nor is the Father the Son nor the Holy Ghost either of them I grant it their Persons are distinct and therefore are not each other but they are all essentially united by a mutual consciousness whereby they are mutually in each other and can be no more separated from each other than every Man 's own mind can be divided from itself But if the Father is not the Son and yet is by confession of all the One true God then the Son is not the One true God because he is not the Father The reason is self-evident for how can the Son be the One true God if he be not He who is the one true God After the same manner it may be proved that on thâ—e Athanasian Principles neither the Father nor Holy Spirit are or can be God or the One true God for neither of them is the Son who is the One true God according to Athanasius and all Trinitarians for they all say The Father is the One true God the Son is the One true God and the Holy Ghost the One true God which is a threefold contradiction because there is but One true God and One of these Persons is not the other But if it be a Contradiction it is certainly false for every Contradiction being made up of Inconsistencies destroys itself and is its own Confutation This is meer trick and fallacy or misrepresentation To have made his Argument conclude he should have said The Father is not the Son and yet the Person of the Father considered not only as distinguished but as divided and separated from the Person of the Son is the One true God and then the Son is not the One true God because he is not the Father And then indeed his reason had been self-evident that the Person of the Son as separated from the Person of the Father is not the One true God because the Person of the Son is not the Person of the Father who is the One true God But neither Athanasius ' nor any of the Trinitarians ever said this That the Person of the Father as separated from the Persons for the Son and of the Holy Ghost is the One true God or that the Person of the Son as separated from the Persons of the Father and the Holy Ghost is the One true God or that the Person of the Holy Ghost as separated from the Persons of the Father and of the Son is the One true God for we constantly affirm that Father Son and Holy Ghost by an intimate and inseparable Union to each other are but One true God but as their Persons can never be separated so they must never be considered in a separate state and if we will imagine such an impossible absurdity as this neither of them are the One true God for whoever separates them destroys the Deity and leaves neither Father Son nor Holy Ghost And yet if we consider these Three Divine Persons as containing each other in themselves and essentially One by a mutual consciousness this pretended Contradiction vanishes For then the Father is the One true God because the Father has the Son and the Holy Spirit in himself and the Son may be called the One true God of which more presently because the Son has the Father and the Holy Ghost in himself and the Holy Ghost the One True God because he has the Father and the Son in himself and yet all but One true God because Father Son and Holy Ghost are united into One and then though One of these Persons is not the other yet each Person by an essential unity contains both others in himself and therefore if all Three Persons are the One true God each Person is God And this is the true meaning of the Athanasian Creed which this Author has corrupted by adding the One true God to every Person that the Father is the One true God the Son the One true God the Holy Ghost the One true God as if each Person as distinguished and separated from the other were the One true God and then it would indeed sound pretty like a Contradiction to add yet there is but One true God But the Athanasian Creed only says The Father is God the Son God the Holy Ghost God yet Three are not Three Gods but One God which plainly shews that it does not speak of these Three Divine Persons as distinguished and separated from each other but as united into One God not as Three parts of the Deity but as Three Persons who are essentially One God as mutually containing each other that is by a mutual self-consciousness as I have now explained it which is the essential Unity of a Mind As for this expression The One true God it is never attributed to Son or Holy Ghost that I know of either in Scripture or any Catholick Writer tho' it is to the Father whom our Saviour himself calls The only true God for all Three Divine Persons as in conjunction with each other being the One only true God This Title cannot so properly be attributed to any One Person but only the Father who is the Fountain of the Deity for though all Three Persons are in each other by a mutual consciousness and therefore each Person has all the Perfections of the Godhead yet the Son is in the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Father and the Son in such a manner as the Father is not in the Son nor the Father and Son in the Holy Spirit which the Schools call the Modi subsistendi that is the Son is in the Father by eternal generation and the Holy Spirit in Father and Son by eternal procession and this is the natural Order of the Trinity and therefore when this One God is to be signified by the Name of any One Person it is proper to follow the Order of Nature if I may so speak and to signifie the whole Sacred Trinity by the Name of the Father who is the eternal Scource and Fountain of it The Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One the Glory equal the Majesty coeternal The meaning of the last clause is that the Glory and Majesty of the Son and Holy Spirit is equal to the Glory and Majesty of the Father or the Son and Holy Spirit are equally Glorious and Majestical with God the Father Therefore I ask whether the Glory and Majesty with which the Son and Spirit are Glorious and Majestical be the same in number that is the very same with which the Father is Glorious and Majestical or only the same for kind or degree If it be not the same in number then the Godhead of the Father and of the Son is not as this Creed teaches all One and they are not One and the same God for Two infinite and distinct Glories and Majesties make Two Gods and Three make Three Gods as every one sees and to say true the Trinitarians
Numerical but Specifick Sameness of Nature or the agreement of things numerically differing from one another in the same common Nature As Maximus very plainly tell us that that is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has the same Notion or Definition of its Essence as a man differs nothing from a man as he is a man nor an Angel from an Angel as he is an Angel and therefore this word did equally overthrow the Sabellian and the Arian Heresie as it affirms both a distinction of Persons and the sameness of Nature as St. Ambrose and others observe for nothing is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it self but to something else distinct from it self but of the same common Nature and therefore some who owned the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as savouring of Sabellianism and implying such a numerical Unity of Essence in the Godhead as destroyed all distinction of Persons for which reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self was rejected by some as abused by the Sabellians till the signification of that word was fixt and declared by the Fathers at Nice as Petavius observes This is One thing wherein the Fathers place the Unity of the Godhead that all three Persons have the same Nature and to be sure this is absolutely necessary to make Three Persons One God for it is impossible they should be One God if they have not the same Nature unless Three distinct and separate Beings of divers Natures can be One God that is unless the Divine Nature be not One pure and simple Act but a compound Being and that of different Natures too But some of the Fathers went farther than this and placed the Essential Unity of the Divine Nature in the sameness of Essence that there is but One God because all the Three Divine Persons have the same Nature And it will be necessary briefly to examine what they meant by it to vindicate these Fathers from the Mis-representations and hard Censures of Petavius and Dr. Cudworth who as I hope to make appear have greatly mistaken their Sense The Charge is that they make the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God only upon account of the same Specifical Divine Nature common to them all just as Three men are One by having the same common Nature or the same Humanity and being asked Why they may not then be called Three Gods as well as we say Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men they answer That this is owing to an ill Custom for they ought not to be called Three men neither which is like saying there are Three Human Natures and though in inferiour Matters we may bear with the abuse of Words and improper forms of Speech yet this is of dangerous Consequence when we speak of God and therefore though there is no great hurt in saying there are Three men though there is but one Humanity common to them all yet we must not say there are Three Gods since there is but One Divine Nature and Essence common to all Three Persons This Petavius says is to deny the true and real Unity of the Divine Substance and Essence and to make God only collectively One as a multitude of men are said to be One People and a multitude of Believers One Church which was the Error of Abbot Ioachim for which he was Condemned in the Council of Lateran Dr. Cudworth represents it thus These Theologers supposed the Three Persons of their Trinity to have really no other than a Specifick Vnity and Identity and because it seems plainly to follow from hence that therefore they must needs be as much Three Gods as Three men are Three men these Learned Fathers endeavoured with their Logick to prove that Three men are but abusively and improperly so called Three they being really and truly but One because there is but One and the same Specifick Essence or Substance of Human Nature in them all He adds It seems plain that this Trinity is no other than a kind of Tritheism and that of Gods Independent and Co-ordinate too This is a very high Charge and yet these Theologers are no less men than Gregory Nyssen and Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus and Damascen men of Note in their Generation and never charged with Heresie before But whatever the meaning of these Fathers was it is plain that Petavius and Dr. Cudworth have mistaken their meaning For they did not think that Father Son and Holy Ghost were one God only as Peter Iames and Iohn are one man or that Peter Iames and Iohn are One man as Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God they neither dreamt of a Collective nor Specifick Unity of the Godhead but asserted a real subsisting numerical Unity of Essence as is obvious to every impartial Reader and therefore if they had not understood how they explained this yet they ought not to have put such a sense upon their Words as is directly contrary to what they affirm I shall not need to transcribe much out of these Fathers to justifie them in this Point but will only represent their Argument as plainly as I can and that will be their Justification whatever become of their Argument They affirm then That Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One God because there is and can be but One numerical Divinity or one Divine Nature and Essence though it subsist in Three distinct Persons against this it was objected that Peter Iames and Iohn though they have the same Human Nature yet are called Three men and there is no absurdity in it when there are more than One who have the same Nature to speak of them in the Plural Number to call Two Two and Three Three how then comes it to pass that Religion forbids this that when we acknowledge Three Persons who have the same Nature without any imaginable difference we must in a manner contradict our selves confessing the Divinity of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One and the same and denying that they are Three Gods This Gregory Nyssen answers at large and I shall chiefly confine my self to the Answers he gives which will abundantly show how much these two Learned Men have mis-represented his Sense And first he takes notice of the common Form of Speech of calling Three who partake of the same Human Nature Three Men which inclines us to call the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost who have all the same Divine Nature Three Gods and that naturally betrays men into the Opinion of a Trinity of Gods as well as of a Trinity of Persons who are as much Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men and therefore he tells us that this is an improper way of speaking even when applied to men to say that there are Three men For man is the name of Nature not of the Person to
