to be the Received Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers against the Sabellians and were there any occasion for it I could confirm it with innumerable Testimonies The only Question then is What this Sameness and Identity of Nature is And if we will allow for that difference there is between God and Creatures we may learn as the Fathers teach us what this Sameness of Nature between the Divine Persons is from the Sameness and Identity between a Mind and its Word between Father and Son between the Prototype and the Image the Seal and its Character and Impression Now what this Sameness and Identity is is so visible that a few words will explain it It is not the Sameness of Singularity for the Mind and its Word a Father and Son the Prototype and its Image the Seal and its Impression are visibly Two Nor is it the Sameness of meer Likeness and Similitude how Exact and Perfect soever we conceive that Likeness to be for every one must confess that there is a vast difference between the Perfect Likeness of Two Minds Two Men Two Originals and Two Seals and that Sameness which is between a Mind and its own Word a Father and his own Son a Prototype and its own Natural Image and the Seal and the Impression which is made by it just as much difference as there is between Similitude and Nature or between a perfect Likeness of Nature and Identity And therefore the complete and adequate Notion of Sâ—meness and Identity between Two who are really distinct in Subsistence and Personality and are not each other must be this That an Eternal Unproduced Person produces another in his own Nature Whole Perfect Entire without the least Conceivable or Possible Difference or Diversity excepting this That One Produces and the Other is Produced For Two such who distinctly subsist are really Two Persons in One and the Same Individual Nature Thus it is with a Perfect Mind and its Perfect Living Subsisting Word which is perfectly it self as its own Perfect Natural Image Two in Number but One in Re in Nature Thus it is with a Father and such a Son as is Whole of Whole they are Two and the Same the Son the Natural Living Image of the Father in whom the Father sees Himself and is seen in Him as Christ tells us He that hath seen me hath seen the Father Which is agreeable to the common Forms of Speech to call the King's Picture or Image the King as the Catholick Writers frequently observe which would be exactly and philosophically true were it a Perfect Natural Living Inseparable Image And this is what the Catholick Fathers call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness or Identity of Nature as might easily be proved by numerous Citations But I will content my self with a few The Nicene Fathers taught That the Father and the Son were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Nature and Substance This as I observed before they explain by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Perfect Invariable Likeness and Similitude without the least Difference and Diversity and this is what they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness and Identity of Nature which cannot be the Sameness of Singularity but the Sameness of Indifference and Indiversity such a Sameness as is between Two which are perfectly alike and differ in nothing from each other Athanasius gives this account why the Nicene Fathers taught That the Son was Homoousios of the same Substance with the Father that they might signifie that the Son was not only like the Father but so of the Father as to be the same in Likeness Now the Sameness and Identity of Likeness cannot be the Sameness of Singularity and yet this he calls the Sameness and Identity with his Father That the Son is the Natural Genuine Son of the Father and the Word God's own proper Word and the invariable Likeness between the Light and it's Splendor the Unity of Nature and the Identity of Light With several Expressions noted in the Margin which signifie the most perfect Sameness in Nature Thus the Son is the Image of God the Character of his Substance Nature and Essence which is the Language of Scripture and the constant Doctrine of the Fathers And from hence they conclude the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature between Father and Son or a perfect Likeness and Similitude By which Argument they prove That he is no Creature but that he is Eternal and Omnipotent and all that his Father is because this is the Nature of a Perfect Living Image to be perfectly all and the same that the Prototype is
Thus St. Basil tells us That the Seal is seen in the Impression and the Prototype is known by its Image from that Sameness and Identity which is in both Which he calls also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This sufficiently proves what the Catholick Fathers meant by this Sameness and Identity of Nature not the Sameness of singularity which they always rejected as Sabellianism but such a Sameness as is between Two who have the same Individual Nature subsisting so distinctly in each of them as to make them Two but without the least conceivable or possible Change or Alteration such a Sameness as is a perfect likeness and similitude which cannot be in singularity But because Petavius lays great stress upon these Expressions it will not be amiss to give two or three direct and positive Proofs of this matter Athanasius expresly cautions us against this That when we hear that the Son hath all that the Father has this invariable likeness and sameness of what the Son has may not mislead us into Sabellianism to say That the Son is the Father himself And tells us That the Father gave all to the Son and that the Father hath all again in the Son and the Son having all the Father again has the same all for the Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Father Gregory Nyssen or St. Basil for the same Treatise is ascribed to them both proves both the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the nature of an Image That the Son is both the same with the Father and another for so an Image is both the same with its Prototype and yet another not the Prototype it self And adds that we may see the Father in the Son not considered as unbegotten for then he would be upon all accounts the same and not another which destroys the Nature and Character of an Image The same account St. Hilary gives of an Image That it signifies a perfect likeness and similitude of Nature between Two for no Man is his own Image but the Image represents the Prototype And therefore there is a Father and there is a Son if the Son be the Image of the Father and being an Image the Son must necessarily have in himself the Nature and Essence of his Father Which he urges as a direct Confutation of the Sabellian Singularity But there is no need of multiplying Authorities in this Case since it is so very obvious to every one who ever look'd into the Fathers That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness and Identity and the Community of Nature though they differ in their formal Notions yet both equally belong to the same Divine Nature and the same Identical Nature which is also a common Nature can't be One in the Notion of Singularity 2 dly Having thus shewn what the Catholick Fathers meant by the Sameness and Identity of Nature in Father and Son I proceed to shew That herein they placed the Unity of the Godhead the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One Divinity and what account they give of this matter The Defence they generally make for the Unity of God in a Trinity of Divine Persons is reducible to two Heads this Sameness and Identity of Nature and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or inseparable Unity which Two make up the compleat Notion of the Divine Unity but I must now consider them apart That the Catholick Fathers did resolve the Unity of God into this Sameness and Identity of Nature That the Father Son and Holy Ghost though they are Three Real Proper Distinct Persons yet have the same One Divine Nature which subsists whole and perfect and distinct without any Change or Variation in all Three and that therefore they are not Three Gods but One God is so very plain that there is no need of multiplying words about it The One God in the Catholick Language is One Divine Nature in Three Persons and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this One Essence and One Divinity is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are often used as equivalent terms the Unity Identity Propriety and Sameness of Nature as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one and the same All those Passages quoted by Petavius though they do not prove the Singularity of the Divine Nature yet prove the Unity of the Godhead by the perfect and invariable Sameness of Nature in the sense now explained But the Testimony of St. Basil against the Sabellians is so full and express to this purpose that I shall represent this matter in his Words wherein he agrees with all the other Catholick Fathers Though Father and Son are Two in Number yet are they not divided in Nature nor does he who says Two Persons alienate them from each other There is One God because a Father but the Son also is One God not Two Gods because of the Sameness and Identity of the Son with the Father for there is not One Divinity in the Father and Another in the Son nor One Nature of the Father and another of the Son When therefore you would distinguish the Persons number them distinctly the Father by himself and the Son by himself but if you would avoid Polytheism confess but One Nature in them both which rejects both the Sabellian and Anomoean Heresy But when I say One Nature you must not imagine that Two Persons are made of One Nature as it were by a division of it into two Parts but only conceive the Son subsisting of the Father as his Principle and Original Nor must you conceive that Father and Son are so of One Nature as partaking of some One Same Nature and Substance antecedent to them both for we do not call them Brethren but Father and Son which signifies the Sameness and Identity of Nature For the Son is of the Father not made by his Command but begotten of his Nature not by Division of the Father's Substance but the Son shines forth whole and perfect from a perfect Father without any diminution of him And therefore as he proceeds do not charge us with Preaching Two Gods or Polytheism for we Preach not Two Fathers or Two Principles and therefore not Two Gods which was the Impiety of Marcion Nor do we make the Father and Son of a different Nature unlike to each other as the Anomoeans do But where there is but One Principle and One Begotten of it One Prototype and One Image the Unity is preserved Because the Son who is begotten of the Father and imprints his Father's Nature and Essence on himself as an Image he has an invariable Likeness as a Son he retains the same Nature and Substance Now as a man who calls the King's Image or Picture the King does not make Two Kings nor deny him whose Image it is to be the King much less reason is there for such an Imputation in
but that the name of Nature may be multiplied when there are more who are united in the same Nature how comes it to pass that we contradict this in the Mystery of the Trinity that we acknowledge Three Hypostases who have the very same Nature without the least difference or diversity and yet teach that the Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost is but One and forbid saying that there are Three Gods Now the better to understand the Father's Answer we muâ—t observe that this was an Arian Objection against the Homoousion or the perfect Sameness Indifference and Equality of Nature between Father and Son For the design of it was as St. Gregory himself observes to reduce them to this dangerous Dilemma either to assert Three Gods which is unlawful or to deny the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost which is impious and absurd If they denied the Sameness and Equality of Nature then the Son and Holy Ghost are not True and Perfect God consubstantial with the Father or if Father Son and Holy Ghost have the same One Common Nature and are perfectly consubstantial then they are Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn who have the same One Common Humanity are Three Men and there is the very same reason for calling Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Gods that there is for calling Peter Iames and Iohn Three Men that is the same Nature common to them all This was the Objection St. Gregory was to answer and therefore his business was to prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost are not and ought not to be called Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are and may be called Three Men and therefore he must prove That they are neither Three nor One in the same sense that Three Men are Three and One for if they were they would be as truly and properly Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men and no more One God than they are One Man which had been to give up the Cause to the Arians instead of answering their Objection This may satisfy any man that those Learned Persons are very much mistaken who charge such a sense upon this Father as is directly contrary to his design for he understood the Laws of Reasoning better Neither he nor any other Father I ever yet met with asserted that Peter Iames and Iohn were but One Man or that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God no otherwise than Peter Iames and Iohn are One Man which yet is what has been charged upon them But does not Greg. Nyssen say That it is a catachrestical way of speaking tho become common and familiar to multiply the name of Nature with the Individuals of the same Nature As to say That there are many Men because there are many who have the same Human Nature But if we would speak accurately and properly we should say that there is but one Man how many soever have the same Nature And does not he apply this to the Unity of God And can this have any other sense than that the same Divine Nature makes Father Son and Holy Ghost but One God as the same Human Nature makes all the Men in the World but one Man The Interpretation of which seems to be That Father Son and Holy Ghost are as much Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men but that it is very improper to call either the one or the other Three for they are but One by One Common Nature Now this Father does indeed say and so many others of them say That the name of Nature ought not to be multiplied with the Individuals but he was far enough either from saying or thinking what he is charged with That Peter Iames and Iohn are not Three Men but One Man or that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God in no other sense but as Three Men are One And a due attendance to the Series of the Argument would have discovered the Falseness and Absurdity of this Imputation which therefore I shall briefly explain The Arian Objection which St. Gregory undertook to answer as I observed before was this That since the Catholick Church owned the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be consubstantial and to have the same undiversified Nature they must for that reason be Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn upon account of the same common Humanity are acknowledged to be Three Men That is that whether in God or Man the same Nature in Three must make Three Individuals of the same Kind and Species and therefore as the same Human Nature in Three makes Three Men so the same Divine Nature Three Gods In answer to this St. Gregory first observes That it is not the same common Nature which distinguishes and multiplies Individuals no not in Men Peter Iames and Iohn are not Three Individuals in the Species of Humanity merely by having the same Nature which is the force of the Arian Objection for what is perfectly the same in all can't distinguish or multiply them And this is plainly all that he means when he says That the name of Nature ought not to be used plurally and therefore Man being the name of Nature and signifying the same with Humanity we ought no more if we speak properly and Philosophically to say Three Men than Three Humanities or Three Human Natures for he proves that the name Man does not distinguish one Man from another nor can we single any particular Man out of a Crowd by that Compellation for there is but One Man or One Humamanity in them all that name not belonging primarily and immediately to the Individuals as such but to the common Nature Well but are there not Individual Men then as well as a Common Nature Yes without doubt but they are distinguished and multiplied not by the Common Nature which is the same in all but by such peculiar Properties as diversify and distinguish Common Nature as it subsists separately in particular Persons and that makes the Number though Nature be one and the same a perfect indivisible Monad This is not merely to criticize upon Words or to dispute against the common Forms of Speech but to give a true Philosophical Reason of their different Use when applied to God and Creatures We commonly call Peter Iames and Iohn Three Men and right enough but then they are not Three Men merely upon account of the same Common Humanity in them all which was the Arian Objection for Humanity is but One in all and what is perfectly One can't be numbred To say there are Three Humanities all Men grant to be absurd and yet it is to the full as absurd to say that Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men merely upon account of the same Humanity strictly and precisely taken as to say that there are Three Humanities So that though Peter Iames and Iohn could not be nor be called Three Men without the same Common Nature yet some peculiar distinguishing