say that there is but One man is no more than to say there is but One Humanity and to say there are Three men is to say there are Three Humanities or Three Human Natures and the Name of Nature cannot be a proper Name of distinction and therefore ought not to be multiplied for that which is the same in all cannot distinguish one Person from another This he observes all men are very sensible of for when they would call any particular Person out of a Crowd they do not call him by the Name of Nature that is they do not say you man come hither for this being a common Name as the Nature is common no man could tell who was meant but they call him by the Name of his Person Peter or Iames for though there are many who partake of the same Human Nature yet there is but One man or One Humanity in them all Persons are distinguished and divided and multiplied by peculiar personal properties and therefore may be numbred but Nature is One united with it self a perfect indivisible Unity which neither increases by addition nor is diminished by Substraction but though it be in a Multitude of Individuals is whole entire and undivided in all And therefore as a People an Army a Church are named in the single number though they consist of Multitudes so in exactness and propriety of Speech man may be said to be One though there are a Multitude who partake of the same Human Nature So that hitherto all that the Father hath said tends only to justifie this Form of Speech as having nothing absurd or incongruous in it to acknowledge that the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet that there is but One Divinity or Godhead not Three Gods for though this sounds as harsh as to own that Peter is a man and Iames a man and Iohn a man and yet there are not Three men but One man which Custom has made very absurd and contradictious to say which is the Objection he was to Answer yet he observes that according to strict propriety of speaking this is no absurdity to say there are not Three men but One man nay that it is an abuse of Speech to say otherwise because man is the Name of Nature not of a Person and therefore there is but One man as there is but One Human Nature in all those who partake of it for Human Nature is but One whole and indivisible in all and therefore cannot distinguish One Person from another and therefore not be a Name of Number But what makes St. Gregory dispute thus nicely about the use of words and oppose the common and ordinary Forms of Speech Did he in good earnest believe that there is but One man in the World No! No! he acknowledged as many men as we do a great Multitude who had the same Human Nature and that every One who had a Human Nature was an individual man distinguished and divided from all other Individuals of the same Nature what makes him so zealous then against saying that Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men Only this that lie says Man is the Name of Nature and therefore to say there are Three men is the same as to say there are Three Human Natures of a different kind for if there are Three Human Natures they must differ from each other or they can't be Three and so you deny Peter Iames and Iohn to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the same Nature and for the same reason we must say that though the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet there are not Three Gods but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Godhead and Divinity lest we destroy their Homoousiotes or the Sameness of their Nature and introduce Three Gods of a different Nature like the Pagan Polytheism which is the first reason he gives why we do not say there are Three Gods to avoid the suspicion of Polytheism in numbring and multiplying Gods as the Heathens did which he says is a sufficient Answer for ignorant and unskilful People But to say this in gross will not satisfie more inquisitive men and therefore he assigns the reason for it that Individuals in strict propriety of Speech ought not to be numbred by the name of their Nature because that argues a diversity in their Natures to say Three men is to say there are Three different Humanities whereas Humanity is One and the same in all and as men are not distinguished so they ought not to be numbred by the Name of Nature and that this is all his meaning appears from the reason he gives why this improper way of speaking may be tolerated without any inconvenience when we speak of men that we may say there are Three men but it is very dangerous to apply this to the Divinity and say there are Three Gods because there is no danger by this Form of Speech that that there are Three or more men that any one should be betrayed into that Conceit that we mean a Multitude of Humanities or many different Human Natures but there is danger lest our naming more Gods or saying that there are Three Gods men should imagine that there are divers and different Natures in the Divinity that is that the Three Persons in the Godhead are not all of the same Nature Here St. Gregory lays his Foundation That we must not say there are Three Gods because there is but One Divinity Father Son and Holy Ghost being all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Nature whereas God being the Name of Nature to say there are Three Gods is to say there are Three different Divinities or Divine Natures which destroys the Homoousiotes of the Godhead which is the Sum of his Argument against using the Name of Nature Plurally to say there are Three men or Three Gods There is nothing more plain than this in the Dialogues of Maximus who all along explains this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One Divinity and the One Humanity by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Sameness of Nature and therefore there can be but One Nature though it subsist in several Persons or Individuals Now indeed had they gone no farther in explaining the Unity of the Godhead than this Specifick Unity and Identity of Nature there had been some reason to quarrel with them but they do not stop here but proceed to show how this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature in all Three Persons of the ever blessed Trinity proves a true Numerical and Essential Unity of the Godhead which it does not and cannot do in created Natures without this it is evident there can be no Essential Unity unless we will allow of a Composition of different Natures in the Godhead where the Nature is the same it may be One not only by a Logical but by a Real and Essential Unity Gregory Nyssen
has two ways of doing this 1. He observes that the Name God and so those other Names which are ascribed to the Divinity do not so properly signifie the Divine Nature as declare something relating to it for the Divine Nature is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which has no Name and which no words can express and signifie as the Scripture teaches but the Names given to God only teach us either what we ought not to attribute to the Divine Nature or what we ought but not what the Divine Nature it self is This is a fair Introduction such as becomes a wise man who considers how unknown the Essences of all Things are to us much more the Substance and Essence of God and how it confounds our Minds when we talk of the Numerical Unity of the Godhead to have the least conception or thought about the distinction and union of Natures and Essences and therefore he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Inspector and Governour of the World that is it is a Name of Energie Operation and Power and if this Vertue Energie Operation be the very same in all the Persons of the Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost then they are but One God but One Power and Energie and thus he proves it is and that not as it is among men who have the same Power and Skill do the very same Things profess the same Art are Philosophers or Orators alike and yet are not all One Philosopher or One Orator because though they do the same thing yet they act apart every one by himself and have no Communion nor share in what each other do but their Operations are proper to themselves alone but in the Divine Nature it is not so the Father does nothing by himself nor the Son by himself nor the Holy Ghost by himself but the whole Energie and Operation of the Deity relating to Creatures begins with the Father passes to the Son and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit The Holy Trinity does not act any thing separately there are not Three distinct Operations as there are Three Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but one motion and disposition of the good Will which passes through the whole Trinity from Father to Son and to the Holy Ghost and this is done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any distance of Time or propagating the Motion from one to t'other but by One thought as it is in One numerical Mind and Spirit and therefore though they are Three Persons they are but one numerical Power and Energie By this time I hope the Reader is satisfied That this Father does not make the Persons of the Trinity Three Independent and Coordinate Gods who are no otherwise One than Three men are by a Specifick Unity and Identity of Nature but has found out such an Unity for them as he confesses cannot be between Three men even such an Unity as there is in a Spirit which is numerically One with it self and conscious to all its own Motions for I leave any man to judge whether this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this one single Motion of Will which is in the same instant in Father Son and Holy Ghost can signifie any thing else but a mutual consciousness which makes them numerically One and as intimate to each other as every man is to himself as I have already explained it Petavius was aware of this and therefore will not allow this to belong to the same Argument but to be a new and distinct Argument by it self Now suppose this yet methinks he should have suspected he had mistaken the Fathers Sense when he found him contradict what he apprehended to be his Sense within the compass of two Pages but indeed the mistake is his own for the Father pursues his intended Argument to prove that though the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet we ought not to say that there are Three Gods but One God This he proves first because God is the Name of Nature and the Name of Nature must not be expressed in the Plural number when the Nature is the same without any the least conceivable difference for to say there are Three Gods is to say that there are Three different Divine Natures which introduces Polytheism as to say there are Three men is to say there are Three different Human Natures for if they be the same they are not Three and therefore the Name of the Nature must not be expressed plurally how many Persons soever there are who have the same Nature This was to secure the Homoousiotes of the Divine Nature and if he had stopped here Petavius and Dr. Cudworth might have said what they pleased of him but having secured the Homoousiotes or Sameness of Nature which was the great Dispute of those days between the Orthodox and the Arians he proceeds to show how this same Nature in Three distinct Persons is united into one numerical Essence and Godhead and this he does first by showing that God signifies Power and Energie and that all the Three Persons in the Trinity have but One numerical Energie and Operation and therefore are but One God which is only the improvement of his former Argument for the Sameness of Nature is necessary to the Sameness of Operation for Nature is the Principle of Action especially in God whose Nature is a pure and simple Act and an unity and singularity of Energie and Operation is a demonstration of One numerical Essence for the same single individual Act cannot be done by Two separate Beings who must act separately also Secondly As for those who are not contended to contemplate God as a pure and simple Act or Energie which easily solves this difficulty how Three Persons are One God they having but One numerical Energie and Operation I say as for those who not contented with this inquire after the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence he asserts that this perfect Homoousiotes or Sameness of Nature without the least difference or alteration makes them numerically One and returns to what he had first said That the Name of Nature should not be expressed Plurally it being One entire undivided Unity which is neither encreased nor diminished by subsisting in more or fewer Persons I confess I do not understand his reasoning in this matter he seems to destroy all Principles of Individuation whereby One thing is distinguished from another where there is no difference or diversity of Nature for Things he says must be distinguished by Magnitude Place Figure Colour or some other diversity in Nature before we can number them and call them Two or Three and therefore since the Divine simple unalterable Nature admits of no Essential diversity that it may be One it will not admit of any number in it self but is but One God Whereas I confess to my understanding if the same pure unmixt
Nature as suppose Humanity should subsist in Twenty several Persons without the least variation I should not doubt notwithstanding the Specifick Unity of Nature to say there are Twenty subsisting Human Natures and Three Minds and Spirits which have no other difference are yet distinguished by self-consciousness and are Three distinct Spirits and therefore to help this out he sometimes adds that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no difference either of Nature or Energie in the Deity and at other times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Nature is invariable and undivided which all the ancient Fathers added to explain the Unity of the Trinity that inseparate Union of Nature which is between the Divine Persons that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inseparable from each other But however he might be mistaken in his Philosophy he was not in his Divinity for he asserts a numerical Unity of the Divine Nature not a meer Specifick Unity which is nothing but a Logical Notion nor a Collective Unity which is nothing but a Company who are naturally many but a true subsisting numerical Unity of Nature and if the difficulty of explaining this and his zeal to defend it forced him upon some unintelligible Niceties to prove that the same numerical Human Nature too is but one in all men it is hard to charge him with teaching that there are Three Independant and Coordinate Gods because we think he has not proved that Peter Iames and Iohn are but One man This will make very foul work with the Fathers if we charge them with all those Erronious Conceits about the Trinity which we can fancy in their inconvenient ways of explaining that venerable Mystery especially when they compare that mysterious Unity with any Natural Unions I am sure St. Gregory was so far from suspecting that he should be charged with Tritheism upon this Account that he fences against another Charge of mixing and confounding the Hypostases or Persons by denying any difference or diversity of Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which argues that he thought he had so fully asserted the Unity of the Divine Essence that some might suspect he had left but One Person as well as One Nature in God But though the Homoousiotes or Coessentiality of the Divine Persons is not sufficient alone to prove this Unity of the Godhead yet as I before observed this is necessary to an essential Unity for they must all have the same Nature or they cannot be One and therefore this was the first thing to be considered in the Unity of the Godhead Secondly To this Homo-ousiotes the Fathers added a numerical Unity of the Divine Essence This Petavius has proved at large by numerous Testimonies even from those very Fathers whom he before accused for making God only collectively One as Three Men are One Man such as Gregory Nyssen St. Cyril Maximus Damascen which is a demonstration that however he might mistake their explication of it from the Unity of human Nature they were far enough from Tritheism or One collective God For we must observe though all the Fathers assert the singularity of the Godhead or the numerical Unity of the Divine Essence yet they do not assert such a numerical Unity as there is where there is but One Person as well as One Essence but such a numerical Unity as there is between Three who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the very same nature but are not meerly united by a specifick Unity but by an essential Union and therefore are Three and One This as Maximus truly says is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both a wonderful distinction and union but though several Fathers attempt several ways of explaining it they all agree in the thing that Father Son and Holy Ghost Three distinct Divine Persons are united in one numerical Nature and Essence And I cannot but observe that Petavius greatly commends Boethius's explication of this Mystery which is the very same he had before condemned in Gregory Nyssen and those other Fathers That Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God not Three Gods Cujus conjunctionis ratio est indifferentia the reason or manner of which Union and Conjunction is their indifference that is such a sameness of Nature as admits of no difference or variety or an exact Homo-ousiotes as he explains it Eos enim differentia comitatur qui vel augent vel minuunt ut Ariani qui gradibus meritorum Trinitatem variantes distrahunt atque in pluralitatem deducunt Those make a difference who augment and diminish as the Arians do who distinguish the Trinity into different Natures as well as Persons of different worth and excellency and thus divide and multiply the Trinity into a plurality of Gods Principium enim pluralitatis alteritas est Proeter alteritatem enim nec pluralitas quid sit intelligi potest For the beginning of plurality is alterity for we know not what plurality is but alterity that is there must be some difference in the Nature of Things to make them Two or Three but when the Nature is exactly the same they are but One which is exactly the same account which Gregory gave of it as I have already shewn and why this should be little better than Heresie in him and very good Divinity in Boethius is a little mysterious for after all this numerical Unity of Essence is nothing else but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where there are no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Maximus speaks such an invariable sameness of Nature as has no differences to distinguish it and therefore must be One For these Fathers apprehended that where there was such an exact sameness of Nature they did mutually exist in each other and were but One Power and Energie Will and Counsel and therefore but One Godhead and Monarchy This Gregory Nyssen insists on as I shewed before and Petavius has quoted a remarkable Testimony from Damascen to this purpose which shews also that though they asserted but One Humanity yet they were far enough from thinking that the Three Divine Persons are One God only as Peter Iames and Iohn are one Man where he tells us That the distinction and separation between Peter and Paul is real and visible their union and community of Nature only Notional for we conceive in our minds that Peter and Paul are of the same kind and have but One common Nature thus common Nature is discerned by Reason but yet it subsists by Parts and separately by itself and is distinguished from itself as it subsists in individuals by many things some peculiar marks and properties but especially that they do not subsist in each other but separately and therefore may be called Two or Three or many Men and Gregory Nyssen says the same as Petavius himself owns but in the most sacred Trinity it is otherwise for there the community of Nature is not a Logical Notion but is real from the same Eternity Identity of Substance Action Will
Expiation of his Blood And though Christ be the Eternal Son of God and the Natural Lord and Heir of all things yet God hath in this highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name that at or in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the name of Iesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things in Earth and things under the Earth and that every tongue some of all Nations Languages and Tongues shall confess that Iesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father For when God exalts and magnifies himself or exalts his Son it does not and cannot signifie any addition or increase of their essential Greatness and Glory for neither the Father nor the Son can be greater than they are but yet God is exalted when his Greatness and Power is more visible and more universally acknowledged and adored and thus God has highly exalted his Son too by conferring the Mediatory Power and Kingdom on him as to shew this particularly but briefly This makes the Son more universally known acknowledged and adored The Notion and Belief of one God is Natural to Mankind that there are three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in the Unity of the Godhead is not known by Nature but by Revelation There are some obscure hints and intimations of this even in the History of the Creation more plain in the Types and Prophesies of the Jewish Law which relate to the Messias and possibly this was more particularly explained in their Cabala which some learned men industriously prove contained this Mystery of the Trinity but all this while this Mystery was very obscure and the Glory of the Son little known in the World for though now we certainly know from the Exposition of Christ and his Apostles that the Prophets spake of Christ under the name of Lord and God and Jehovah yet all went in the Name of God But when Christ appeared in the World then God owned him for his Son this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased Christ owned himself for the Son of God his only begotten Son and upon all occasions calls God his Father and that in such a distinguishing manner that the Jews understood him to mean that he was the Son of God by Nature and charge him with Blasphemy for making himself God He appealed to those mighty Works he did in his Father's Name to prove the Truth of what he taught them that he was indeed the Son of God But then God visibly owned him for his Son when he raised him from the dead and bestowed a Kingdom on him a Name which is above every Name as St. Paul tells us That he was declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection from the Dead And for this reason that of the Psalmist Thou art my Son this day have I begotten Thee is applied to the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead We deliver unto you glad tydings how that the promise that was made to the Fathers God hath fulfilled the same to us their Children in that he hath raised up Iesus again as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten Thee Which it is plain does not signifie that God then first begot him for he owned him for his beloved Son long before at his Baptism and Christ calls himself his only begotten Son long before and the Socinians themselves attribute his Sonship to his miraculous Conception in the Womb of the Virgin and St. Paul we see expounds God's begetting him at his Resurrection by his being declared the Son of God by the Resurrection from the Dead which supposes he was his Son before and that not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Flesh for so he was the Seed of David but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Spirit of Holiness or his Divine Nature for so its opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves it must signifie He was the only begotten Son of God from eternal Ages but the World did not fully know him to be so till God declared this by his Resurrection from the Dead and by bestowing a Kingdom on him and then he visibly appeared in the Glory and Majesty of the Son of God as if he had been begotten by him that day and this seems to be the meaning of our Saviour's Prayer And now O Father glorifie thou me with thine own self with that glory which I had with Thee before the World was that is now publickly own me to be thy Son which I always was but was never yet sufficiently declared so to the World And therefore when he was raised from the Dead and advanced into his Kingdom which he was to administer not by Human Force and Power but by the Power of the Divine Spirit it was time to let the World know this great Mystery of a Trinity in Unity because each Divine Person has his distinct and proper part in this mysterious oeconomy and therefore he commands his Disciples to Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that is into the belief and worship of One God Father Son and Holy Ghost of which more presently But this is not all the Son is not only now made known and manifest to the World and publickly owned by his Father but he has a peculiar Authority invested in him distinct both from the Father and the Holy Spirit as he is a Mediatory King There being but One Supreme and Soveraign God Father Son and Holy Ghost who are but One Energy and Power but One Monarchy but One Maker and One Lord of the World in the Natural Government of the World there is no distinction of the Divine Persons no peculiar Offices and Administrations to distinguish them not one thing done by the Father another by the Son and a third by the Holy Ghost but the whole Trinity made and governs the World by One individual Operation and therefore the Creation and Government of the World is the Work of One God and therefore peculiarly attributed to the Father who is the Fountain of the Deity who is that Original Mind and Wisdom who made and who governs the World by his Son and holy Spirit so that in the Natural Government of the World the Son has no Kingdom of his own but reigns as One Supreme God with the Father and the Holy Spirit and all attributed to the Father as the beginning of Energy and Power But in the oeconomy of man's Salvation the Son has a Kingdom of his own which is peculiarly his administred in his Name and by his Soveraign Authority The Father is atoned by him and has committed to him all Power both in Heaven and in Earth He is made the Head of all Principalities and Powers which are now immediately subjected to him and must receive their Commands and