make Three Gods because there is but one and the same Divinity in Three And this is what they mean by the Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature not that Unity or Unit which is the beginning of Number but the Unity of Sameness and Identity which Tho. Aquinas calls unum non numero sed re numerata One not in the numbring Number but in the thing mumbred or as the Fathers speak not in Number but Nature The better to understand this matter we must consider what St. Basil discourses about the Unity of God in answer to those who charged the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tritheism viz. That they acknowledged One God but not in Number the numbring Number but in Nature For that which is One in Number is not truly One nor perfectly Simple in Nature but all men acknowledge God to be the most Simple Uncompounded Being and therefore he is not One in the Notion of this numbring Number This he proves by an induction of particulars we say the World is one in number but not one in nature for it is compounded of great variety of Creatures and we say one Man but Man is compounded of Body and Soul and even any Angel is not perfectly pure and simple but is compounded of Essence and Qualities such as Holiness which is not pure and simple Nature for it may be separated He adds that Number is a Species of quantity and answers to the Question How many which properly belongs to a Corporeal Nature And indeed all Number denotes such things as have a material or at least a circumscribed and limited Nature but Monad and Vnity denote the Simple Uncompounded Uncircumscribed Infinite Essence And when he says That Number must belong to things of a Circumscribed Nature thereby he tells us he means not merely such things as are circumscribed by Place which properly belongs to Bodies but all such Natures as have a limited and confined Idea as all Created Natures whether Body or Spirit have whose Natures are limited circumscribed fixt and determined by that Infinite Mind which gives being to them The meaning of all which is this That to make a Number there must be Alterity and Diversity in Nature or a separate Existence But a Perfect Simple Uncompounded Nature can admit of no possible alteration and diversity for the same Nature can never differ from it self without some kind of composition and where there is no difference and diversity there can be no number and an Infinite Uncircumscribed Nature can never be divided and separated or subsist a-part and therefore can't be numbred So that Number can belong only to Created Natures which are compounded and finite and therefore by some diversifying Qualities or Affections and a separate Exâ—istence may be distinguished into Individuals which may be numbred but the Unity of the Divine Nature which is a Perfect Indivisible Uncompounded Infinite Monad is not the Unity of Number but a Perfect Invariable Sameness and Identity and an Indivisible inseparable Union Now some Men who do not duly attend to the nature and design of these Reasonings apply all this to prove the Perfect Singularity of the Divine Essence in the most strict and proper notion of Singularity as that signifies One in Number which contradicts the whole Intention of this Hypothesis which is to prove that the Unity of God does not consist in the Unity of Number but of Nature and that the Unity of the Divine Nature is not a Unity of Number but a Unity of Sameness Identity and Inseparability This is a Matter of great consequence and therefore let us consider it over again This distinction between the Unity of Number and the Unity of Nature was alledged by the Catholick Fathers to avoid the Charge of Tritheism The Sabellians and Arians asserted the Unity of God to be a Unity of Number that One Divinity is not One unless it be One in Number One Single Solitary Divine Nature And this say they is inconsistent with the Trinity of Divine Persons each of which is in his own Person True and Perfect God For Three such Divine Persons must be Three Gods Three Divinities if each Divine Person have the True Perfect Divine Nature in himself and it is impossible to understand what a Divine Person is without the Divine Nature So that if the Father be God the Son God the Holy Ghost God if Father Son and Holy Ghost be Three they must be Three Gods This was the great Difficulty and it is the only material Difficulty to this day To have asserted but One Singular Divine Nature which is but One in Number had given up the Cause to the Sabellians or Arians For then either Father Son and Holy Ghost are but Three Names or Offices of the same One Divine Person who is the One God as the Sabellians taught Or Father Son and Holy Ghost are not a Consubstantial Trinity but the Father alone is God and the Son and Holy Ghost but mere Creatures how Excellent Creatures soever they are On the other hand should they have denied that Three Ones make Three this had been false counting as the Socinians tell us now and therefore to avoid both these Extremes they distinguish between the Number by which we reckon and the thing which is numbred and thus they find a Real Trinity in Perfect Unity As Greg. Nyssen tells us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very same thing the same Divinity is both numbred and not subject to Number It may so far be numbred with the Persons as each Divine Person has the whole and perfect Divinity in himself but yet the Divinity can't be numbred not because it is One Single Solitary Divinity for it really subsists in Three but by reason of that perfect Sameness and Identity which admits of no Number for that which is perfectly one and the same in Three can't be numbred Had they thought of such a Singularity of the Divine Nature as is but One in Number they must have disputed at another rate against Sabellians and Arians Would they have taught That the Divinity may be numbred and yet is without Number Which is impossible to be true of the same singular Divinity which is but One in Number and therefore can never be more than One in Number that is in that Father's sense cannot be numbred much less can the same Singular Nature be numbred and incapable of Number that is be One and More than One. Would they have taken so much pains to prove That Sameness and Identity of Nature excludes all Number if by this they had meant the Sameness and Identity of Singularity as the same thing is one and the same thing with it self which is no great Mystery And is it not evident that this whole Dispute is concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature in Three distinct Persons and consequently concerning that Sameness and Identity of Nature which is between Three who have the same Nature and therefore not One
in the Notion of Singularity which is One in Number not in the Sameness and Identity of Nature Would they have insisted on that distinction of Units in Number and Units in Nature that the first multiplies the second does not had they believed that there are no Units in the Divinity not One and One and One but only One Singular Divinity At least could Boetius who so particularly explains and urges this distinction intend to prove by it the Singularity of the Divine Essence when at the same time he defines a Person to be the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature and assigns this distinction as the Reason why though we number Three in the same Divinity yet there are not Three Divinities or Three Divine Natures or Essences because the Repetition of Units in the thing to be numbred where there is a perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature makes no Number In this sense it was that the Schools asserted the Singularity of the Divine Substance because the Divine Substance by reason of its perfect Sameness and Identity can't be numbred and what can't be numbred they call a Singular Substance But they expresly reject as the Catholick Fathers did Singularity in the sense of Solitude as it signifies one alone by himself without any Communion or Fellowship consortium with any other in the same Divine Essence And therefore the Master of the Sentences expresly distinguishes between Diversity Singularity or Solitude and Unity and Trinity Distinction and Identity Now let any man judge what that Unity is which is not Singularity or Solitude but a Unity in Trinity and what that Distinction is which is perfect Identity without any Diversity For my part I can make nothing of it but this perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature in Three which numbers Persons but not Natures Estius takes notice of that Objection against the Trinity That the Father is God and the Son is God therefore the Father is the Son which Consequence is resolved into that Maxim Quaecunque eadem sunt uni tertio eadem sunt inter se whatever things are the same with the same Third are the same with each other To which he answers That this Rule holds true only where the Third is a perfect Singular Deus autem non prorsus singulare nomen est but God is not upon all Accounts a name of Singularity that is does not signify One only who is God but signifies such a Singular Nature as is communicable to Three Significat enim Naturam Singularem sed quae communicari possit tribus suppositis That is It is not a Singular Nature with the Singularity of solitude because it is communicable and can subsist distinctly in Three but only with the Singularity of Identity as he explains it from St. Hilary Dist. 23. Sect. 4. to which he refers his Reader So that though the Schools did use this Phrase of a Singular Nature and Substance which the Catholick Fathers rejected as Sabellianism yet they did not use it in that Sense which the Father 's rejected for One Solitary Nature which can be but One Person and therefore Estius observes that Aquinas uses this name of Singularity when applied to the Divinity non simpliciter sed cum cautela not simply and absolutely but with caution and qualifies it with ut sic liceat loqui if I may have leave so to speak And he imitates this Caution himself Dist. 23. Sect. 1. when he tells us That the Divine Essence may quodam sensu in a certain sense be said to be individual as it neither is a Genus nor Species but res una numero ut it a dicamus singularis numerically One and if we may say so Singular though it be not individual in the sense that Boetius defines a Person to be an Individual Substance because it is not incommunicable This shews That though the Schools have in this Question changed the Ancient Catholick Language by teaching That the Divine Essence is Vna Numero Singularis One in Number and Singular whereas the Catholick Fathers denied that God was One in Number but only in Nature and denied the Singularity of the Divine Nature which Confusion and appearing Contradiction of Terms occasions great Mistakes yet they meant the very same thing and their Philosophy about Singularity and Number was the same For they taught a Communicable Singularity of Nature which is opposed to a Sabellian Solitude and rejected the numbring Number from the Divinity They universally deny That God is One in that sense of Unity which is the beginning of Number For Number is a Species of Quantity nascitur ex divisione continui is made by Division and to assert God to be One in this Sense is to ascribe Quantity to him for nothing can be thus One but what has Magnitude and Figure that is nothing but Body for Number as it is a Species of Quantity can belong to nothing but Body which has divisible Parts and Extensions and Magnitude which may be One or more This is certainly true as to that kind of Number which is a Species of Quantity for that can measure only such things as have Quantity But then they were sensible that other Beings are numbred besides Bodies even Incorporeal Spirits who have no Quantity Parts or Divisibility and yet these we number when we say a Hundred or Thousands or Millions of Angels This they own and call it a Transcendental Number that is such a Number as is not reduced to the Predicament of Quantity But that is little to the purpose if Spirits which have no Quantity may be numbred what is it that makes a Number in them And why may not Number then belong to the Divinity though it be not quantum have no Predicamental that is Corporeal Quantity To this they answer That this Transcendental Vnity adds no form to the thing but only signifies the thing it self as undivided from it self Well! But if this be all then God who is thus indivisible from himself may as properly be called One as One Angel is said to be One No say they For to entitle any thing even to this Transcendental Numerical Unity ratione rei subjectoe Naturam ejus designat ut limitatam atque extra res alias positam it must be considered to have a Finite and Limited Nature and to subsist separately from all other Beings and to be diversified from each other in Nature or Qualities Res una ab alia Natura vel qualitatibus discreta intelligitur But now Unity in God though it resemble this Transcendental Unity as adding no Form to God that is not supposing him to be Corporeal as the Predicamental Unity does yet it does not signify any thing limited and finite in God but only his Undivided Inseparable Being As Number in God that is the Trinity does signify the real distinction of Three Non ita tamen ut ea plura Natura vel Qualitatibus discreta intelligantur singula
suis velut limitibus circumsepta But not so as if these Three were distinguished and separated by Nature and Qualities or as if each of them had their own Separate and Circumscribed Bounds and Limits This is the Account Estius gives us of Unity and Number in God dist 24. sect 1. which perfectly agrees with that Account I have already given of this matter from St. Basil That an Infinite Undiversified Indivisible Nature as the Eternal Divinity is is neither One nor Three in the same Sense and for the same Reasons which give these Denominations to any Created Beings And therefore there are no Arguments in Nature to confute the Unity of the Godhead from a Trinity of proper Subsisting Persons nor a Trinity of Persons from the Unity of the Godhead because Three and One in God do not signify what they do in Creatures This appeared a great difficulty to the Master of the Sentences That since we neither allow of Diversity nor Singularity Multiplicity nor Solitude in the Trinity what should be the meaning of One and Two and Three of Trinity and Plurality and Distinction as when we say One God Two Persons Three Persons more Persons distinct Persons or a distinction of Persons Plurality of Persons a Trinity of Persons which seems to ascribe a Numerical Quantity a Multitude and Multiplicity to God To this the Master answers That these words when applied to God are rather intended to remove every thing from God which is inconsistent with the Perfect Simplicity of the Divine Nature than positively to affirm any thing of him This Answer does not please Estius because it seems to imply that God is not in a true and proper Sense One and Three but this is his own Mistake For Peter Lombard meant no more but this That though God be in the most perfect sense One and Three yet those positive Ideas which we have of One or Two or Three of Distinction and Trinity when applied to Creatures do not belong to the Divine Nature and therefore we must conceive of them in God rather by way of Negation than by any positive Ideas by denying such things of God as are inconsistent with the Perfect Simplicity of his Nature which is true of most other Divine Perfections that we have rather a negative than positive conception of them as attributed to God for Wisdom and Power and Goodness in God are no more reducible under the Predicament of Quality as they are in Creatures than the Unity of God is reducible to the Predicament of Quantity Thus he tells us when we say One God we thereby exclude more Gods but do not attribute the quantity of Number to God that is we do not mean that there is One God in that Notion of One as it is the beginning of Number which is a Species of Quantity for so nothing can be One but what has Quantity which God has not Thus when we say One Father and One Son the meaning is that there are not many Fathers nor many Sons When we say there are more Persons we exclude Singularity and Solitude but do not introduce Diversity or Multiplicity into the Divine Nature Thus Three Persons does not signify the Quantity of Number or any Diversity as it is in Creatures but only determines our Thoughts to Father Son and Holy Ghost that each of these Persons is in the Godhead and none else Distinct Persons or Distinction of Persons excludes Confusion and Mixture signifies that they are Another and Another without any Diversity or Sabellian Confusion The meaning of which is That we must not form such a Notion of One God as we have of One Man nor of Three Persons as of Three Men but must acknowledge One God in opposition to more Gods or more Divinities and Three Persons in opposition to Singularity and Solitude in the Divinity All which resolves it self into the Unity of Identity which excludes both all manner of Diversity and Singularity and Solitude SECT VII Concerning the Distinction of Persons in the Unity and Identity of the Divine Essence THIS fairly brings me to the Third Enquiry I proposed concerning the Real Distinction of the Divine Persons in the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature how we can distinguish Father Son and Holy Ghost when their Nature is perfectly One by the Unity of Identity and Sameness This is the Seat of most of those nice distinctions which we meet with both in the Fathers and Schools and therefore it deserves to be carefully examined for a sensible Account of this Matter would answer many great Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Trinity And to this purpose I shall first give a general Account of it according to those Principles which I have now laid down and then more particularly explain what the Fathers and Schools say of it which will appear to be no such Mysterious Nonsense as the Adversaries of our Holy Faith would represent it to be 1. The general Account of this is very short The Catholick Fathers universally teach That Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them by himself in his own proper Person True and Perfect God That the same One Whole Undivided Divinity subsists distinctly in each of them That the Person of the Father as he is True and Perfect God is the whole Divinity That the Person of the Son as True and Perfect God is also the same One Whole Divinity and so of the Holy Ghost That this Divinity is One and the Same not by an Unity of Singularity and Solitude which is irreconcilable with the Notion of a Real Trinity for One Singular Divinity can be but One Single Divine Person but by the Unity of Sameness and Identity which admits of a Trinity of subsisting Persons in the same undiversified Nature That whatever the Father is That the Son is and that the Holy Ghost is That a Divine Person is nothing but the Divine Nature and Essence for the perfect absolute Simplicity of God admits of no imaginable Composition not so much as of Nature and Suppositum or that which is the subject of all Natural Powers as it is in Created Beings This makes it very evident that these Divine Persons are not distinguished by Nature for there is nothing in Nature to distinguish them it being perfectly and invariably the same in all and where there is no distinction there can be no Number for which reason they will not allow that the Divine Essence is multiplied with the Persons there being but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one and the same Divinity in them all They agree farther That the Divine Persons are incommunicable That the Person of the Father is not and can never be the Person of the Son nor the Person of the Son the Person of the Father nor the Person of the Holy Ghost the Person either of Father or Son But then this seems to make the difficulty insuperable That if a Divine Person be nothing else but the Divine Nature how