cannot be for it is a debasement of the Divine Nature and a reproach to the Divine Wisdom as if God did not better know how to dispose of his Grace and Mercy than any Creature does For Creatures to pray to God for themselves or others as humble Supplicants is part of the Worship which Creatures owe to God but to intercede with the Authority of a Mediator is above the Nature and Order of Creatures and God can no more give this to any Creature than he can commit his own Soveraign Power and Authority to them But his own Eternal Wisdom can intercede with Authority for Original Mind and Wisdom must yield to the Intercessions of his own Eternal Wisdom which is not to submit to any Foreign Authority but to his own To proceed 7. His next Argument to prove that Christ is not God is this That Iesus Christ is in Holy Scripture always spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God and described to be the Son of God and the Image of God This we own and he has no need to prove it and this is a wonderful Argument to convince those who acknowledge Three distinct Persons in the Godhead to prove that Christ is not God because he is a distinct Person from the Father for so according to the Language of Scripture God signifies God the Father when he is distinguished from the Son and the Holy Spirit as all men grant and to say 'T is as impossible that the Son or Image of the One true God should himself be that One true God as that the Son should be the Father and the Image that very thing whose Image it is is meer Sophistry for if the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be the One true God they are the same One true God and yet the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father 8. His next Argument is from many Texts which expresly declare that only the Father is God Now this I confess would be a demonstration could he produce any one Text which asserts the Father only to be God in opposition to the Son and to the Holy Ghost for then the Father must signifie the Person of the Father in opposition to the Person of the Son and to the Person of the Holy Ghost but when the Father is called the Only true God only in opposition to all the false Gods which the world then worshipped there Father does not signifie personally but that One Godhead or Divinity of which the Father is the Source and Fountain and Original he being that Eternal and Original Mind which begets his own Image or Eternal Son and from whom and the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds in the Unity of the same Godhead When the Father is said to be the only true God and the One God that the Son and Holy Ghost are not hereby excluded from the Unity of the same Godhead is evident from those other Texts of Scripture which plainly teach the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost for if the Scripture teaches that the Son is God and the Holy Ghost God it can never separate the Father from his only begotten Son and Eternal Spirit and therefore the Dispute will issue here Whether the Scripture does teach the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit When the Father is called the only true God it must be in opposition to all those who were at that time worshipped for Gods in the World but were not true Gods and therefore when Christ calls his Father the only true God it could not be in contradistinction to himself and the Holy Spirit for they were not then distinctly worshipped And when St. Paul calls the Father the One God he expresly opposes it to the many Gods of the Heathens For though there be that are called Gods whether in Heaven the Sun and Moon and Planets and Deified men or in the Earth the several Elements Birds Beasts c. as there be Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and One Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him where the One God and One Lord and Mediator is opposed to the many Gods and many Lords or Mediators which were worshipped by the Heathens These Texts indeed do plainly distinguish between the Father and Christ This is Life eternal to know thee the only true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent And to us there is but One God the Father and One Lord Iesus Christ which is no more than what St. Paul teaches There is one God and One Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Iesus The One God and the One Mediator ought to be distinguished for the whole Christian Religion and the salvation of sinners depends upon this distinction but this does not exclude Christ from being One God with the Father though he have a distinct additional Glory of a Mediatory Kingdom I consider farther when the Father is called the One God and the only true God it can be understood only of those who are distinct and separated Gods from the Father and are not One God with him but it cannot exclude those who are united in the Unity of the same Godhead for they are but One God with the Father And this is plainly signified in the Title of the Father and the Father of our Lord Jesus which is God's peculiar Name under the Gospel as the Maker of Heaven and Earth was before for the Title of the Father does not exclude but includes the Son and therefore if it appears from Scripture that this Son is true and real God begotten of his Father from Eternity the Son at least must be included in this Character of the only true God His other Texts which he cites under this Head prove no more but that the Father of Christ is God not that Christ is not One God with the Father 9. He adds If Christ were indeed God as well as Man or as Trinitarians speak God the Son incarnate in an Human Nature it had been altogether superfluous to give the Holy Spirit to his said Human Nature as a Director and Guide for what other help could that Nature need which was One Person with as they speak God the Son and in which God the Son did personally dwell Now the account of this is plain and short for the whole Trinity is but One Energy and Power and the Divine Persons cannot act separately ad extra what the Father does that the Son does and that the Holy Ghost does by one individual Act as I have shown at large but the sanctification of all Creatures and such the Human Nature of Christ is is peculiarly attributed to the Holy Spirit and he might as well have asked Why the sanctification of the Church is ascribed to the Holy Spirit for the Church is the Body of Christ and Christ the Head from
Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal This is so far from being a Nicity that it is no less than a Demonstration if we confess Three Persons and One God for if there be Three Persons then the Person of the Father the Person of the Son the Person of the Holy Ghost must be distinct Persons or they cannot be Three if there be but One God then the Godhead of all the Three Persons is but One for if the Godhead were more than One there must be more than One God for the Godhead makes the God and there must be as many Gods as there are Godheads as there must be as many Men as there are particular Humane Natures And if the Godhead be but One then with respect to the same One Godhead all Three Persons must have the same Glory and Majesty for there cannot be Three different Glories and Majesties of the same One Godhead and therefore as it follows Such as the Father is such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost The Father Vncreate the Son Vncreate and the Holy Ghost Vncreate The Father Incomprehensible the Son Incomprehensible the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible The Father Eternal the Son Eternal and the Holy Ghost Eternal And yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal As also there are not Three Incomprehensibles nor Three Vncreated but One Vncreated and One Incomprehensible So likewise the Father is Almighty the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty And yet there are not Three Almighties but One Almighty So the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God And yet there are not Three Gods but One God So likewise the Father is Lord the Son Lord and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there are Three Gods or Three Lords This is the sum of all that as the Catholick Religion both Natural Mosaical and Christian requires us to believe that there is but One God so especially the Christian Religion teaches us that there are Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost who are this One God Now if each Person with respect to the same Divine Nature be God then all the essential Attributes and Perfections of a God must be allowed to each Person that he is Uncreated Infinite or Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty God and Lord unless we will say that there may be a Created Finite Temporal Impotent God that is a God who is not in truth either God or Lord and yet though we must acknowledge each Person to be God and Lord we must not assert Three distinct Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty Gods which is the true sence of the Article of which more anon for that is to make not One but Three Gods and Lords which overthrows the Unity of the Godhead Now whatever difficulty there may be in conceiving this which I do not now dispute if that be any fault it is no fault of the Athanasian Creed but of the Doctrine of the Trinity itself the Athanasian Creed only tells us what we must believe if we believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God And I challenge any Man who sincerely proffesses this Faith to tell me what he can leave out o◠this Exposition without destroying either the Divinity of some of the Three Persons or the Unity of the Godhead If each Person must be God and Lord must not each Person be Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty If there be but One God and One Lord can there be Three separated Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty Gods which must of necessity be Three Gods and Three Lords This Creed does not pretend to explain how there are Three Persons each of which is God and yet but one God of which more hereafter but only asserts the Thing that thus it is and thus it must be if we believe a Trinity in Unity which should make all Men who would be thought neither Arians nor Socinians more cautious how they express the least dislike of the Athanasian Creed which must either argue that they condemn it before they understand it or that they have some secret dislike to the Doctrine of the Trinity Nor is this to make any additions to the Christian Faith as some object no more than to explain what we mean by GOD is an addition to the Faith This was all the Christian Fathers aimed at in their Disputes against Arius and other Enemies of the Catholick Faith and in those Creeds they framed in opposition to these Heresies to assert the true Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit in such express terms as would admit of no evasion For this reason they insisted so immoveably upon the term Homo-ousios which signifies that the Son was of the same Nature with the Father as he must be if he be true and real God whereas had he been only like the Father as the Arians asserted he could not be One God with him for that which is only like something else is not the same Now though the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in Scripture yet this is no unscriptural addition to the Faith because all that is signified by it is there that is that Christ is the Eternal and Only Begotten Son of God a true and real not a made or created or nominal God And the Athanasian Creed as far as it relates to this matter is only a more particular explication of the Homo-ousios or in what sense the Son is of the same Nature with the Father and One God with him In the next place the Athanasian Creed having very explicitely declared the Unity of the Godhead in Three Persons it proceeds to the distinct Characters of each Person and their Unity among themselves and here also it teaches nothing but what seems essential to the Distinction and Unity of the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost The Father is made of none neither created nor begotten The Son is of the Father alone not made nor created but begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding So there is One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts The Distinction then between these Three Divine Persons if I may so speak is in the manner of their Subsistence That the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of Himself the Original Fountain of the Deity not made nor created for then he would be a Creature not a God nor begotten for then he would be a Son not the first Father and Origine of all The Son is of the Father alone which is essential to his being a Son not made nor created for there was no time when he was not as all things made or created must have a beginning but
like may be said of the Holy Spirit This shews also how these Three distinct Persons are each of them God and yet are all but One God Each Person is God for each Person has the whole and entire Perfections of the Godhead having by this mutual consciousness the other Persons in himself that each Person is in some sense the whole Trinity The Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son and the Holy Spirit in Father and Son and Father and Son in the Holy Spirit and therefore if the whole Trinity be God the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost God they being all mutually in each other and yet this is a plain demonstration that they are not Three Gods but One God because neither of them are the One Supreme God but as thus intimately united to all the rest and then they can be all Three but One Supreme God This gives an intelligible account of one of the most difficult Problems in all School-Divinity which the Master of the Sentences borrowed from St. Austin as he has done most of his other Distinctions that the whole Trinity is not greater than any One Person in the Trinity This sounds very harshly at first hearing and yet if we consider it we must confess it to be true unless we will say that there is a greater and less in God or that the Three Persons in the Trinity make One God as Three parts make a whole each of which parts must be less than the whole and yet I cannot see any possible way to understand this matter but only this That the whole Trinity by a mutual consciousness is in each person and therefore no Person is less than the whole Trinity And this is the only possible way of understanding the different Modi subsistendi of which the Schools speak That the Three Divine Persons have One numerical Essence and are One God but are distinguished from each other by a distinct manner of Subsistence proper to each Person It is plain the Schoolmen were no Sabellians they did not think the Three Divine Persons to be only Three Names of the same infinite Being but acknowledged each Person to be really distinct from one another and each of them to have the same numerical Essence and to be truly and properly God and not to be Three Modes of the same infinite God which is little better than Three Names of One God And what are these Modi subsistendi by which the Divine Persons are distinguished from each other Now they are no other than the proper and distinguishing Characters of each Person that the Father is of himself or without any cause that the Son is begotten of the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son Which proves that by these Modi subsistendi they did not mean as some mistake them that the Three Divine Persons are Three Modes of the Deity or only modally distinguished for there are no Modes no more than there are Qualities and Accidents in the Deity much less can a Mode be a God To be sure all Men must grant that the Father is not a Mode of the Deity but essentially God and yet he has his Modus subsistendi as well as the Son and the Holy Ghost and no Man can think that the Father begat only a Modus and called it his Son whereas a Son signifies a real Person of the same Nature but distinct from his Father All then that can possibly be meant by these Modes of Subsistence is this that the same numerical Essence is whole and entire in each Divine Person but in a different manner the Son and Holy Ghost are in the Father as the One is begotten the other proceeds from him and yet both remain in him an intimate consciousness and thus you have often heard all Three Persons are in each other and therefore are numerically One the Father has the Son and Holy Ghost in himself as the Fountain of the Deity the Son begotten of the Father the Holy Ghost Proceeding from Father and Son That is there are Three infinite Minds which are distinguished from each other by the relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost the Father begets the Son is begotten the Holy Ghost proceeds which are there different Modes of subsisting but each of these infinite Minds has the other Two in himself by an intimate and mutual consciousness and that makes all Three Persons numerically One Divine Essence or One God for when the whole Trinity is in each distinct Person each Person is the same One numerical God and all of them but One God If the Father for instance have his own personal Wisdom and by an internal consciousness all the Wisdom of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and the Son have his own personal Wisdom and by the same consciousness all the Wisdom of the Father and the Holy Ghost and in like manner the Holy Ghost have his own personal Wisdom and all the Wisdom of Father and Son this infinite Wisdom which is in Father Son and Holy Ghost is identically the same for from which Person soever you begin to reckon this Union it is the same Father Son and Holy Ghost still which are thus intimately united into One and therefore it is the same numerical and identical Wisdom which is in each of them and the same in all To add no more This Notion gives a plain account too of that Maxim of the Schools That all the Operations of the Trinity ad extra are common to all Three Persons for it cannot possibly be otherwise when they are thus intimately united by a mutual consciousness for they can no more act than they can subsist separately when the Wisdom Goodness Justice Power of the whole Trinity is entire in each Person and the same in all every Person of the Trinity must be equally concerned saving the Natural Order and Subordination of Persons in all the external Effects and Operations of the Divine Wisdom Justice Goodness and Power Thus I have endeavoured to explain this Great and Venerable Mystery of a Trinity in Unity and this I may say that I have given not only a very possible and a very intelligible Notion of it but such also as is very agreeable to the phrase and expressions of Scripture such as preserves the Majesty of the Article and solves all the Difficulties of it there may be a great deal more in this Mystery than we can fathom but thus much we can understand of it and that is enough to reconcile us to this belief and to shame and silence the profane Scoffers at a Trinity in Unity as I have in part shewn already and will do now more fully by proceeding to answer those many Absurdities and Contradictions charged on it by the Brief Notes To proceed then where I left off There is One Person of the Father another of the Son another of the Holy Ghost Then the Son is not the Father
neither wise nor powerful But this acute Father discovered a great inconvenience in this argument for it forces us to say that the Father is not wise but by that Wisdom which he begot not being himself Wisdom as the Father and then we must consider whether the Son himself as he is God of God and Light of Light may be said to be Wisdom of Wisdom if God the Father be not Wisdom but only begets Wisdom and by the same reason we may say that he begets his own Greatness and Goodness and Eternity and Omnipotency and is not himself his own Greatness or Goodness or Eternity or Omnipotency but is Great and Good Eternal and Omnipotent by the Greatness Goodness Eternity Omnipotency which is born of him as he is not his own Wisdom but is wise with that Wisdom which he begets The Master of the Sentences follows St. Austin exactly in this Point and urges this unanswerable Argument for it which he grounds upon St. Austin's Principle That in God to be and to be wise is the same thing and if it be he cannot be wise with the Wisdom he begets for then he would receive his Being from this begotten Wisdom not Wisdom from him for if the Wisdom he begets be the Cause of his being wise it is the Cause also that he is which must be either by begetting or by making him but no man will say that Wisdom is any way the Begetter or Maker of the Father which is the heighth of madness And in the next Chapter he teaches That the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten Wisdom so that according to St. Austin and the Master of the Sentences who is the Oracle of the Schools the Father is Eternal Wisdom or an Eternal Mind and the Son Eternal Wisdom and Mind though both are united into One Eternal Wisdom and if we confess this of Father and Son there can be no Dispute about the Holy Ghost who is Eternal Mind and Wisdom distinct both from Father and Son Nothing is more familiar with the Ancient Fathers than to represent Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Three as distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn are as every one knows who is at all versed in this Controversie and this is charged on them by some men as little better than Polytheism or a Trinity of Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are a Trinity of men but this must be true with reference to distinction of Persons if we will acknowledge a real distinction between them for if the distinction be real and not meerly nominal which was the Heresie of Sabellius their Persons must be as distinct as three humane Persons or three men are The Father is no more the Son or the Holy Ghost than Peter is Iames or Iohn but then they are not separated or divided from each other as Peter Iames and Iohn are for that indeed would make them three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are three men There is no Example in Nature of such a distinction and unity as is between the Three Persons in the Godhead and therefore the ancient Fathers made use of several Comparisons to different purposes which must carefully be confined to what they applied them for if we extend them farther we make Nonsense or Heresie of them There are three things to be considered in the ever blessed Trinity the Distinction of Persons the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature and their Essential Unity and the Fathers make use of different Comparisons to represent each of these by because no one can represent them all but inconsidering Persons seek for all in One and because they cannot find it they reject them all as impertinent dangerous or heretical and reproach the Fathers sometimes as ignorant of this great Mystery sometimes as bordering upon Heresie which I am sure does little service to the Doctrine it self and gives great countenance to false and corrupt Notions of it whence the Fathers themselves even those who were the most zealous Opposers of Arianism are thought Favourites of such Opinions I shall have occasion to take notice of several Instances of this as I go on at present I shall confine my self to the Distinction of Persons which cannot be more truly and aptly represented than by the distinction between three men for Father Son and Holy Ghost are as really distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn but whoever shall hence conclude That these Fathers thought that Father Son and Holy Ghost are no otherwise One also than Peter Iames and Iohn are greatly abuse them without any colourable pretence for