be distinctly by himself the Divine Nature Essence and Substance there could never have been any occasion for this Dispute about One Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis and Three Essences Natures Substances Hypostases nor for that known Distinction by which they reconciled this difference between Essence and Hypostasis that the first signifies something analogous to a Common Specifick Nature the second to Individuals If the Divine Nature subsisted in Singularity or were but One Singular Subsisting Nature Essence and Hypostasis must signify the same thing for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence is Substance and so is Hypostasis and in this sense they must both signify a first Substance and then one singular Subsisting Nature or Substance and three singular Subsisting Natures and Substances is an irreconcilable Contradiction Had the Singularity of the Divine Nature been the Catholick Faith we should never have heard of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Common Nature and Essence of the Divinity for Singular and Common are express Contradictions and a Singular Subsisting Nature can have nothing thing analogous in it to a Common Specifick Nature If each Divine Person be not the Divine Nature Essence Substance there can be no Pretence that Essence and Substance should ever signify a Person nor can any Interpretation make Three Essences and Substances Catholick Doctrine if there be no sense wherein Three Persons may Orthodoxly be called Three Essences and Substances as there can't be if a Person as a Person be not Essence and Substance And on the other hand if Hypostasis which is the peculiar and appropriate Name whereby the Greek Fathers denote a Person do not signify Essence and Substance it could never be Orthodox to say that there is but One Hypostasis no more than it is to say that there is but One Person in the Trinity 2. But to set aside this Dispute concerning Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances and One Hypostasis in the Trinity which though allowed to be Catholick yet were sparingly and cautiously used because they were liable to Heretical Senses I observe farther That these words Essence Nature Substance are distinctly applied to each Person of the Holy Trinity which could not be Orthodox were not each Person distinctly in himself Essence Nature Substance What I have already discoursed with relation to Sabellianism and upon several other occasions sufficiently proves this and I shall not trouble my Readers with a needless Repetition Petavius owns it and has given several Instances of it That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essentia Natura Substantia do not always signify the common Essence of the Divinity but the Divine Persons that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Person of the Father and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Person of the Son which is undoubtedly true but still Essence signifies Essence and Nature Nature and Substance Substance and the only reason he has to say That in this construction the Words signify a Person is because they are used singularly and construed with the name of a Person as the Essence and Substance of the Father or of the Son But this is no reason if the Essence be not the Person if the Essence of the Fâ—ther do not signify that Essence which is the Person of the Father and the Essence of the Son that Essence which is the Person of the Son For if a Divine Person be not the Divine Essence Essence can never signify Person And yet if they do believe that each Divine Person is by himself in his own Person Essence and Substance the whole undivided Divinity I cannot imagine the reason of this Criticism why they should be more afraid to say the Essence and Substance of the Father than the Person of the Father unless it be that this does not so well agree with their Notion of the singularity of the Divine Essence as I doubt indeed it will not especially if we add the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Unbegotten and begotten Substance the one the Person of the Father the other of the Son of which more hereafter but this is not to learn our Faith from the Fathers but to expound them by our preconceived Opinions 3 dly I observe farther That all those words which are more peculiarly appropriated to signify the Divine Persons were always used by Catholick Writers in the notion of Substance and were never thought Catholick in any other sense Hypostasis is the most received word among the Greek Fathers to signify a Person and One Essence and Three Hypostases was the Catholick Language Now it is agreed on all hands That Hypostasis literally signifies Substance and as I have already observed the only dispute about it was that some by Hypostasis understood the Common Nature and Substance in the notion of Essence and for that reason asserted That there is but One Hypostasis as there is but One Essence in the Trinity others understood a singular Subsisting Nature and Substance and in this sense asserted Three Hypostases but none of them ever understood Hypostasis in any other notion but that of Substance either a Common or Individual Substance And to prevent this Ambiguity as far as they could which might conceal very different Heresies Sabellianism on one hand and Arianism on the other and many times occasioned the Orthodox to suspect each other of these opposite Heresies though Essence and Hypostasis signified much the same thing yet they appropriated the name Essence to signify a Common Nature and Substance and Hypostasis to signify Individuals As we learn from St. Basil Greg. Nyssen Damascen and many other Catholick Writers who assign this difference between Essence and Hypostasis But yet this did not wholly silence this Dispute among the Greeks much less did it satisfy the Latin Fathers who knew no difference between Essentia Substantia but translated the Homoousion by Vnius Substantiae and therefore it was as great Heresy to them to say Three Substances as they translated the Greek Hypostases as to say Three Essences in the Trinity St. Austin professes That he knew not what the Greeks meant by One Essence and Three Substances and for the same reason it is well known St. Ierom rejected Three Substances for both by Essence and Substance they understood a Common Nature which made it Heresy indeed to assert Three Substances which in this acceptation of the word must signify Three divers Substances which specifically differ And therefore tho they did not reject the Greek Faith but did believe as heartily as they that each Person by himself was perfect Hypostasis and Substance and rejected the Sabellian One Hypostasis and One Substance yet they did not like the Phrase of Three Hypostases and Three Substances for they knew no difference between Three Substances and Three Essences and by both understood Three different Kinds and Species of Beings And for this Reason both to secure the Catholick Faith from such
and the same Essence 3. A Property as when we distinguish the Persons by their Personal Properties Thomas Aquinas and generally the Schools receive and vindicate that Definition which Boetius gives of a Person That it is the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature as I have already observed whereby they expresly tell us that they understand Aristotle's Substantia Prima or a Subsisting Individual St. Austin thought that the Greeks might as well have used Prosopon as Hypostasis for what the Latins called Person and why they rather said Hypostasis he could not tell unless perhaps the Propriety of their Language required it and this was the truth of the Case for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a very ambiguous word taken originally from the Stage as Persona also was and signified that Vizor which was put over the Face to represent the Person whom they intended to act and so was used to signify a mere Appearance and Representation not a Real Subsisting Person and therefore St. Basil tells us That the Sabellians who owned but One Essence and Hypostasis in God yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Scripture represented God under different Personal Appearances sometimes as the Father sometimes as the Son or Holy Spirit and adds That therefore those who affirm that Father Son and Holy Ghost are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One in Subject Hypostasis or Suppositum but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three perfect Persons or Prosopa or Appearances justify the Charge of Sabellianism imputed by the Arians to the Catholicks And in another place he tells us That those who say that Essence and Hypostasis are the same are forced to acknowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only different Prosopa oâ— Appearances and while they are afraid to own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostases they relapse into the Sabellian Heresy And therefore Petavius truly observes That though the Catholick Fathers did not scruple the use of this term Prosopon yet they used it in the sense of Hypostasis and the Notion of Hypostasis joined with Prosopon makes up the true Catholick Notion of a Person as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as he says proves that these Persons have not one simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Suppositum nor are merely different Functions and Energies of the same Individual Being but that the Diversity and Multiplicity is in the Subject it self and that there are Three truly and really distinct and that subsist distinctly This I hope is a sufficient Proof of the first thing proposed That a Divine Person is the Divine Essence and Substance but I added also That it is nothing else and I must speak something briefly to this The absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature which admits of no kind of Composition neither of Parts nor of Substance and Accident nor of Nature and Suppositum that which has and that which is had is the universal Doctrine both of the Catholick Fathers and Schools as I need not prove and the necessary Consequence of this is That a Divine Person can be nothing else but the Divine Nature Essence and Substance for were a Divine Person the Divine Nature and something else there must be a Composition in the Divine Nature something superadded to it to make it a Person The Unity of the Divine Nature in a Trinity of Persons as I have shewn at large is resolved into the perfect invariable Sâ—meness and Identity of Nature the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Three and therefore each Divine Person must be the whole Divine Nature and Essence and nothing else for otherwise the Divine Essence could not be perfectly one and the same in Three but would be distinguished and multiplied by some new Accidents and Modifications as Human Nature is in distinct Human Persons A Trinity of Persons is a known Objection against the absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature and the Answer to it is as well known That those Relations which distinguish Persons make no Composition in the Divine Nature and then a Person can be nothing else but the Divine Nature if there be no Composition to make a Person But of this more presently 2 dly The next thing I proposed was this That according to the Doctrine both of Fathers and Schools the Divine Essence and Substance as subsisting distinctly in Three is proper and peculiar to each and incommunicable to one another This is so universally acknowledged by all who own real and substantial Persons that I need say little of it I have produced several express Testimonies already out of the Fathers to this purpose and indeed to say That the Substance of each Person is proper and incommunicable is no more than to say that their Persons are incommunicable that the Father is not and never can be the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son which is what they meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly and appropriately Father and Son that the Father never was nor can be a Son nor the Son a Father Thus their different Characters prove an incommunicable distinction between them The Son is the Image of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Living Substantial Image but the Image tho by an Identity of Nature it is the same with the Prototype yet it is not and never can be the Prototype not imaginale but imaginalis imago as Victorinus Afer speaks not the Person nor Personal Substance of the Father but the express Image of his Person and Substance In Boetius's Definition of a Person by individua substantia the Schools as far as I have observed universally understand incommunicabilis substantia an incommunicable Substance and therefore as I observed before though they assert the Divine Essence to be singularis yet it is singularis communicabilis a communicable Singular but a Person is substantia individua or singularis incommunicabilis a singular incommunicable Substance Now this started a great Difficulty How the Essence and Substance of the Father which is but One can be both communicable and incommunicable The Person of the Father which is his Divine Essence is incommunicable and yet the Father communicates his own Divine Nature and Essence to the Son and Holy Spirit without communicating his Person Of the same Nature is what the Schools teach concerning the Divine Generation and Procession They allow that the Father does truly and properly not metaphorically beget the Son and that the Son is truly and properly begotten and that the Father by Divine Generation communicates the Divine Essence to the Son and that the Son has all that he has from the Father and is all that the Father is excepting that he is not the Father but the Son And yet they will not allow that the Divine Essence either begets or is begotten or proceeds They have a great Authority against them in
this as they all own for the Fathers made no scruple to say That God begat God Essence Essence Wisdom Wisdom Life Life and that the Son is begotten and only begotten God God of God Light of Light Wisdom of Wisdom and begotten Wisdom Upon these Authorities Richardus Victorinus contends earnestly that we ought in plain terms to own That Substance begets Substance and that those who deny it reject the Doctrine of all the Catholick Fathers But Peter Lombard and most other Schoolmen especially since the Council of Lateran justify themselves in this matter by saying That the Fathers intended no more in such expressions than what they themselves own though they reject that way of speaking When the Fathers taught That God begat God Essence Essence Substance Substance Wisdom Wisdom Life Life they meant no more than that the Father who is God Essence Substance Wisdom Life begat his Son who is also truly and really God Essence Substance Wisdom Life and the reason why they rather chose to say That the Father who is God and Essence and Wisdom begets the Son who is God and Essence and Wisdom c. than to say That God begets God Essence Essence Wisdom Wisdom is this Because God and Essence and Wisdom c. signify absolutely and so may multiply Gods Essences Wisdoms as when we say Man begets a Man the begotten Man is as absolutely a Man as he who begets and he who begets and he who is begotten notwithstanding their relation are two absolute Men And therefore to prevent all such mistakes and to secure the Catholick Faith of the Real Distinction of Persons and Suppositums in perfect Unity without the least diversity or multiplication of Essence they attributed Active Generation to the Person of the Father and Passive Generation to the Person of the Son which proves a Real Distinction of Persons and Suppositums for he who begets cannot be he who is begotten and yet preserves the Unity and Identity of the Divine Nature But how can this be if Person and Essence Suppositum and Nature be the same as it is in God For then if the Person be begotten the Essence which is that Person must be begotten also and if the Person begets the Essence must beget Now this is in some sense true and therefore the Catholick Fathers promiscuously used these terms That the Father begets a Son or God begets God or Essence begets Essence and the Schools themselves own That the Father who is God begets the Son deitatem habentem who has the Divinity the Divine Nature and Essence and has it by his Generation and Birth which in reality is the same though they thought the expression less liable to mistake For the truth of the Case is this The Schools that asserted the perfect Singularity of the Divine Essence fenced against all Expressions of an absolute signification which multiplied Natures for Two absolute Natures cannot be singularly One and therefore would not say that Nature and Essence begets or is begotten for in these Propositions the terms Nature and Essence unless qualified and restrained signify absolutely and so infer Two absolute Natures and Essences that which begets and that which is begotten and therefore they rather call this a Communication than a Generation of Nature because this last signifies relatively That which is communicated may be a Singular Nature which subsists distinctly in more than one but with a necessary relation to its Original and such a Communication does not multiply Natures but only Essential Relations And this is the difference they made between Deus Deitatem habens God and one who has the Divinity that God signifies absolutely an Absolute Independent Divinity which has no relation or communication with any other but One who has the Divinity may signify One who has it not originally and absolutely but by communication from another and in an Essential Relation to him as the Son and the Holy Spirit have which is the same Divinity in Three and but One in Three And therefore I think the Schools were very much in the right for rejecting Tres Dii Three Gods when at the same time they owned Tres Deitatem habentes Three who have the Divinity for these do not signify the same thing The first unless qualified is Polytheism the second the Christian Trinity in Unity though I confess I should not chuse to call the Father One who has the Divinity but simply God because he is absolutely and originally so and not by communication and for that reason is both in Scripture and in the Fathers eminently callâ—d God and the One God whereas the other Divine Perâ—â—â—s are the Son of God and the Spirit of God and as Teâ—â—â—â—â—ian observes never called God when joined with the Father though they are when spoken of distinctly by themselves For the same Reason the Schools forbid the use of Abstract or Subâ—tantive Terms in the Plural Number when we speak of the Dâ—vine Persons but allow of Plural Adjectives because Substantives signify absolutely and multiply Natures as well as Persons or Suppositums but Adjectives may signify relatively and multiply Persons without multiplying Natures as Three Eternals Three Omnipotents Three Infinites in a Substantive sense signify Three Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Natures as well as Persons but Three who are Eternal Omnipotent Infinite signify a Trinity of Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Persons but do not necessarily signify a Trinity of Natures since these Three may subsist in the same Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Nature and each of them have this Eternal Infinite Nature and all the same But still the difficulty remains if Person or Suppositum and Nature be perfectly the same How the Father can communicate his Nature and not his Person How there can be Three Incommunicable Persons and Suppositums and but One Nature and that communicable to more than One That thus it is and how it may be is better explained by an Example than by any words without it And I shall instance in a living substantial Image This is the true Character of the Second Person of the Trinity that he is so the Son as to be the Living Perfect Image of God as has been explained at large elsewhere as you may find in the Margin Now every man must confess that the Prototype and the Image are two distinct Incommunicable Suppositums the Prototype is not the Image nor the Image the Prototype and yet we must confess that there is and must be but one and the same Nature in both not Specifically but Identically the same for a perfect Image is and can be nothing but the same that the Prototype is the same Eternity the same Life the same Wisdom Power and Goodness but all this not Personally the same for their Persons are not and cannot be the same but identically and invariably the same or else it can't be a true and perfect Image And this makes it evident that though Person and Nature be perfectly the same
in God yet when he begets a Son he neither begets his own Person nor Nature which would be to beget himself which St. Austin and the Schools after him reject as absurd for an Image of God is neither the Person nor the Personal Nature of God but of the same Nature with him and perfectly the same there being no other difference between them but that one is the Prototype the other the Image one the Father the other the Son So that when God of his own whole perfect Substance begets a whole perfect living substantial Image he does not beget himself but another he does not beget his own Nature nor another Nature like his own but his own Image of the same Nature with himself He begets another Person who is as truly and perfectly God as the true perfect living Image of God must be perfect God but he does not in an absolute sense beget God neither se Deum nor alium Deum as the Schools rightly determine neither himself God nor another God for he neither begets his own Essence and Divinity nor another Divinity but another who is the perfect Image of his own Divine Essence And what is here said of the Generation of the Son as the living subsisting Image of God must be applied to the Procession of the Holy Spirit who is the Eternal Spirit of God as the Son is his Image This is what the Catholick Fathers call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that One Divinity in which they place the Unity of God That there is but One Absolute Divinity or Divine Nature which is the Person of the Father who is therefore eminently acknowledged to be the One God as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Fountain of the Divinity that is of the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit which are not two other Absolute Divinities for then they would be two more Gods besides the Father but the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit is the same One Divinity of the Father as an Eternal Perfect Begotten Living Image and an Eternal Proceeding Spirit each of which is in himself true and perfect God and all Three but One God or One Divinity not merely because they receive their Divinity from God by an Eternal Generation and Procession nor as they have a Divinity or Divine Nature specifically the same with the Father which alone can no more render them One God than Father and Son are One Man but as the singular individual Divinity of the Father is in the Son and Holy Spirit as it is manifest the singular individual Nature of the Prototype is and must be in its living substantial Image without which it is not a Natural Image though it may have a perfect likeness of Nature if it have an absolute Nature of its own This is what Tertullian tells us That there is unus Deus cum oeconomia One God with his Economy and what St. Hilary and others so often tell us That the Father does not cease to be the One God by having a Son since the Son is God by Nativity and Birth and Authoritate Paternoe Naturoe by having his Father's Nature who is the One God And this is all that the Schools mean by the Singularity of the Divine Nature and Essence and it is impossible they should mean any thing else when they teach that this singular Nature is communicable They allow as I have already shewn that Nature and Person is the same that each Person is Suppositum and Substance a singular incommunicable Substance and therefore that there were Three Suppositums and in that sense Three Substances in the Trinity but not Three Natures and Essences though each Person be distinctly by himself the Divine Nature and Essence Now since what is strictly singular is Numerically One and what is Numerically One and never can be more can't be multiplied as that seems to be which is communicated what sense can there possibly be in a singular communicable which seem to be contradictory Terms But this is very good sense and very Catholick Doctrine if we understand this Singular Communicable as the Schools did of One absolute Divinity or Divine Nature which is so singular that it can be but One as is demonstrable by Reason But yet may beget its own essential Image which is not another Divinity or another Nature but it s own singular Nature in its Image which is another Suppositum and Person but not another Nature That this is the Sense of the Schools and all that they meant by the Singularity of the Divine Essence is evident from the whole Doctrine of Relations A Trinity of Proper Real Persons each of which is Nature Essence and Substance was made an Argument against the perfect Unity as well as against the perfect Simplicity of the Divine Nature for Plurality and Unity are opposed to each other To this the Schools answer That a Plurality and Unity of the same kind are indeed opposite to each other and cannot be reconciled as a Plurality of Natures cannot be reconciled with the Unity of Nature nor a Plurality of Persons with the Unity of a Person but a Plurality of Persons and Unity of Nature may be reconciled and thus it is with the Trinity in Unity for though each Divine Person be the Divine Nature and Essence yet Three Divine Persons are not Three Absolute Natures and Essences but Three Relations in One Singular Absolute Nature SECT VIII Concerning the Divine Relations BUT it will be of great use more particularly to consider this Doctrine of Relations without which it is impossible rightly to understand what the Schools teach about a Trinity in Unity And to reduce it into as narrow a compass as I can I shall 1. shew What the Schools mean by Relations in the Divine Nature 2. Why they insist so much upon Relations 1. What they mean by Divine Relations Now they tells us That they are real Relations not made by the Mind from some external Respects and Habitudes which it observes between things but antecedent to all the Acts of Reason in the things themselves That they are not inherent Accidents but Substance and subsisting Relations not relative Names and Appellations but the Relatives themselves the Persons related being the Relations and the Relation the Person which are therefore by some called Substantiae Relativae and Entia Realia Relativa Relative Substances and Real Beings but Relative that is not Absolute Substances and Absolute Beings with a Relation as it is in Creatures where the Son is as Absolute a Man and as Absolute a Person as the Father is though they are related to each other as Father and Son but the very Substance and Person is the Relation Before I shew That this is the Doctrine of the Schools the better to understand what they say and the Reasons of it it will be necessary to give as plain and intelligible an Idea of this as I can especially
since I find some Learned Men boggle very much at the Notion of Relative Substances which are not merely the Subjects of Relations but the Relations themselves What their Objection is against this I can't tell unless they think that a Relative Substance is not True and Perfect Substance which is very far from the Notion of the Schools who attribute compleat and perfect Subsistence to these Divine Relations or Persons not as Accidents in their Subjects nor as Parts in a Whole which is their Notion of Substance and compleat Subsistence but a Relative Substance only signifies such a Substance as is not the Original but is all that it is from another which they call the Relatio Originis not merely such a Relation as is between the Cause and the Effect which is seldom a substantial subsisting Relation but the Relation between Substance and Substance when one Substance in the notion of Suppositum is wholly and perfectly derived and expressed from the other The easiest Representation of this is the relation between the Prototype or Original and its Image which is not a mere Relation of Likeness and Similitude but of Origination that the Image is taken from the Original which is the foundation of the Relation Though Two Eggs were never so perfectly alike yet One is not the Image of the Other because it is not of the Other nor its natural Representation though perfectly like it but the Image is that which results from the Object like a Face in the Glass or the Impression of a Seal and the whole Essence of such an Image as an Image is relative And it is the same case as to a living substantial Image of that Life and Substance from whence it proceeds it is as perfect Life and Substance it self as its Original or else it could not be a natural Image of Life and Substance but yet it is Relative Life and Substance Life of Life the Prototype begetting its own Image in a perfect Identity and Sameness of Nature Whole of Whole And this is the Notion of the Schools concerning Relative Substances which is intelligible enough And that this is what they mean by Relations in the Godhead or Divine Nature is as plain The Master of the Sentences tells us That these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost signify the Properties of Paternity Filiation and Procession for they are Relatives which speak a mutual respect and denote Relations which are not Accidents in God but immutably in the Persons themselves so that they are not mere relative Appellations but are Relations or Notions in the things themselves that is in the Persons And by this Argument Tho. Aquinas proves That these are real Relations and are really in God because the Father is so called from the Relation of Paternity and the Son from Filiation that were not Paternity and Filiation realiter in Deo real subsisting Relations in the Divinity it would follow That God is not really Father or Son but only according to different Conceptions which is the Sabellian Heresy And proves That these Relations in God are real because they are Divine Processions in the Identity of Nature that is the Son who proceeds from the Father in the Identity of the same Nature and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from Father and Son in the Identity of the same Nature For they called both the Generation of the Son and the Spiration of the Holy Ghost Processions as the Greeks did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one processio intellectus the other amoris Now these real Processions are Respects in the nature of things and such Respects are real Relations for when any thing proceeds from a Principle of the same Nature both that which proceeds and that from which it proceeds must necessarily be of the same Order and therefore have a real respect to each other Divine Processions in the Identity of Nature must be related to each other in the Unity of the same Nature and must be substantial subsisting Relations for they are no other than the Persons themselves who thus proceed It is a received Conclusion in the Schools That a Relation in God is the same with the Divine Essence That Personal Relations are not reipsa distinguished either from the Persons or the Essence And Gilbertus Porretanus who taught the contrary was forced to recant in the Council of Rhemes The real Distinction of these Relations in the Unity of the Divine Nature is another avowed Doctrine of the Schools and by a real Distinction they mean a Distinction in re in the Subject and Suppositum And this they prove from the real Distinction of Persons which are distinguished only by Relations From a real Trinity which is One in Substance but multiplied by Relations relatio multiplicat Trinitatem and therefore unless these Relations be really distinguished from each other there can't be a Real but only a Notional Trinity which is Sabellianism That these Relations which constitute the Trinity are opposite Relations which require distinct Subjects as Paternity and Filiation for no man can be Father and Son to himself That these Divine Relations are real Relations and therefore must be really distinct or else they are not all real unless they be really opposed to each other which makes a real distinction and therefore there must be a real distinction in God not as to any thing absolute secundum rem absolutam which is the Divine Essence which has the most perfect and simple Unity but secundum rem relativam with respect to a Relative Being and Subsistence So that these Relations are Relative Beings Relative Subsistences and as they are sometimes called Relative Substances which are really distinct though not in Nature yet in their Suppositums not as Tâ—ree Absolute Beings which makes a distinction in Nature but as Three Real Subsisting Relations in the Unity of the same Nature But not â—o multiply words in so plain a Case I shall observe buâ— one thing more to this purpose and that concerns the Dispute concâ—â—ning the Number of the Divine Persons The Catholick Faith owns a Trinity or only Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead Father Son and Holy 〈◊〉 and it is the known Doctrine of the Schools That the Relation is the Person How comes it to pass then that when there are Four Relations in the Godhead Paternity Filiation Active Spiration and Procession there should be but Three Persons Now the Answer which Aquinas and others give to this Difficulty is this That it is not every Relation but only opposite Relations which constitute and distinguish Persons for more Persâ—ns are more subsisting Relations really distinct from each other but there can be no real distinction between the Divine Relations but upon account of their relative opposition And therefore two opposite Relations must belong to two Persons but such Relations as are not opposite to each other must belong to the same Person and therefore Paternity and
abundantly appears from what I have already proved at large 2 Those very Persons who charge Philoponus with Tritheism for asserting Three Individual Natures and Essences do themselves own a Personal Substance Leontius as Nicâ—ph rus tells us wrote a large Book against Philoponus and yet he tells us That the Fathers by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence or Substance and Nature understood the same thing and so they did by Hypostasis and Person That by Essence and Substance they meant what the Philosophers call a Species by Hypostasis and Person what they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Individual Substance And in this sense he tells us They acknowledged One Divinity in Three Hypostases or Three Personal Subsistencies That there is One Hypostasis that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Father One Hypostasis of the Son and One Hypostasis of the Holy Ghost that these Three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in nothing differ from each other but only in their Personal Properties 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that one is the Father the other the Son the other the Holy Ghost So that Leontius owns Three true proper Persons each of which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Individual Substance which he asserts to be the true Catholick Ecclesiastical Notion of a Person and each Person as distinct from each other as he that begets is from him who is begotten and therefore when he condemned Philoponus for his Individual Natures and Essences he could not by that mean relative Personal Subsistencies or Substances Theodorus Abucara if he be the Author of that Tract against the Severians Explanatio vocum quibus Philosophi utuntur which I have sometimes suspected to belong to Theodorus Presbyter Raithensis who promises such an Explication of Philosophical Terms at the end of his Treatise de Incarnatione I say this Theodorus whoever he is expresly charges these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Individual Natures and Essences with Tritheism and yet throughout that Treatise teaches That Hypostasis is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a singular Individual Nature and so does Anastasius Sinaita in his Hodegos and indeed all the Writers of that Age who asserted against the Severians the Union of Two Natures in One Person in Christ. 3 dly But we shall soon be satisfied in this matter if we consider the occasion of this Dispute The Severians as they had learnt from their Master Severus and he from Eutyches taught that there was but One Nature as well as One Person in Christ and that for this reason That to assert Two Natures is consequently to assert Two Persons in Christ which is Nestorianism for every Nature is a Person that it is impossible there should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Nature without a Personality of its own for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature and Person or Hypostasis are the same In opposition to this the Catholicks urged That if Nature and Hypostasis were so the same that One Hypostasis is One Nature and One Nature but One Hypostasiâ— then as we assert Three Hypostasis in the Trinity we must also allow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Individual Natures and Essences in the Trinity Philoponus saw that this was an unavoidable Consequence and therefore rather than own Two Natures in One Person in Christ he chose to assert Three Individual Natures in the Trinity And for this he and his Followers were very justly charged with Tritheism And this shews us what these Individual Natures were not Three Relative Personal Subsistencies and Substances in the same One Individual Nature which is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity but Three Compleat Absolute Divinities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three such Divine Natures as there are Three Individual Human Natures in Three Men Each of which is by himself and alone without communication with any other in the same Individual Nature One compleat intire Humane Nature and One Human Person For this was the rise of the Dispute concerning the Humanity of Christ. The Catholicks owned the Personality of the Word but taught that Christ's Humane Nature was so united to his Divinity as not to be a distinct Human Person but to subsist in the Person of the Word which is the true Faith of the Word 's being Incarnate or made Flesh which could not be true if the Person of the Word were not Incarnate and that could not be true if the Human Nature in Christ were a distinct Human Person as other Men are On the other hand the Severians denied the Union of Two Natures in the One Person of Christ because an Individual Human Nature must be a Person and then Christ must be two Persons as well as two Natures So that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a compleat absolute Individual Nature such as an Individual Human Nature is and three such Individual Natures make three Men or Three Gods and to assert Three such Absolute Divinities is Tritheism but this concerns not Personal Relative Subsistencies or Substances in the same Individual Nature and Essence and therefore the Condemnation of Philoponus or Valentinus Gentilis and such kind of Hereticks if they did really teach what they are charged with cannot affâ—ct those who assert Three real distinct substantial Persons each of whom is by himself in his own Person the whole Divine Nature Essence Substance but are essentially and inseparably related to each other in the Unity of the same Individual Essence The very asserting three relative personal Subsistencies or Substances in One Individual Nature is a direct opposition to the Doctrine of Philoponus and the Severians that Nature and Person is the same so the same that One Nature can be but One Person and One Person but One Nature which necessarily overthrows a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence and the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature in the One Person of Christ but Three Relative Persons and Subsistencies in One Nature and One Nature and One Person are direct Contradictions as One Individual Substance and Three Individual Substances are Indeed those who deny Three Relative Personal Subsistencies that is Three Real Proper Substantial Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature go upon the same Principle with Philoponus and the Severians that One Nature is but One True and Proper Person or Hypostasis and therefore there cannot be Three Proper Subsisting Persons in the Unity of One Individual Substance which as Anastatius Sinaita and the other Catholick Writers of that Age frequently observe is that fundamental Error which gave birth to Sabellianism Arianism Nestorianism and Eutychanism for as different as these Heresies are the fundamental Principle is the same that One Individual Nature is and can be but One Person and One Person but One Nature For this reason Sabellius who acknowledged the Unity of the Divine Nature rejected a Trinity of proper Subsisting Persons Arius who owned a Trinity of Persons denied their Consubstantiality or Sameness and