it as will appear more presently but this Comparison of theirs shows what their sense was that these Three Divine Persons are Three Eternal and Infinite Minds as really distinct from each other as Three men are though essentially united into One Infinite and Eternal Mind or One God But I need not insist on this for the real distinction of Persons is so plainly taught by the ancient Fathers especially after the rise of the Sabellian Heresie that there is more difficulty to understand how they unite them into One God then that they make them distinct Persons and what they say about the unity of the Godhead abundantly proves this distinction of Persons Secondly Let us therefore in the second place consider How they explain this great Mystery of a Trinity in Unity they all agree That there are Three distinct Persons and that these Three Persons are but One God and they seem to me to agree very well in that account they give of it though some late Writers are very free and I think very unjust in their Censures of some of them as scarcely Orthodox in this Point I shall only remind you that this being so great a Mystery of which we have no Example in Nature it is no wonder if it cannot be explained by any one kind of Natural Union and therefore it was necessary to use several Examples and to allude to several kinds of Union to form an adequate Notion of the Unity of the Godhead and we must carefully apply what they say to those Ends and Purposes for which they said it and not extend it beyond their Intension as I observed before and there are several steps they take towards the Explication of this great Mystery which I shall represent in short and show that taking them altogether they give a plain and intelligible Notion of this Unity in Trinity and indeed no other than what I have already given of it 1. The first thing then to be considered is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orCo-essentiallity of the Divine Persons That all Three Persons in the God-head have the same Nature which they signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now whereas the same Nature may signifie the same Numerical or the same Specifick Nature Petavius and after him Dr. Cudworth have abundantly proved that the Nicene Fathers did not understand this word of a
Knowledge which took the Patterns of things for the new World and gave Being to them and therefore God made the World by his Son and begotten Wisdom who doth all things by seeing what the Father doth as the Father doth all things by seeing himself in his reflex and begotten Wisdom for the Father and the Son are one single Energie and Operation This is that eternal Word and Reason that true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world which communicates the light of Reason and the eternal Idea's of Truth to Mankind This is that Son who reveals the Father to us and acquaints us with his secret Counsels for the Salvation of Sinners This is that Word which became Flesh and dwelt among us who hath undertaken the Work of our Redemption and is become the Wisdom of God and the Power of God to Salvation to them that believe for all the natural Communications of Wisdom and Reason all the new Discoveries of the Divine Wisdom whatever the Divine Wisdom immediately does must be done by this begotten Wisdom that is by a reflex Wisdom which is the Principle of Action and Execution and therefore as God made the World by his Word so also he redeems the World by his Incarnate Word this being as immediate an effect of the Divine Wisdom and Counsel as his Creation of the World As for the Holy Ghost whose Nature is represented to be Love I do not indeed find in Scripture that it is any where said that the Holy Ghost is that mutual love wherewith Father and Son love each other but this we know that there is a mutual love between Father and Son The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hands And the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things that himself doth And our Saviour himself tells us I love the Father And I shewed before that love is a distinct Act and therefore in God must be a Person for there are no Accidents nor Faculties in God And that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person is sufficiently evident in Scripture for he is the Spirit of God who knows what is in God as the Spirit of Man knows what is in Man and he is the Spirit of Christ who receiveth of the things of Christ and his peculiar Character in Scripture is love which shews us what he is in his own Nature as well as what he is in his Effects and Operations for Nature and Energy is the same in God It is by the Holy Spirit that the Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts 5 Rom. 5. The Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us For this Spirit is the essential love of God and therefore both inspires us with the love of God and gives us a feeling sense of God's love to us He is the Spirit of the Son the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry Abba Father and which cries in our hearts Abba Father The Spirit of the Son that is of the eternal and only begotten Son that very spirit whereby the eternal Son calls God Father whereby the Father owns the Son and the Son the Father that is that essential Love which is between Father and Son and therefore wherever this Spirit of the Son is it will call God Father will cry Abba Father that is is a Spirit of Adoption in us for the eternal Spirit of the Son dwells only in Sons by our Union to Christ who is the eternal Son of God we become his adopted Sons and as such the Spirit of the Son dwells in us And therefore the fruits and operations of the Spirit answer this Character For the fruit of the Spirit is love joy peace long-suffering gentleness goodness meekness which are the communications of the Spirit of Love This shews the difference between generation and procession between being a Son and the Spirit of God Generation as I observed before is a reflex Act whereby God begets his own Image and Likeness it is God's knowledge of himself which to be sure is his own perfect Image and the living essential Image of God is his Son for to be a Son is to be begotten of his Father's Substance in his own Likeness and Image But the Divine Spirit or this Eternal Love proceeds from God is not a reflex but a direct Act as all Thoughts and Passions are said to proceed out of the Heart a reflex Act turns upon it self and begets its own likeness but Love is a direct Act and comes out of the Heart and thus does this eternal Love proceed from God besides this eternal Love is not the Image of God but his eternal complacency in himself and his own Image and therefore is not a Son begotten of him but the eternal Spirit which proceeds from him It is true this eternal subsisting Love which is the third Person of the Trinity has all the Perfections of Father and Son in himself for Love must have the perfect Idea of what it loves and therefore this subsisting Love must have all those Perfections in himself which are the Eternal Object and Cause of this Eternal Love but his essential Character is Love and though Love has the whole Divine Perfections in it self yet it has them not as a Son not as the Image of God This gives a plain Account also how he is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son and according to the Profession of the Latin Church proceeds both from Father and Son for this Divine Love eternally proceeds from God's reflex Knowledge of himself or seeing himself in his own Image he loves himself in his Image and therefore the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son that is from the Original and the Image by one undivided Act as every man loves himself in that Idea and Image he has formed of himself in his own Mind And no man will wonder that the Creation of the World is ascribed to the Holy Spirit as well as to the Father and Son for it is Eternal Love which gives Being to all things which is the Author and Giver of Life without which Infinite Wisdom and Power produces no One Effect Original Wisdom contains the Ideas of all Things and begotten Wisdom can frame the Natures of Things according to the Original Ideas of the Divine Mind but it is Love which gives Being to them 6. From hence it is clear That these Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God as these Three Powers of Understanding Self-reflexion and Self-love are one Mind for what are meer Faculties and Powers in created Spirits are Persons in the Godhead really distinct from each other but as inseparably United into One as Three different Powers are essentially united in One Mind There is a vast difference indeed between them as there is between God and Creatures the Mind is but One the
of the Father is not the One Supreme God and the Holy Ghost who proceeds from Father and Son is not the One Supreme God The Major is as self-evident as any Proposition in Euclide whoever understands the Terms must confess it to be true that the One Supreme God cannot be begotten nor proceed from any other the Minor is confessed by Trinitarians that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son how then shall we avoid the Conclusion That the Son is not the One Supreme God nor the Holy Ghost the One Supreme God Indeed no way that I know of for the thing is true the Son is not the One Supreme God nor the Holy Ghost the One Supreme God nay nor the Father the One Supreme God considered separately from each other but Father Son and Holy Ghost or a Trinity in Unity is the One Supreme God Now of this One Supreme God it is certainly true that he is not begotten nor proceeds from any other for then there must be a God above this One Supreme God but if there be Three Persons in this One Supreme God this does not hinder but the Father may beget the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from Father and Son and yet the One Supreme God neither be begotten nor proceed for it is not the One Supreme God that is begotten but the Divine Person of the Son who is God and with the Father and Holy Spirit One Supreme God nor is it the One Supreme God that proceeds but the Divine Person of the Holy Ghost who also is God and together with Father and Son One Supreme God This is plain and what every one may understand at first sight and the fallacy of the Argument consists in this That whatever may be affirmed of the One Supreme God is applied to each Divine Person in their Personal Capacities as if each Person considered separate from the other Divine Persons were the One Supreme God Now this is false for the One Supreme God is not any One Person distinct and separate from the rest but all Three Persons essentially united into One God and therefore the Application must be false too when what is true of the One Supreme God is applied to every distinct Person in the Godhead It is certain the One Supreme God can neither be Father Son nor Holy Ghost If he be a Father he must beget a Son who is not One with him and yet is God For the Son of God who is begotten of his Father's Substance and has the same Nature with him which is the proper Notion of a begotten Son must be God as the Son of a man is a man And if the Father himself in his own proper Person as begetting the Son be the One Supreme God the whole entire Deity then he must beget a Son without not within himself who is not and cannot be that One Supreme God that the Father is The One Supreme God is One in himself and separate from all other Beings And therefore if the One Supreme God be a Father he must beget a Son separate from himself if he be a Son he must have a Father separate from himself and so of the Holy Ghost In the One Supreme God there may and must be a Trinity of Divine Persons within the Unity of the Godhead there is a Father a Son and a Holy Ghost but the One Supreme God is neither neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds for all Three Persons are the One Supreme God and what belongs to the Godhead belongs to them all as considered in the Unity of the same Godhead but not as considered in their distinct Personal Capacities as One is the Father the other the Son and the third the Holy Spirit And thus it is in the present Case the One Supreme God can no more be sent then he can be begotten can receive no Commands from any other cannot be given by any other cannot be subject to any other Will but his own c. but the Divine Persons may send and be sent and interceed with each other for though in the Unity of the Godhead they are all the One Supreme God yet there is a mutual Relation and Subordination between the Divine Persons as I have already explained it As to instance in Intercession or