Identity of Nature Nestorius who owned Two Natures in Christ asserted also Two Persons and Eutyches made Christ but One Nature as well as One Person and in consequence of this Philoponus if he was not mistaken taught Three Individual Natures as well as Three Persons in the Godhead So that to make Nature and Person in the true and proper notion of Person commensurate and convertible Terms that a Nature is a Person and a Person an Individual Nature that One Nature is but One Person and One Person but One Nature and that Individual Natures and Persons must always be multiplied with each other is the fundamental Principle of all the Heresies relating to the Trinity and Incarnation and then one would think that those Doctrines which expresly contradict this Principle and all these Heresies which result from it should be the true Catholick Faith And then Three Real Substantial Subsisting Persons or Three Relative Personal Subsistencies or Substances in the Unity of the same Individual Essence or one Godhead is the True Catholick Faith and to reject it upon pretence that this must multiply Natures with Persons and so make Three Divinities and Three Gods is to return to that condemned Heretical Principle That One Nature can be but One True and Proper Person which if Men understand the true Consequences of what they say must inevitably betray them to Sabellianism Arianism or Tritheism And thus much for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I hope we shall hear no more of The Doctrine of Relations demonstrates the Individual Unity of the Divine Essence for if Father Son and Holy Ghost though each of them in his own Person be True and Perfect God yet are not Three Absolute Divinities but Three Eternal Subsisting Relations in the same One Divinity they must be One Individual Essence and Substance for else they cannot be the Relations of the same One Essence and Substance 2. As these Divine Relations prove the Individual Unity of Nature and Essence so they prove the Sameness and Identity of Nature wherein as I have shewn at large the Catholick Fathers place the Unity of the Godhead That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity is One God A few words will serve to explain this after what I have already discoursed on this Argument The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have already shewn does not signify the Singularity but the perfect invariable Sameness and Identity of Nature not such a Sameness as every single Person is the same with himself but such a Sameness as is between distinct Persons of the same Nature Now the Doctrine of Relations necessarily infers this perfect Sameness and Identity and this Relative Sameness and Identy proves a perfect Unity As for the first there needs no other proof but barely to represent it for it is self-evident For is it possible that a Perfect Living Subsisting Word should not be perfectly the same with that Infinite Mind whose Word it is and from whom it proceeds That a Perfect Living Subsisting Image should not be perfectly the same with its Prototype from whom it receives its Being and Nature For if the Word be not perfectly the same with the Mind nor the Image with its Prototype it is not a true and perfect Word not a perfect Image By these Relations of Father and Son of a Mind and its Word a Prototype and its Image the Catholick Fathers as I have already shewn prove the perfect invariable Sameness and Identity of Nature for the thing proves it self The Relation indeed of Father and Son considered in general proves no more than a specifick Sameness of Nature which may admit of great changes and variety within the same Species but when God is the Father and begets a Son of his own Substance his Nature being absolutely and immutably perfect he must communicate the same perfect invariable Nature to his Son especially when this Son is his own perfect living Word and his perfect Image But this is not all A perfect Sameness between Two Absolute Natures without the least conceivable difference or variation would not be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sameness of Identity for though they could subsist as perfectly the same as their Idea is yet they would be Two Absolute Natures not One Nature But a perfect Sameness in Essential Relations or Relative Subsistencies proves a perfect Identity of Nature that they are perfectly the same in the same One Individual Nature As a living substantial Word must receive its substance and being whole of whole from that Mind whose Word it is for if it be not the same Substance it can't be the substantial Word of that Mind whose Substance it is not nor can a living substantial Image be any other Substance than that of the Prototype for if it were it might be its likeness but not its natural Image And thus this Sameness and Identity of Nature proves each Person by himself to be true and perfect God and all Three but One God for each Person according to this Doctrine has and must have the whole perfect Divinity in himself and all Three but one and the same Divinity 3. These Subsisting Relations in the Unity of Nature give us an intelligible Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the inseparable Union of the Divine Persons and their mutual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inexistence Inbeing in each other That all the Catholick Fathers asserted the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or inseparable Union of the Divine Persons as essential to the Unity of the Godhead is so well known that I need not multiply Quotations to prove it after what I have already observed to that purpose But the Question is What they mean by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein the Essential Unity of the Godhead consists Now it is certain this relates to the inseparable Union of the Persons for it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided and separate Hypostases and Persons which the Fathers charge with Tritheism The Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inseparable from the Essence and Substance of the Father and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is inseparably in the Father that he is begotten of the Father without any division of Substance within the Father and inseparable from him so that this does not relate immediately to the Unity of Nature but the Union of Persons and therefore cannot signify the Singularity of the Divine Nature but the Inseparable Union of real distinct Persons in the Unity of Nature That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Inseparable Union and Inbeing of Persons does as necessarily prove the real Distinction of Persons as the Unity of Nature as St. Hilary and Athanasius and the other Fathers frequently observe and that proves that the Unity of the Divine Nature which is the Inseparable Union of Three proper subsisting Persons is not the Unity of Singularity Which shews by the way how improperly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is made use of to prove the
Singularity of the Divine Essence for it proves quite the contrary it is the Unity of Three which is a Trinity in Unity not the Unity of One which is Singularity and Solitude In the next place I observe That by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Catholick Fathers understand in this Mystery the inseparable Union of Relatives in the same Individual Nature not the Union of compleat absolute Natures how close and inseparable soever it may be There is by Nature no Inseparable Union but in the same Individual Nature Three compleat Individuals though of the same Kind and Species how closely and intimately soever they be united are not by Nature inseparable nor essentially One for they may be parted by that Power which united them and when they are parted can subsist apart as Three compleat Minds how intimately soever they should be united by God yet can never be essentially and inseparably One for they are not essential to each other they might have subsisted apart and may be parted again and an External Union cannot so make them One as to be naturally inseparable Which I think is a Demonstration that a Natural Inseparability which is an Essential Unity can be only in One Individual Nature between such Relatives as are Essential to each other and can neither be nor be conceived divided or separated And therefore the Catholick Fathers represented the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Examples of Natural Unions between things Essentially related to each other in One Individual Nature which either cannot be conceived or at least cannot subsist apart Of this last Kind are a Fountain and its Streams a Tree and its Branches whereby they not only represent the Homoousion but the Inseparable Union of the Divine Persons as every one knows for there cannot be a Fountain but its Waters must flow out nor Streams without a Fountain from whence they flow and though Branches may be separated from the Tree yet they live no longer than they are united and are Branches of that Tree no longer But these are very imperfect Images and without great caution will corrupt our Ideas of the Divine Unity Of all Corporeal Unions the nearest resemblance we have of this and which the Fathers most insist on is the Sun and its natural Splendor for we cannot conceive the Sun without its Splendor nor the Splendor without the Sun they never were never can be parted and therefore though two are essentially one This Representation the Scripture makes of it which calls the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Brightness of his Father's Glory and in this Sense they teach that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Light of Light as it is in the Nicene Creed whereby they do not mean two distinct independent Lights which either are or may be parted though one be lighted at the other this was the Heresy of Hierachas as St. Hilary tells us who represented this Mystery by two Candles one of which is lighted at the other or by one and the same Lamp which is divided and burns in two Sockets but that Light and Splendor which is essential to the same Sun and can never be divided from it as Athanasius teaches But the truest Images we have of this in Nature is the Inseparable Union which is between a Mind and its own Internal Word which are so essentially related to each other in the same Individual Nature that they can never be parted nor conceived apart the Mind can never be without its Word nor the Word subsist but in the Mind It is evident That two compleat absolute Minds can never be thus united for they are not Essential to each other not naturally one and therefore not naturally inseparable but a Mind and its Word though two are essentially One and therefore can never be parted but must subsist together and these are the Characters the Scripture gives us of God the Father and his Son the Father Infinite Eternal Self-originated Mind the Son his Eternal Infinite Living Subsisting Word And if Father and Son this Eternal Mind and Eternal Word be as essentially One as a mans Mind and his Word are One this is a Demonstration of their Inseparable Union and gives us a sensible Notion and Idea of it This is the account Athanasius every where gives of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Father and Son are inseparably One the Father being in the Son and the Son in the Father as the Word is in the Mind and the Light in the Sun To separate the Divine Persons so as not to be in each other whatever other Union we own between them Dionysius of Alexandria charges with Tritheism for the Divine Word must of necessity be one with God and the Holy Spirit be and subsist in him And this Athanasius resolves into such a Sameness and Unity of Nature as must be between two Relative Subsistencies in the same Individual Nature That the Son is in the Father as the Word is in the Mind and the Splendor in the Sun that he is a genuine proper natural Son in the Father's Essence and Substance not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not subsisting out of his Father's Substance as other Creature Sons do That the true Notion of the Sons being in the Father is that the whole Being of a Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Genuine Natural Birth of the Father's Substance the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Splendor is of the Sun That the very Being of the Son is the Form of Species and Divinity of the Father That as the Sun and its Splendor are two but not two Lights but one Light from the Sun enlightening all things with its Splendor and Brightness so the Divinity of the Son is the Divinity of the Father and therefore inseparable and thus there is but one God and none else besides him All this plainly refers to the Inseparable Union and Inbeing of Relatives of the same Individual Substance which are really distinct but essentially in each other as the Word is in the Mind and the Mind in the Word that Thought it self cannot part them which is such an Union as can never be between compleat absolute Substances which are not naturally Inseparable nor essentially One. Herein Athanasius places the adequate Notion of the Homoousion the Sameness Identity and Unity of Nature He tells us That for this reason the Nicene Fathers taught the Homoousion or that the Son is Consubstantial or of one Substance with the Father to signify that the Son is not only like the Father but to be so of the Father as to be the same in likeness not after the manner of Bodies which are like each other but subsist apart by themselves as Human Sons subsist separately from their Parents but the Generation of the Son of the Substance of the Father is of a different Kind and Nature from Human Generations for he is not only like but inseparable from his Father's Substance
Operation necessarily proves the Distinction and Unity of Essence it being in our way of conceiving things a necessary effect of it there must be some real Distinction in the same Nature and Essence in which there are Three who Act distinctly and there must be an Individual Unity of Essence when in Three there is but One Individual Operation and though these things may be distinguished in Creatures where we distinguish the Suppositum and the Powers and give a priority of Nature to the Suppositum yet Essence and Energy being the same in God who is a pure simple Act there can be no priority nor posteriority between them but the Demonstration proceeds equally upon Nature or Operation but that is the best which is the most intelligible Representation of this Distinction and Unity For this reason the Fathers chose to explain the Distinction and Unity of the Godhead by the Distinction and Unity of Operation which I need not prove at large as being universally owned and therefore I shall only observe how St. Gregory Nyssen represents this matter In his Answer to Ablabius that there are not Three Gods he tells us That the best way to form the clearest and most perspicuous Notion of this is to examine what this Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Godhead signifies Now whereas some think this a proper Name to signify the Divine Nature and Essence he asserts with the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Divine Nature and Essence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a Name and can't be signified by words and that every Name which is given to God signifies something essential to him but not his Nature and Essence it self This he shews particularly in some Names given to God and affirms That thus it is in all other Divine Names that either they remove all Imperfections or attribute all Divine Perfections to him but do not declare his Nature And thus he adds it is in the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is God is a Sâ—er an Inspector who beholds all things Now if God signifies him who sees and knows all things we must inquire whether this All-seeing Power belongs only to one of the Divine Persons of the Trinity or to all Three For if this be the true interpretation of the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is an All-seeing Power and that He that sees all is God we cannot reasonably deny this to any Person in the Holy Trinity since the Scripture does equally attribute this Omniscience to Father Son and Holy Ghost Well! suppose this as he adds it does not remove but encrease the difficulty for though God be not a Name of Nature but of Energy and Power if the Name God signifies a Seer and Inspector and there be Three who thus see all things Three must be Three Gods as we number Persons of the same Profession who all do the very same things as well as those who have the same Nature as we say many Orators Mathematicians and the lâ—ke as well as many Mâ—n Now this he answers by the Unity of Energy and Power which is in each of them but is but One indivisible inseparable Power not as it is in Men who each of them acts separately by himself and though they do the same thing for kind yet what each of them does is properly his own doing and not anothers They act separately and produce distinct and separate Effects and therefore are many Agents But it is quite otherwise as to the Divine Nature The Father does nothing by himself without the Son nor the Son without the Holy Ghost but each Divine Operation proceeds originally from the Father is continued by the Son and perfected in the Holy Spirit and therefore the name of Energy is not divided into a number of Agents because neither of them acts separately by himself And this he proves from the Unity of the Effect that whatever good thing we receive from God as suppose Life is attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost but though it be given by Three that which is given or done for us is not Three we do not receive three Lives one from each Person of the Trinity but we have but one Life which we receive from them all Now where there is but One Undivided Effect there can be but One Natural Agent for separate Agents will produce separate Effects and therefore there can be but one motion of the Divine Will from the Father by the Son to the Holy Spirit and that without distance and Succession Now it is plain that all this does not signify a mere Unity of Consent as may be between Three Distinct and Separate Minds but the Unity of Principle which acts distinctly but uniformly and inseparably in Three the same Divine Will which is originally in the Father acting in the same manner and with one indivisible motion as they speak in the Son and Holy Spirit which Unity of Operation though it admits of distinct Acts and consequently a real distinction of Persons yet proves the individual Unity of Essence for there can be no Unity of Principle or Operation but in the same Individual Essence where Three Persons are united in the same Individual Essence as the Mind its Word and Spirit are in Man And here had there not been enough already said about it is a proper Place to vindicate that late Representation which has been made of the Distinction and Unity of the Godhead by the self-consciousness and mutual consciousness of the Divine Persons I have met with no body yet so hardy as to deny that Self-consciousness is essential to the natural Unity of a Person and that Three Persons cannot be naturally and essentially One without mutual Consciousness But the great Objection against this Notion and which I am amazed to find some Learned Men insist on is the order of Nature which requires that a Person should be One by an Unity of Nature before it can be self-conscious and that Three Persons must be One by the Unity of Nature before they can be mutually conscious For the Unity of Nature and the Union of Persons in the same Nature must be before all Acts of Self-consciousness and mutual Consciousness And that which in the order of Nature comes after such a Distinction and Union cannot be the cause of it But who ever thought of causes of Distinction and Unity in an Eternal Nature which has no cause Did the Fathers philosophize thus concerning Priority and Posteriority in the Divine Nature when they placed the Unity of the Godhead in the Unity of Energy and Operation For does not the same Objection lie against the Unity of Energy and Operation that does â—gainst mutual consciousness which is essential to this Unity of Energy that the Divine Persons must first be One before they
can be One Energy and Power and therefore that One Energy does not cause their Unity because they must be One before they are One Agent And indeed such Men Gregory Nyssen intimates he had to deal with who would not allow the Deity to be Energy and Power but he thought it not worth the while to dispute that Point with them for the Divine Nature being Infinite and Incomprehensible the pure and simple Nature of God is not the immediate Object of our Knowledge can have no name and definition given it and therefore we can know nothing of it immediately and directly but by such Essential Attributes and Properties as we câ—n form some notion of The not considering this how perfectly unknown and incomprehensible the Divine Nature it self is occasioned a late Author to tell us That An Hypothesis in this Affair which leaves out the very Nexus the Natural and Eternal Vnion and insists upon mutual consciousness which at most is but the consequence thereof wants the principal thing requisite to the salving the Vnity of the Godhead But this is to philosophize about the abstracted Natures and Essences of Things even the Divine Substance and Essence which I dare not presume to do No doubt but God is the most real substantial Being in the World even Father Son and Holy Ghost and there is as little doubt but there is as real and substantial an Union between them But I know nothing of the Substance of God as distinguished from his Essential Attributes and Perfections nor of such a Distinction and Unity of Substance in the Deity as can help us to form any notion of a Trinity in Unity and defend it from the Charge of Contradiction and Impossibility when we have done For we must have a care of conceiving any Extension or Parts or Composition in God without which we can have no notion of a Distinction and Union of Substances considered purely under the notion of Substance And therefore we must be contented to be ignorant of the Substance and Substantial Unions of the Deity as we are of all other Substantial Unions We know not what the Substance of a Spirit is nor what the Substance of Matter is nor what their substantial Unity is And therefore when we inquire into their Distinction and Unity we never meddle with the Essential Reasons and Causes of Unity which are concealed from us but consider as far as Sense or Reason or Observation will reach wherein the Unity of any thing consists and when a thing may be said to be One As to instance at present only in the Unity of a Mind and in the Union of Soul and Body Is there any thing else in the World which can make a Mind one with it self and distinguish it from all other Minds but a self-conscious Sensation that it feels it self and its whole self and only it self I suppose these Men will grant that such a Mind is One and but One and distinct from all other Minds but Self-consciousness is not the formal reason of the Unity of a Mind or of a Person because in order of Nature the Unity of a Mind or Person must go before Self-consciousness that is Self-consciousness is owing to the Unity of Essence not the Unity of Essence to Self-consciousness Well but what is this Essence of a Mind and this Unity of Essence which makes a Mind One Truly that no body can tell and therefore to say a Mind is one by the Unity of its Essence is to say it is One because it is so for we know no more of the matter But Self-consciousness is a sensible Unity which we all feel in our selves and know our selves from other Men by it This Unity of Essence we know nothing of but by Self-consciousness and I desire to know whatever the Unity of Essence be whether any but a Self-conscious Unity would make a Mind One and distinguish it from all other Minds which shews that we have nothing to do with the naked Essences and Substances of Things but with their immediate and essential Properties and when we know them we know all that is to be known of Nature and therefore we can know no more of the Unity of a Mind than Self-consciousness The Substances of things are distinguished from each other by their Essential Properties and therefore from them we must learn their Unity or Distinction A Mind is a Substance and Matter is Substance and the essential difference between them as far as we can understand is that a Mind is a thinking Substance and Matter extended Substance and therefore we must judge of a Mind by the properties of Thinking and of Matter by extension The Unity of a Thinking Substance must consist in the Unity of Thoughts and Sensations that is in one Consciousness and the Unity of an Extended Substance in the continuity of its extension and to ask farther what is the cause or principle of Consciousness in a Mind or of One Consciousness in One Mind is to ask a reason of the natures of things why a Mind is a Thinking Being and why One Thinking Being has one Center of Thoughts Why do they not ask also how Extension comes to be essential to Matter and how Matter is extended I know no reason to be given of such matters but the Will of God who formed all things according to the Ideas of his own Infinite Wisdom This I hope is sufficient to be said concerning the order of Nature and the priority and posteriority of our Conceptions for if we do not stop in our Inquiries at immediate and essential Properties but demand an antecedent Reason for them this is to demand a Reason of Nature Why things are what God has made them Those who are not contented to contemplate Nature in its immediate and Essential Properties may philosophize by themselves for me for there is nothing more to be known without an intuitive knowledge of Nature it self which none can have but the Author of Nature Thus should you inquire of me concerning the Union of Soul and Body all that I know of it is That they are united in one Conscious Life That the Soul feels all the Impressions of the Body and directs and governs it No will such Philosophers say here wants the Nexus the natural Union between Soul and Body for they must be One by a Natural Union before there can be this Conscious Life and Sympathy between them which is not the Union but the effect and consequent of this Union Very true They must be vitally united to have One Life and to receive impressions from each other But can they give any other notion of this Vital Union than that the Body is animated by the Soul and lives with it Could these Philosophers tell you how a Soul which is an Immaterial Being could be fastened to a Body what Union of Substances there is between them which is the thing they want to know would they understand a Vital Union ever
the better for it An Union of Substances seems to signify some kind of Contact which is hard to conceive between Body and Spirit but however an Union of Contact and an Union of Life are two very different kinds of Union and do not include or infer each other and therefore the true Answer to that Question How Soul and Body are united is not to say That their Substances are united or fastened together which gives us no notion of a Vital Union but that the Soul lives in the Body and gives life to it receives impressions srom it and governs its motions But to inquire farther is to inquire into the Reasons of Natural and Essential Unions which are as great Mysteries as Nature is We may as well ask How a Soul lives as how it animates a Body and God alone knows both So that to inquire after the Natural Nexus or Cement of this Union is nothing at all to the purpose and is not the Object of Human Knowledge Now though the Vital Union between Soul and Body and the Union of mutual Consciousness be of a very different Kind and Nature yet the Dispute about the Nexus or the Natural Union of Substances is much the same Consciousness is the Unity of a Spirit Self-consciousness is the Unity of a Person and by the same reason mutual Consciousness is a Natural Union of Three distinct Self-conscious Persons in the Unity of the same Nature And to reject this for want of a Nexus or the Natural Union of Substances is as if we should deny the Union of Soul and Body to be an Union of Life or Animation because this don't explain the Natural Nexus between Soul and Body If a Mutual Conscious Union be an Essential Union of Three distinct Persons in the same Nature as a Vital Union is the Essential Union of Soul and Body we have nothing to do in either Case with the Union of Substances which we can know nothing of and if we could should understand these Unions never the better for it For whatever Union of Substance we may suppose between Soul and Body and the Three Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity it is the Kind and Species of Union which gives us the Notion and Idea of it If you inquire what Spirit and what Matter is It would not be thought a good Answer to these Questions to say a Spirit is a Substance and Matter is a Substance without adding their Specifick Differences that a Spirit is an intelligent thinking Substance and Matter is an extended Substance nor is it a better Answer to that Question what Union there is between Soul and Body or between the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity To say That their Substances are united which gives us no distinct Notion of their Union but a Vital Union and a Mutual Conscious Union contain distinct Ideas and if these be Natural and Essential Unions though we know no more of the Union of Substances than we do what Substance is yet we know that the Soul and Body must be one Natural Person and the Three Divine Persons must be naturally and essentially One God for a Natural Union makes One according to the Nature of that Union It is visible enough what has occasioned this Mistake Men consider Mutual Consciousness between Three Compleat Absolute Independent Minds and rightly enough conclude that how conscious soever they were to each other this could not make them essentially One for every compleat Mind is One by it self and not naturally Conscious to any One but it self and by whatever Power they should be so united as to be mutually Conscious this could not make them essentially One they would be Three Mutually Conscious Minds not essentially One Mind for they are not by Nature One nor mutually Conscious and therefore may be parted again and cease to be so But then in this way of stating it the Objection equally lies against the Perichoresis the inseparable Union and In-being of Minds which can never make Three Compleat Absolute Minds essentially One But if we apply this to the Union of Living Subsisting Intelligent Relatives of the same Individual Essence to Father Son and Holy Ghost Eternal Self-originated Mind its Eternal Living Subsisting Word and Eternal Spirit this Mutual Consciousness gives us the most Intelligible Notion of the Essential and Inseparable Union and In-being of Three in One. I dare not say what other Men can do but I have tried my self and can form no Notion of an Unity in Trinity but what either necessarily includes or ultimately resolves it self into One Natural Essential Consciousness in Three The Divine Nature is indivisibly and inseparably One in Three but we must not understand this Inseparability after the manner of Bodies whose Parts may be divided and separated from each other God is not Body and has no Parts but in the Unity of the Godhead there is Eternal Original Mind an Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit which are inseparable from each other that is can never be parted What then can parting and separating signify in a Mind which has no Parts to be torn and divided from each other I can understand nothing by it but that the Mind does no longer see and know and feel its Word in it self nor the Word the Mind for this would make a perfect Separation between the Mind and its Word that Mind has no Word which does not see and feel it in it self and were it possible that a living subsisting Word should lose all Conscious Sensation of the Mind whose Word it is it would cease to be a Word and commence a perfect separate Mind it self So that as far as we can conceive it the Inseparable Union between Father and Son between Original Infinite Mind and its Eternal Word is an inseparable Conscious Life and Sensation which is such a Natural Demonstration of their Inseparable Union as no other Notion can give us for all Men feel that a Mind and its Word can never be parted a Mind can never be without its Word nor the Word subsist but in the Mind Thus what other possible Notion can we form of the Perichoresis or Mutual In-being of Father and Son as our Saviour tells us I am in the Father and the Father in me which is their Natural and Essential Unity I and my Father are one We all feel how the Word is in the Mind and the Mind in the Word the Mind knows and feels and comprehends its own Word and a perfect living subsisting Word knows and feels that whole Mind whose Word it is in it self for the Word is nothing else but the whole Mind living and subsisting in the Word which is another Hypostasis but perfectly One and the same Nature and therefore as they know themselves so they know and feel each other in themselves As the Father knoweth me saith Christ so know I the Father 10 John 15. And thus to see and know God by an Internal Sensation and to be