Prayer for himself or others which is a Contradiction to the Notion of a Supreme God as it is to the Notion of an Absolute and Soveraign Prince But yet a Soveraign Prince may interceed with himself his own Wisdom his own Mercy Clemency and Compassion may interceed with him and prevail too without any diminution to his own Soveraign Power Thus though the Supreme God can interceed with no other Being yet the Son may interceed with the Father his own eternal and begotten Wisdom may interceed with him and make Atonement and Expiation for sinners and thus God interceeds with no body but himself for it is his own Wisdom which interceeds with him and makes the Atonement And if we will consider things aright we shall find that there can be no other Advocate with the Father but the Son but his own eternal and begotten Wisdom When a man interceeds with himself it is done by reflecting on his own Mind and examining the Reasons and Motives he finds there to pity and spare and to do good that is by his reflex Wisdom and Knowledge of himself which in the Godhead is the Son God's reflex Knowledge of himself or his begotten Wisdom that Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word which Philo calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High Priest For let us consider what it is to interceed with God and what kind of Intercession is consistent both with the Soveraign Authority and Soveraign Goodness of God An infinitely wise and just and good Being cannot be moved by meer Entreaties nor by the bare Interest and Favour of the Advocate for this is weakness in men and therefore cannot be incident to the Divine Nature Now if you set aside Entreaties and Importunities and Favour there can be no other Advocate with the Father but his own Eternal Wisdom It is his own Wisdom that must Atone him that must reconcile him to sinners that must obtain Pardon and all other Blessings for them for if this cannot be done wisely God cannot do it and therefore his own Wisdom must do all this for no created Wisdom can But God loves his own Wisdom his only begotten Son and therefore Wisdom is a powerful Advocate and must prevail with the Father So that the Son's Intercession with the Father is so far from being incongruous or inconsistent with his being God that the Divine Nature can admit of no other Advocate or Intercessor properly so called To intercede with a never-failing Effect and Success is an Act of Power and Authority and for God to make a Creature-Advocate and Mediator is to give a Creature Authority over himself which
only in the superior and governing Nature as it ought to be because in that the Natures are united into One Person and that must govern and take care of the whole Thus the Mind in man is conscious to the whole man and to all that is in man to all the motions of Reason and Sense but Sense is not conscious to all the Actings of Reason which is the superior Faculty though it is conscious as far as is necessary to receive the Commands and Directions of Reason for the Body moves at the command of the Will and it is so far conscious to its Commands Thus in the Person of Christ who is God-man the Divine Word is conscious to his whole Person not only to himself as the Divine Word but to his whole Humane Nature not by such Knowledge as God knows all men and all things but by such a Consciousness as every Person has of himself But it does not hence follow that the Humane Nature is conscious to all that is in the Word for that destroys Humane Nature by making it Omniscient which Humane Nature cannot be and its being united to the Person of the Word does not require it should be for an inferior Nature is not conscious to all that is in the superior Nature in the same Person This Union of Natures does require that the inferior Nature be conscious to the superior as far as its Nature is capable and as far as the Personal Union requires for so Sense is in some degree conscious to Reason and it cannot be one Person without it And therefore the Human Nature in Christ is in some measure in such a degree as Human Nature can be conscious to the Word feels its Union to God and knows the Mind of the Word not by External Revelations as Prophets do but by an Inward Sensation as every man feels his own Thoughts and Reason but yet the Human Nature of Christ may be ignorant of some things notwithstanding its Personal Union to the Divine Word because it is an inferior and subject Nature And this I take to be the true account of what our Saviour speaks about the Day of Judgment Of that day and hour knoweth no man no not the Angels in Heaven but my Father only where our Saviour speaks of himself as a man and as a man he did not at that time know the Day of Judgment though personally united to the Divine Word who did know it for as he is the Divine Word so our Saviour tells us That he seeth all that the Father doth and therefore what the Father knows the Eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father must know also But yet the Human Nature of Christ was conscious to all the actings of the Divine Word in it as we may see in the Story of the Woman having an Issue of Blood twelve years who in the midst of a great Crowd of People came behind him and touched his Garment and was immediately healed our Saviour presently asked who touched him and when all denied it and Peter wondered he should ask that Question when the Multitude thronged him and pressed him Iesus said some body hath touched me for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me he felt the miraculous Power of the Divine Word working in him as a man feels what is done in himself This I think gives some account how God and Man may be united into One Person which though it be a great Mystery which we cannot fully comprehend yet is not wholly unintelligible much less so absurd and contradictious as this Author pretends As for what he adds about believing and professing this Faith let him apply it to Christ's being the Messias or any other Article of the Creed and see what Answer he will give to it for what if men can't believe it are we obliged under the penalty of the loss of Salvation to believe it whether we can or no doth God require of any man an impossible Condition in order to Salvation No! but if it be credible and what a wise man may believe and what he has sufficient Evidence to believe he shall be damned not because he can't but won't believe it But what if it be against a mans Conscience to profess it if he profess against his Conscience he sins and if notwithstanding this a man must either profess or be damned then God requires some men to sin in order to their Salvation God requires no man to profess against his Conscience but he shall be damned for not believing it not for not professing what he does not believe it looks like a Judgment upon these men that while they can talk of nothing less than the severest Reason they impose upon themselves or hope to impose upon the World by the most Childish Sophistry and Nonsense And now I shall leave our Note-maker to harangue by himself and perswade Fools if he can that the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation is nothing but Popery or must be parted with for the sake of Iews or be made a Complement to the Morocco Ambassador and his admired Mahomet or must be sacrificed to Peace and Unity and to secure men from damnation who will not believe I will not envy him the satisfaction of such Harangues it being all the Comfort he has for I am pretty confident he will never be able to Reason to any purpose in this Cause again Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be World without end Amen THE END ADVERTISEMENT A Preservative against Popery in two Parts with a Vindication in Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran a Jesuit 4 o. A Discourse concerning the Nature Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church 4 o. A Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor Novemb. 4. 1688. 4 o. A Practical Discourse concerning Death The Fifth Edition 8 o. The Case of the Allegiance due to Soveraign Powers stated and resolved according Scripture and Reason and the Principles of the Church of England with a more particular Respect to the Oath lately enjoyned of Allegiance to Their Present Majesties K. William and Q. Mary The Fifth Edition 4 o. By William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Printed for W. Rogers The Creed Brief Notes Answer Notes Answer Notes Answer Notes Answer Vossius de tribus Symbel dissert 3 Cap. 29 30. Cap. 31. Ibid. Cap. 48. Ibid. Ibid. Cap. 44. Dissert 2. c. 1. Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Answer Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Aug. lib. contra Serm. Arrian c. 16. Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Creed Notes Answer Creed Notes Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. Cont. Arium Disput. Tom. 1. p. 116. Paris 1627. Quae ratiocinatio ad id cogit ut dicamus Deum Patrem non esse sapientem nisi habendo sapientiam quam genuit non existendo per se pater sapientia Deinde si ita est filius quoque ipse
the essences of things cannot be known but only their properties and qualities The World is divided into Matter and Spirit and we know no more what the substance of Matter than what the substance of a Spirit is though we think we know one much better than the other We know thus much of Matter that it is an extended substance which fills a space and has distinct parts which may be separated from each other that it is susceptible of very different qualities that it is hot or cold hard or soft c. but what the substance of Matter is we know not And thus we know the essential properties of a Spirit that it is a thinking substance with the Faculties of Understanding and Will and is capable of different Vertues or Vices as Matter is of sensible qualities but what the substance of a Spirit is we know no more than what the substance of matter is Thus as for the essential properties operations and powers of Matter Sense Experience and Observation will tell us what they are and what causes constantly produce such effects and this is all we do or can know of it and he who will not believe that Matter is extended that the Fire burns that Water may be condensed by Frost into a firm and solid Pavement that Seed sown in the Earth will produce its own kind again that a Body can move from one place to another that a Stone falls to the ground and Vapours ascend and thicken into Clouds and fall down again to the Earth in gentle Showers c. I say he who will not believe these things till he can give a Philosophical account of them must deny his Senses in complement to his Understanding and he who thinks that he does understand these matters would make a Man question whether he has any Sense Thus it is also with reference to a Spirit We feel within ourselves that we can think and reason that we can choose and refuse that we can love and hate and desire and fear but what these natural powers and passions are we know not how thoughts rise in our minds and how one thought begets another how a thought can move our Bodies or fix them in their Seat how the Body can raise thoughts and passions in the Soul or the thoughts and passions of the Soul can affect the Body The Properties and Operations both of Bodies and Spirits are great Secrets and Mysteries in Nature which we understand nothing of nor are concerned to understand them no more than it is our business to understand how to make either a Body or a Spirit which we have no power to do if we did understand it and therefore it would be an useless piece of Knowledge which would serve no end but Curiosity and that is reason enough why our wise Maker should not communicate this knowledge to us were we capable of it because it does not belong to our Natures as no Knowledge does which we can make no use of the perfect Notions and Idea's of Things are proper only to that Almighty Mind which can give being to them Now this plainly shews what the Natural Boundaries of Humane Knowledge are how far we may attain to a certain Knowledge and where we must give off our Enquiries unless we have a mind to impose upon our Understandings with some uncertain and fanciful Conjectures or to perplex our selves with inexplicable Difficulties 1. As first We have certain ways of discovering the being of Things which fall within the compass of our Knowledge this our Senses Reason or Revelation will acquaint us with and therefore we may know what Things there are in the World as far as they fall under the notice of Sense or are discovered by Reason or Revelation 2. We may know what Things are or what their essential