Consubstantial Son is a true and real Son for which reason as he observes the Arians would not allow the Son to be Consubstantial because they would not allow him to be a true genuine Son and for this very reason the Nicene Fathers inserted the Homoousion in their Creed But yet if we would rightly conceive of God of Father Son and Holy Ghost of the Unity and Distinction of the Ever Blessed Trinity we must not form our Notions by the Ideas of Substance and Consubstantiality which we have no distinct conceptions of but we must learn their Unity Distinction and Consubstantiality from those Characters the Scripture gives of Father Son and Holy Ghost This Rule St. Ambrose expressly gives us with reference to the Son and the Reason is the same as to the other Divine Persons If we would avoid Error says that Father let us attend to those Characters the Scripture gives us to help us to understand what and who the Son is He is called the Word the Son the Power of God the Wisdom of God all this we can understand and not only St. Ambrose but all the other Catholick Fathers as I have already shewn prove the Consubstantiality Coeternity Coequality Unity and Distinction of Father and Son from these Names and Characters which they understood in a true and proper sense for a Living Subsisting Son and Word and Power and Wisdom and there is no difficulty in conceiving all this if we contemplate it in these Characters nay it is impossible to conceive otherwise of it As impossible as it is to form any notion at all of those Philosophical Terms whereby this Mystery is commonly represented when we abstract them from those sensible Characters and Ideas which the Scripture has given us and begin our Inquiries with them It will be of great use to represent this matter plainly that every man may see what it is that obscures and perplexes the Doctrine of the Trinity and confounds mens notions about it to the great scandal of the Christian Religion and the disturbance of the Christian Church The great difficulty concerns the Unity and Distinction of the Ever Blessed Trinity that they are really and distinctly Three and essentially One And this is represented by One Nature Essence and Substance and Three Hypostases and yet Hypostasis signifies Substance and every Divine Hypostasis is the whole Divine Essence and Substance Now if we immediately contemplate this Mystery under the notion of Substance it is impossible for us to conceive One Substance and Three Hypostases that is in some sense Three Substances or which is all One as to the difficulty of conceiving it though the form of Expression is more Catholick Three each of which is the whole Essence and Substance and neither of them is each other we may turn over our Minds as long as we please and change Words and Phrases but we can find no Idea to answer these or any other words of this nature But now if instead of Essence and Hypostasis we put Mind and its Word we can form a very intelligible notion of this Unity and Distinction and prove that Unity of Substance and Distinction of Hypostases which we cannot immediately and directly form any notion of For Eternal Original Mind and its Living Subsisting Word are certainly Two and neither are nor can be each other the Mind cannot be its own Living Word nor the Word the Mind whose Word it is and yet we must all grant that Eternal Mind is the most Real Being Essence Substance and that a Living Subsisting Word is Life Being Substance and the very same Life and Substance that the Mind is and all that the Mind is for a perfect Living Word can have no other Life and Substance but that of the Mind and must be all the same that the Mind is The Eternal Generation of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Substance of the Father Life of Life Substance of Substance Whole of Whole is impossible to be conceived as immediately applied to the notion of Substance but the Generation of the Word Whole of Whole is very conceivable for the Mind must beget its own Word as we feel in our selves and a Mind which is perfect Life and Substance if it begets its Word must beget a Living Subsisting Substantial Word the perfect Image of its own Life and Substance And as impossible as it is to conceive much more to express in words this Mystery of the Eternal Generation yet the necessary relation between a Mind and its Word proves that thus it is we feel it in our selves though we are as perfectly ignorant how our Mind begets its dying vanishing Word as how the Eternal Mind begets an Eternal Living Subsisting Word And the Generation of the Word includes in it all the Properties of the Divine Generation that it is Eternal for an Eternal Mind can never be without its Word that it is without any Corporeal Passions or Esslux or Division begotten in the Mind and inseparable from it Now if we conceive after the same manner of the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit can any man deny this to be an Intelligible Notion of a Trinity in Unity though we can form no distinct Idea of One Essence and Substance and Three Hypostases For if we can conceive Father Son and Holy Ghost Eternal Original Mind its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit to be Essentially One and Three the Catholick Faith is secured though we do not so well understand the distinction between those Abstract Metaphysical Terms of Nature Essence Substance Hypostasis especially when applied to the Unity and Distinction of the Eternal Godhead which is above all Terms of Art The Catholick Faith is That the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God but yet there are not Three Gods but One God and this the Doctrine of the Divine Relations gives us a very intelligible notion of for we cannot conceive otherwise of the Eternal Mind its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit but that each of them are True and Perfect God and yet a Mind its Word and Spirit can be but One and therefore but One God But One Substance and Three Hypostases is but a secondary notion of a Trinity in Unity to secure the Catholick Faith against the Sabellian and Arian Heresies Against the Sabellians the Catholick Fathers asserted Three Hypostases against the Arians One Substance and the Essential Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost necessarily prove both the One Substance and Three Hypostases but though One Substance and Three Hypostases be the Catholick Language yet those Men begin at the wrong end who think to form an intelligible notion of a Trinity in Unity from these abstract Metaphysical Terms This is not the Language of the Scripture nor have we any Idea to answer these Terms of One Substance in Three distinct Hypostases when we consider them by themselves without relation to the Divine Nature to which alone these
Terms can belong for there is no such thing in created Nature and therefore we can have no Idea of it It is abundantly sufficient in this Case that we have a clear and distinct Notion of One Substance and Three Hypostases in the Essential Unity and Distinction of Father Son and Holy Ghost Three subsisting Relations in One Individual Essence and Substance though when we abstractedly consider these Terms of One Substance and Three Hypostases we can form no consistent Notion or Idea of it And now let our Socinian Adversaries who talk so loud of Absurdities Contradictions Nonsense false Counting and Tritheism try their skill to make good these Charges against the Divine subsisting Relations in the Unity of the same Individual Essence SECT IX A more particular Inquiry into the Difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Nature and Person with an Account of some Catholick Forms of Speech relating to the ever Blessed Trinity BUT since one Nature and Essence and Three Hypostases or Persons is the Catholick Language and necessary to guard the Faith from those Two Extremes of Sabellianism and Arianism it will be necessary to consider how to apply these Ecclesiastical Terms to the Three and One in the ever Blessed Trinity And here were I so disposed I might enter into a very large and perplext Dispute but my design as far as possibly I can attain it is only to explain what the Catholick Fathers meant by these Terms and to give a plain and sensible Notion of them And after what I have already so largely discoursed concerning Nature and Hypostasis I have little more to do than to compare them together and to shew in what the Catholick Fathers placed this Distinction And as nothing is of greater consequence than rightly to understand this matter so nothing requires greater Caution nor greater Application of Mind Whosoever is conversant in the Writings of the Ancient Fathers must acknowledge it not only reasonable but necessary to distinguish between their Faith and their Philosophy Their Faith which they received srom the Scriptures and the Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church is plain and simple and the same in all That there is but One God who has an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit that Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them by himself True and Perfect God and all but One God which is a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity that they are in a true and proper Sense Three and One This is the Catholick Faith wherein they all agree but then those Philosophical Terms which the importunities of Hereticks who corrupted either the Faith of the Unity or Trinity forced them to use in the Explication of this Mystery are of a different Consideration These have not always been the same nor have all agreed in them and the wisest Men have owned great Improprieties in them all when applied to this Sacred Mystery and indeed it is impossible to be otherwise for that infinite Difference and Diversity there is between the Divine and Humane Nature nay all created Nature can never admit of any Common Terms proper to express both The most perfect Creatures bear only some imperfect Analogy and Resemblance to what we conceive of God and therefore when we apply such Words and Terms to the Divine Naturâ— as are borrowed from Creatures and we have no other we must understand them only by way of Analogy and Accommodation and when we expound such Terms as are used by the Catholick Fathers in such an accommodated Sense we must apply them no further than that particular Matter they intended to represent by them I have already shâ—wn this in several particular Passages relating to the Homoousion but now I am more particularly to consider the difference between Essence and Hypostasis and I shall only shew how the matter of fact stands what has occasioned this difficulty what the true state of the Controversy is and how we may form some sensible notion of this Distinction and if I should mistake in so nice a Point as this I hope it will be a pardonable Mistake while I make no change in the Catholick Faith and intend it only as an Essay if it be possible to silence or qualify the Dispute about words The Greek Fathers attribute all the Heresies relating to the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation to this one Mistake that Essence and Hypostasis are the same for then if there be but One Essence in the Blessed Trinity there must consequently be but One Hypostasis which is Sabellianism or if there be Three Hypostases there must be Three Natures and Essences either in the Arian or Tritheistick Notion Thus with reference to the Incarnation two Natures must be two Persons or Hypostases as Nestorius taught or One Person must be but One mixt and compounded Nature too which was the Heresy of Eutyches This some Fathers thought a fundamental Error in Philosophy introduced by Aristotle who makes the first Substance which is the only true and proper Substance to be that which is predicated of no Subject nor is in any Subject that is what we call a Subsisting Individual as this Man or this Horse And therefore Theorianus observes That the Catholick Fathers understood Essence and Hypostasis in a very different sense from the Greek Philosophers that is by Essence and Substance they did not mean one singular Individuum or singular Nature and Substance as Aristotle did but a common Nature not a common Notion as Genus or Species which are Aristotle's second Substances but a common Subsisting Nature which is one and the same whole and perfect in every Individual of the same kind And what Aristotle call'd his first Substance a singular Subsisting Nature that they called Hypostasis a common Subsisting Nature with its individuating Characters and Properties It is evident some Ages past before these words Essence and Hypostasis were thus nicely distinguished or at least before this Distinction was so unanimously received for as I have already observed these Words were used very promiscuously which occasioned the Alexandrian Schism and it does not appear to me that this Distinction was setled by Athanasius and the Bishops with him in that Synod as some seem to think though soon after it generally prevailed as we may learn from St. Basil Gregory Nyssen St. Cyril of Alexandria Damascen Leontius Theorianus Theodorus Abucara Ignatius Sinaita and generally all the Catholick Writers of the Eutychian and Severian Age who universally agree in this That Essence and Hypostasis differ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that which is Universal differs from what is Proper and Singular Now so far these Fathers were certainly in the right That if they must apply Philosophical Terms to Divine Mysteries which the Cavilling Objections of Hereticks made necessary there was an absolute necessity for them to change their signification for as there is nothing common to
God and Creatures so there can be no words in the same sense common to them but then this only requires an accommodation of words to Divine Mysteries by way of analogy and resemblance but not to change the Language and Philosophy of Created Nature which after all our Attempts and all our Art of Expression will fall infinitely short of the Divine Nature and give us but a very imperfect Image of it And if by such Attempts we confound our Notions and Ideas of Nature too we shall so much the more confound and perplex our Ideas of God It may help to ease mens Minds of some Notions which lie cross and uneven Briefly to state this matter I confess I am not satisfied of that absolute necessity which some pretend of stating nicely and Philosophically this distinction between Nature and Person in order to understand the Doctrine of the Trinity This was the Catholick Faith long before this Distinction was universally received and Men who understand little of this Distinction may believe very orthodoxly in Father Son and Holy Ghost without it Nay the best the safest and easiest way to understand these and all other Philosophical Terms applied to the Explication of this Faith is to fit them to those Scripture Ideas we have of Father Son and Holy Ghost each of them True and Perfect God and all Three but One God as I have shewn at large in the First Chapter But since there is a very warm Dispute about Nature and â—erson and has been for many Ages and this Distinction is become necessary to secure the Catholick Faith against the Attempts of Hereticks on both sides as the Church has found by long Experience it will be necessary to set this matter in as clear a light as possible we can And the best way I can think of to do this is 1. To consider this distinction of Nature and Person in Creatures As for instance in a Man What the distinction between Nature and Person is in Man and to shew which way soever we state this matter how improper all these Notions are to represent this distinction between Nature and Person in the Blessed Trinity And 2. To shew how the Catholick Fathers accommodated these Names of Essence and Person to the Explication of this Mystery and what Unity and what Distinction they intended to represent by them 1. As for the first If the Infinite distance between God and Creatures will allow us to Philosophize freely about Created Nature without incurring the Suspicion of Heresy I must confess I never could form a distinct notion of the difference between a subsisting Nature and Hypostasis or Person in Man but do what I can I can conceive no otherwise of an Individual Subsisting Human Nature but as of an Individual Subsisting Human Hypostasis or Person nor of an Individual Human Person than as of an Individual Subsisting Human Nature And I have some reason to think that this is not peculiarly my Case for besides that I find other thinking Men blundered in this matter and could never yet meet with a clear and sensible Explication of it I observe that there is no word which in its original institution signifies this difference and it is reasonable to think as to Created Nature that Mankind have no notion of that which they have no word for It is sufficiently known that Hypostasis originally signifies Essence and Substance not Person as distinguisht from Nature which is a later and a mere Ecclesiastical use of it and it is confessed that Persona and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were taken from the Stage and when they were applied to signify a true and real Man they signified only the Man himself not the Personality of a Man as distinguished from an Individual Subsisting Nature And which is much more considerable some of the Fathers as I observed before confess that Aristotle knew no such distinction but in his Philosophy Essence and Hypostasis signified the same thing for Nature and Essence which is his first Substance is an Individuum which subsists not as part of another but as whole and compleat which the Fathers call Hypostasis and therefore Aristotle's first Substance and what these Fathers call Hypostasis is in Creatures one and the same thing and yet all confess That no man ever more nicely distinguisht all the distinguishable Notions in Nature than Aristotle did that what escaped his observation must be very nice indeed And though St. Basil and St. Gregory Nyssen and the other Catholick Writers of that Age do distinguish between Essence and Hypostasis that they differ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is common to all the Individuals of the same kind which is a common Nature and what is proper and peculiar to each Individual and distinguishes one man from another yet I do not remember that they quarrelled with the Greek Philosophers or apprehended that they themselves taught any new Philosophy in this Point as afterwards Theorianus and others did nor can I see any other difference there is between them if candidly interpreted but only in words The short account of the matter is this Aristotle's first Substance which subsists by it self these Fathers as they themselves own call Hypostasis not Nature Essence and Substance that is every subsisting Individuum is Aristotle's Nature Essence and Substance the Fathers Hypostasis now when they mean the same thing and own that they do so so far they are agreed in the thing and differ only in words But then these Fathers in every Hypostasis distinguished between the common Nature and such Personal Properties which distinguished common Nature into Individuals or were Characteristical Marks whereby to know one Person from another Now Aristotle indeed never made such a distinction as this but yet all that is material in it is included in his Notion and Definition of Substance For when these Fathers distinguish in every Hypostasis what is common to the whole Kind and what is proper and peculiar to each Individuum they mean no more by it but that Peter for instance considered as a Man is perfectly the same that Iames and Iohn are considered also as Men though there is something so peculiar to Peter as to make him a particular Human Person and to distinguish him from Iames and Iohn and all other Men in the World Now it is certain neither Aristotle nor any Man of sense would ever have denied any thing of all this for it is evident that there is something wherein all Men agree and something proper to every particular Man That which is the same in all Men the Fathers call a common Nature and so does Aristotle a common Specifick Nature but here is some appearance of difference between them which I think if rightly stated is none at all Aristotle makes Nature as actually subsisting by it self as suppose Human Nature in Peter or Iames to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Individuum a particular Singular
Now they themselves tell us That by Hypostasis they mean Aristotle's first Substance or that which subsists by it self not as a Part in a Whole nor as Accidents in a Subject but is a perfect whole it self and has a compleat Subsistence of its own What is it then that subsists by it self For that is Aristotle's first Substance and the Fathers Hypostasis And that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature Essence and Substance For nothing else can subsist by it self as is evident in Aristotle's Definition of Essence and Substance and though the Fathers put something more into their Definition of Hypostasis yet it comes all to one For as Damascen tells us Every Hypostasis is perfect Nature and Substance and therefore the Hypostases do not differ from each other in Nature but only in such peculiar and Characteristical Accidents as distinguish Hypostases For the Definition of Hypostasis is Nature with its Accidents That every Hypostasis has the common Nature with its peculiar distinguishing Accidents subsisting by it self So that an Hypostasis is nothing else but Nature with its Accidents and distinguishing Characters subsisting by it self Now we know Accidents do not subsist by themselves but if they be Inherent Accidents they subsist in Nature and Substance and therefore though they may distinguish Hypostases and Persons do not constitute an Hypostasis and therefore are owned to be only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the peculiar distinguishing Marks and Characters of Hypostases or Persons whereby they are known from each other But the Marks and Characters which distinguish Hypostases are not the Hypostases themselves such as the Time when they were born the Place where they lived their Parentage Name Features of Body Endowments of Mind and a hundred other distingushing Marks for these are very different in different Persons and as changeable in the same Persons as Time Age Place Features of Body Endowments of Mind Trades Offices c. and yet all these are Persons and the same Persons under all these Changes Now setting aside all these Characters and Accidents which cannot make a Person but only distinguish one Person from another there is nothing left to be the Hypostasis or Person but only the common Nature subsisting by it self Common as it is the same in every Individual but an Hypostasis or Individuum by a separate Existence or subsisting by it self For an Individuum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one undivided Whole subsisting by it self and therefore a whole perfect undivided Human Nature subsisting by it self is an Hypostasis or Person one single individual Man though there were no other Mark and Character to distinguish him from other Men but only this Separate Subsistence The Humanity of our Saviour is a plain Demonstration of this that it is only a Separate Existence or subsisting by it self which in Created Beings is the same thing that makes Human Nature an Hypostasis or Person All Catholick Christians own that Christ took Human Nature on him but not a Human Hypostasis or Person and therefore in him we may see the difference between Nature and Person What then was Christ's Human Nature I know no more of it but that he had a true Body of Flesh animated by a Reasonable Soul such a Body and such a Soul as other Men have and this is Human Nature But why is not this Human Body and Soul a Human Person too Did he want the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some peculiar Marks and Characters to distinguish him from all other Human Persons By no means He had more of these Marks of Distinction and more Authentick ones than any other Man ever had The Time and Place of his Birth his Parentage his Miracles his Doctrine the minute Circumstances of his Death his Resurrection c. were foretold by Ancient Prophets and he distinguished himself from all the rest of Mankind by those wonderful things he did that if peculiar distinguishing Characters make a Person he was more a Person than ever any Man was before or since What then was wanting to make us Human Nature a Human Person Truly nothing but only subsisting by it self which it never did but in union to the Eternal Word This I think looks very like a Demonstration that an Hypostasis is nothing but Nature subsisting by it self for all that the Humanity of Christ had without being a Human Person cannot make a Person for then the Human Nature of Christ must have been a Human Person too and that which alone was wanting to make the Human Nature of Christ a Person which was subsisting by it self must be the only thing which makes Nature a Person I have the rather chose this Instance because the Humanity of Christ which is no Person is often alledged to prove that there must be some peculiar mode of Subsistence which must coalesce with common Nature to make a Person This I confess is Language which I do not understand if there be any thing more meant by i◠than that Nature subsisting by it self is a Person For Nature which does not subsist is nothing but in Idea and Subsistence is a mere Notion without something that subsists now we may unite these two Notions of Nature and Subsistence and form the Idea of a Subsisting Nature which is all the coalescing I know of but actual Production makes a Subsisting Nature which is not Nature and Subsistence or a mode of Subsistence coalescing but Nature in Act. In a Subsisting Created Nature which does not necessarily exist we may distinguish between the Notions of Nature and Subsistence but a Subsisting Nature is nothing but Nature in being Nature which is that is Nature it self for the meer Idea of Nature is not Nature But Subsistence has a Mode and there must be a peculiar manner of Subsistence to make a Person Must every Person then have a peculiar manner of Subsistence Are there then as many peculiar Manners and Modes of Subsistence as there are or ever have been or ever shall be distinct Persons in the World This is beyond my Philosophy I have heard of a Compleat and Incompleat Subsistence to subsist by it self or to subsist as a Part in the Whole or an Accident in a Subject c. but I never could understand that any other Subsistence strictly belongs to the Notion of an Hypostasis or Person but to subsist by it self The Human Nature of Christ did upon all other Accounts as truly and properly subsist as any other Man in the World but was no Person as not subsisting by it self but in Union to the Eternal Word which made it the Human Nature of the Word which was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us All this Talk about the different Modes and manner of Subsistence seems to be a mistake of the Fathers Doctrine concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which these Men translate Modes of Subsistence of which more anon but at present I only observe That the Fathers do not place the Personality of
late warm Dispute about One Substance and Three Substances in the Unity of the Godhead for the Dispute is the very same in other words with One Nature and Three Persons The Nicene Fathers who asserted the Homoousion the One Nature and Substance of Father and Son did not by this mean One Singular Substance as I have abundantly shewn and those who assert Three Substances in opposition to Sabellianism do not mean Three Absolute nor Three divided and separated Substances but One Individual Substance as there is One Individual Nature in Three Substantial Subsisting Persons That is There is but One Absolute Substance with Two Relative Substantial Procefsions in the Individual Unity of the same One Substance Which the Schools make no scruple to call Three Relative Substances All Catholick Writers both Ancient and Modern own that the Father is Substance the Son Substance and the Holy Ghost Substance but yet are cautious of saying Three Substances nor will they say ter Vna thrice One Substance because Number does not belong to the Nature but to the Persons though at the same time they own that Deus trinus signifies tria supposita Deitatis These seem to be great Niceties and Arbitrary Distinctions without any reason and foundation in Nature for what difference is there between Three Substances and Three Relative Substances For Relative Substances are Substances What difference between Three Substances and tria supposita when suppositum is only another name for Substance and so St. Hilary as I have observed called them tres substantias tria in substantia Three Substances and Three in Substance When there are Three each of which is in his own Person Substance and neither of them each other what difference is there between saying Tres in una substantia ter una substantia Three in One Substance and thrice Once Substance Marius Victorinus as I observed before ventures to say ter ipsa Substantia not ter una as it is mistaken in a late Treatise by trusting too much to memory thrice the very same Substance now thrice the same One Substance is thrice One Substance where the Number belongs to the Essence and Substance which is Aquinas's Objection against it But the whole Account of this must be resolved into the Distinction between Absolute and Relative Substance when it stands by it self signifies Absolutely and so Three Substances are Three Absolute Substances Three Human Substances Three Humanities and Three Divine Substances Three Divinities and therefore we must not without great caution say Three Substances in the Trinity for fear of asserting Three Gods but yet we must own that each Person is True and Perfect Substance and both the Fathers and Schools own this and Three in Substance are Three Substances but not Three Absolute but Relative Substances Three Subsisting Relations in the Unity of the Divine Essence and Substance Though as I have more than once observed in proper speaking we cannot say Three Relative Substances for though the Father speaks a Relation to the Son and Holy Spirit it is as he is the Fountain of the Deity Original Absolute Divinity Essence Substance in his own Person not a Relative Subsistence and therefore in the Blessed Trinity there is One Absolute Substance Absolute Divinity and Two Relative Substances as there are Two Internal Substantial Relations in the Unity of the same Substance And to prevent Mistakes I must here observe That by Absolute we do not mean Compleat and Perfect for so the Son is Absolute Substance and the Holy Spirit Absolute Substance Compleat and Perfect Substance as each of them in his own Person is True and Perfect God in which Sense St. Austin tells us that persona ad se dicitur that Person is predicated absolutely that every Person as considered in himself is a Person and not merely as related to another but when we say that there is but One Absolute Substance in the Godhead by Absolute we mean Original as I have already explained it as distinguished from Relative Processions as the Original is distinguished from the Image though the Image if a Living Subsisting Image is as Compleat and Perfect Nature and Substance as the Original is And this is the only difference I know between Substance Nature Essence and Suppositum Subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Res 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thing Being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subsistence and the like That the first signify Absolutely or as the Schools speak the Form that is an Original Substance Nature and Essence and therefore these must not be multiplied in the Divinity by saying Three Substances Natures or Essences for fear of a Diversity or Number of Divinities and Gods The other Terms though they do not in common use signify Relatively as Subject Suppositum Thing Being Subsistence do not yet they signify any thing that really is that has a Compleat Actual Subsistence of its own and therefore are applicable to all substantial relative Processions which are compleat Subsistencies Things Beings as well as to original Nature and Substance And both the Fathers and Schools for this reason owned the Three Divine Persons to be Three Things Three Beings Tres Entes Tria Entia Tres Res 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and scruple not the use of any such transcendental Terms as do not necessarily multiply the absolute and original Form Thus the One Substance of the Godhead either signifies the absolute Divinity of the Father and this is but One and can never be Ter Vna Thrice One or it signifies the One individual undivided Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost that is the absolute Divinity of the Father with his internal essential Processions in the perfect Unity and Identity of Nature and this it is but One Substance for there is but One Individual Nature not Ter Vna but Tres in Vna not Thrice One Substance but Three in One Undivided Nature and Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I have sometimes not so properly translated a Thrice subsisting Monad but it is a Monad with Three Hypostases which in other words is One Nature and Three Persons not One singular Nature Thrice subsisting which I cannot understand but One individual Nature and Three subsisting Hypostases Vna Substantia non Vnus Subsistens One Substance not One that subsists This Individual Nature subsists but once but in the Individual Unity of the Father's Essence and Godhead are those Eternal Substantial Subsisting Processions the Hypostases of the Son and Holy Spirit And in this sense the One Individual Substance of the Divinity may properly enough be stiled Ter ipsa or Ter Vna Substantia Thrice the same One Substance not Thrice One Absolute Substance in which sense Aquinas rejected it but Tria Supposita Vnius Substantiae or Deitatis which is One Substance by the individual Unity and invariable Sameness and Identity of Nature as I have shewn above Thus that warm Dispute among the Schoolmen about one Absolute Subsistence and Existence in the
Nature and that it is common only in Notion as every particular Man has a Nature of the same kind or a true Human Nature These Fathers on the contrary affirm That Human Nature as considered in Peter or any other particular Man is a common Nature distinguished into Hypostases by something proper peculiar and particular to each That all Nature is common to all the Hypostases of the same kind and that it is impossible to find a particular and appropriated Nature Now as great an appearance as here is of a direct Contradiction a little consideration I believe will satisfy all thinking Men that Aristotle would have owned all that these Fathers say and then the only Dispute will be which of them speak most properly which is of no great moment in this Cause For what do these Fathers mean by a common Nature Do they mean that there is but one Numerical Subsisting Nature common to all the Individuals but one Universal Human Nature in all the particular men in the World By no means Damascen expresly teaches That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Nature in Creatures is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be known by Reason but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the distinction of Hypostases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is seeen in the things themselves in their separate Existence But what is this common Nature which is seen by Reason why every particular Man is a reasonable Mortal Creature each of them is Flesh animated by a reasonable Soul and Mind and this is the common Nature which is seen by Reason common because it is perfectly and invariably the same in all though each of these Hypostases in which this common Nature is subsist distincty and separately by themselves and therefore the common Nature too subsists distinctly and separately in these separate Hypostases Now would Aristotle or any one for him deny that his first Substance though it be an Individuum which subsists compleatly and separately by it self is in this sense a common Nature as being perfectly the same in all the Individuals or in the Language of the Fathers in all the Hypostases of the same Nature There can be no such thing as what Aristotle calls a Species if every Individual have not the common Nature for Nature subsists only in Individuals and if that be not a common Nature it cannot have a common Name and Definition if Human Nature be not perfectly the same in Peter Iames and Iohn the Name and Definition of a Man cannot equally and universally belong to them all And therefore Damascen was certainly in the right who from an Universal Predication infers that common Nature is the Species and that for this reason Nature is predicated of its Hypostases or Individuals because in every Hypostasis of the same kind there is the same perfect Nature Every Man has the perfect Nature of a Man and for that reason and no other the Name and Definition of a Man belongs to every Man Upon this account it is that they reject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particular singular Nature because then the same Hypostases must have both the same and a diverse Nature even the Persons of the Holy Trinity If Nature be perfectly the same in all the Hypostases it is a common Nature but if Human Nature in Peter have any thing peculiar and different from Human Nature in Paul it is then a particular Humanity and Peter and Paul are not perfectly of the same kind which is one Notion wherein they rejected a particular Nature which added to what I discoursed above that by a particular Nature they meant a whole absolute Individual Nature it includes I think all that they meant when they rejected as Heresy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Individual Natures in the Trinity By Three particular Natures they always understood Three Absolute Whole Individual Natures and this alone is Trithâ—ism for Three such Absolute Divinities must be Three Gods but besides this they thought there could not be Three Individual Natures without some essential difference to distinguish and number Natures and this added a mixture of Arianism to Tritheism and made at least in part Three different Divinities that they were partly of the same and partly of a different Nature For as far as I can understand this matter the reason why they rejected Singular and Individual Natures was not that Human Nature for instance does not subsist singly and individually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Damascen speaks in Peter and Paul and every individual Man in the World but because what is common to all without the least Alterity or Diversity can be but one in all for Alterity and Diversity is necessary â—o make a Number and therefore Nature which is perfectly the same in all though it subsists singly in Individuals is not an Individual it self as having no principle of Individuation in it self that is no Diversity For which reason it may be numbred with the Hypostases with the numbring Number but the res numerata that Nature which is numbred with the Hypostases is but one in all as I have shewn above In this sense also these Fathers rejected an Individual Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their Disputes with the Severians concerning the Personality of Christ's Human Nature These Hereticks taught That every Nature is an Individuum Hypostasis or Person and therefore the Human Nature of Christ if it were true Human Nature must be a Human Hypostasis or Person too In answer to which these Fathers absolutely denied that there is any such thing as an Individual Nature that pure Nature is no Hypostasis not that it can't subsist for the Human Nature of Christ does actually subsist but that meer Nature has no individuating Principle in it self to distinguish it into different Hypostases but is distinguished not by any Essential Diversity but by Personal Properties that Nature with Personal Properties is a Person and therefore if there be a Subsisting Nature which has no Personal Properties but is distinguished some other way from Human Nature in Human Persons it is certain it is Human Nature but no Human Person And thus it is with the Human Nature of Christ which is distinguished from Human Nature in all others by its Hypostatical Union to the Eternal Word which is no Personal Property and therefore does not make it a distinct Person though it be a perfect Subsisting Nature This is the best and easiest Account I can give of the Philosophy of these Fathers concerning a Common and Individual Nature which if it be thought a new way of speaking yet it is what may be understood and has a great deal of old Truth in it and will help us to understand the Fathers in these Disputes about the Trinity and Incarnation a little better than I find many men do Let us then in the next place inquire what these Fathers mean by Hypostasis and how they distinguish it from Nature in Created Beings