Properties Qualities Operations and Powers are whereby we can distinguish one sort of Beings from another as suppose a Body from a Spirit Bread from Flesh and Wine from Blood and can Reason from Effects to Causes and from Causes to Effects with as great certainty as we understand what the Causes or Effects are 3. But the Essences of Things and the Philosophy of their Natures the Reasons of their Essential Properties and Powers which immediately result from their Natures the manner of their Production and the manner of their Operations are Mysteries to us and will be so do what we can and therefore here our Enquiries must cease if we enquire wisely for it is vain and absurd to perplex ourselves with such Questions which we can no more answer than we can make a World The sum is this when we charge any Doctrine with Absurdities and Contradictions we must be sure that we understand the thing for if it be such a thing as we do not and cannot understand the Nature of we may imagine a thousand Absurdities and Contradictions which are owing wholly to our Ignorance of Things SECT II. The Athanasian Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of the Trinity and Incarnation II. LET us now take a view of the Athanasian Creed which this prophane Author makes the Subject of his Drollery and Ridicule and examine whether there be any thing in it which a good Catholick Christian can reject without rejecting the Catholick Doctrines of the Holy and Ever Blessed TRINITY and the Mysterious Incarnation of the SON of GOD for if this Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to this belief and what every Christian who believes these Doctrines must profess then all these Scoffs which are cast upon the Athanasian Creed do indeed belong to the Christian Faith itself if the Trinity and Incarnation be Christian Doctrines As to begin with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity The Athanasian Creed tells us The Catholick Faith is this that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity that is that we worship One God and Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost and this all Christians grant to be the Catholick Faith except Arians Macedonians and Socinians and such like Hereticks And how we must worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity is explained in the next Paragraph Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance Which must be acknowledged if there be Three Persons and One God for if we confound the Persons by saying that they are all but One Person under Three different Names and Titles or Denominations then we destroy the Distinction of Persons if we divide the Substance by saying that every Person has a separate Divine Nature of his own as every Man has a separate Humane Nature then we make Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men which is to overthrow the Doctrine of One God and therefore the Creed adds For there is One Person of the Father another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost But the God-head of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One the
begotten which is the proper term whereby we express Generation and whereby the eternal Generation of the Son is expressed in Scripture What it signifies we know not any further than this that it is the Eternal communication of the Nature and Image of the Father to him as an earthly Parent communicates his own Nature and Likeness to his Son The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son not made nor created for no Creature not begotten for no Son but proceeding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner of which we understand no more than the manner of the Eternal Generation but there is this plain difference between being begotten and proceeding that though the Holy Spirit have the same Nature with the Father and the Son yet he represents the Person of neither as the Son does the Person of the Father as being the brightness of his Father's Glory and the express Image of his Person and therefore is said not to be begotten but to proceed But the difficulty of this is with reference to the Dispute between the Greek and Latin Church about the Filioque or the Spirits proceeding from the Father and from the Son the reason why the Latin Church insists on this is to preserve the Unity and Subordination of the Divine Persons to each other The Son is united and subordinate to the Father as begotten by him The Holy Ghost is united and subordinate to Father and Son as proceeding both from the Father and from the Son but if the Holy Spirit proceeded only from the Father not from the Son there would be no Union and Subordination between the Son and the Spirit and yet the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son as well as of the Father and that these Three Persons be One God it is necessary there should be an Union of Persons as well as One Nature But then the Greek Church confesses That the Spirit proceedeth from the Father by the Son though not from the Son and by and from are such Niceties when we confess we understand not the manner of this Procession of the Holy Spirit as ought to have made no Dispute much less a Schism between the two Churches The Greek Church acknowledges the Distinction of Persons and their Unity and Subordination That there is One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts that the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped which is all this Creed requires as necessary to Salvation He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity that is must acknowledge and worship a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity which the Greek Church does and therefore are not excluded from Salvation in this Creed upon the nice Dispute of the Spirit 's proceeding from or by the Son That which seems to sound harshest in this Creed is what follows And in this Trinity none is afore or after other none is greater or less than another But the whole Three Persons are co-eternal and co-equal And yet this we must acknowledge to be true if we acknowledge all Three Persons to be Eternal for in Eternity there can be no afore or after other and that we cannot conceive an Eternal Generation or Procession is no great wonder when we cannot conceive an Eternal being without any beginning or any cause As for greater or less and the equality of Three Persons this we must confess also if we believe all Three Persons to be one Supream and Soveraign God for in one Supream Deity there cannot be greater or less but then we must distinguish between Subordination and Equality Persons who are equal may be subordinate to each other and though there be not a greater or less yet there is Order in the Trinity Equality is owing to Nature Subordination to Relation and Order which is indeed a greater and less in Relation and Order without an inequality of Nature and it is the Equality of Persons with respect to their Nature not to their Order and Subordination of which the Creed speaks for in this sense the Father is greater than the Son and the Father and the Son than the Holy Spirit as being first in Order but their Nature is the same and their Persons with respect to this same Nature co-equal And now I see no reason to make such Exclamations as some Men do against that damnatory Sentence That except every One do keep this Faith whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly and that he that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity which refers to no more than the belief of Three Persons and One God or a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity which I take to be the true Christian Faith and as necessary to Salvation as any part of the Christian Faith is but of this more anon Thus much for the Doctrine of the Trinity as for the Doctrine of the Incarnation no Man can reasonably except against that Explication which is given of it in the Athanasian Creed without rejecting the Doctrine it self and then we may as well part with the Doctrine of the Incarnation as with the Athanasian Creed As to shew this particularly For the right Faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God is God and Man for otherwise the Son of God is not Incarnate has not taken Humane Nature upon him God of the Substance of the Father begotten before the Worlds as he must be if he be God Man of the Substance of his Mother born in the World for he could not be true Man if he did not partake of Humane Flesh and Blood Perfect God and perfect Man for otherwise he were neither God nor Man of a reasonable Soul and humane Flesh subsisting for a perfect Man consists of Soul and Body and unless he have both he is not a Man in opposition to those Hereticks who thought that the Divine Nature animated a Humane Body instead of a Soul but that Christ had no humane reasonable Soul though he had a humane Body and therefore was no more a Man than a humane Body without a Soul is a Man but a God cloathed with Flesh and Blood Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead for he is perfect God of the same Substance with the Father and inferiour to his Father as touching his Manhood for a Man is inferiour to God and therefore inferiour to the Father though united in one Person to the Son Who although he be God and Man yet he is not Two but One Christ. One not by the Conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking the Manhood into God One altogether not by Confusion of Substance but by Vnity of Person For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is One Man so God and Man is One Christ. All this is necessary to the belief of the Incarnation that the same Jesus Christ is both God and Man for if
he be but One Christ he must be God and Man in one Person for two Persons make two Christs and if the same One Christ be both God and Man then the Divine and Humane Nature continue distinct without any mixture or confusion he is perfect God and perfect Man in opposition to the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches the first of whom divided the Persons the second confounded the Natures the first made God and Man two distinct Persons and two Christs the second swallowed up the Humanity in God This may serve for a brief Vindication of the Athanasian Creed that it teaches nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God and I thought fit to premise this to let the World see that all the spight against Athanasius's Creed is not so much intended against that Creed as against the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation which are so fenced and guarded from all Heretical Senses and Expositions in that Creed that there is no place left for Tricks and Evasions And now I come to consider the Brief Notes and to expose the Venome and Blasphemy of them which deserves a sharper Confutation than this And that this Author may not complain of unfair usage I shall examine them Paragraph by Paragraph SECT III. Concerning the Necessity of the Catholick Faith to Salvation and a brief History of Athanasius WHosoever will be saved before all things 't is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith A good Life is of absolute necessity to Salvation but a right belief in these Points that have been always controverted in the Churches of God is in no degree necessary much less necessary before all things He that leads a profane and vicious Life sins against a plain acknowledged Rule and the plain and unquestioned Word and Letter of the Divine Law and the Dictates of Natural Conscience he wilfully refuses to advert to these Monitors and therefore can no way palliate or excuse his wickedness But he that errs in a Matter of Faith after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed is in no fault at all his Error is pure ignorance not a culpable Ignorance For how can it be culpable not to know that of which a Man is ignorant after a diligent and impartial Enquiry This I must confess is as artificial an Introduction to these Notes as could have been invented for it makes Faith a very useless and Heresie a very innocent and harmless thing and then Men need not be much concerned what they believe if they take care to live well The Creed affirms That the Catholick Faith is before all things necessary to Salvation if this be true then how vertuously soever Men live they may be damned for Heresie and this is a dangerous point and will make Men too much afraid of Heresie to trade in such Notes as these and therefore this must be confuted in the first place to take off the dread and fear of Heresie Now can we hope that any thing should escape the Censures of such a Critick who will not allow the Catholick Faith to be necessary to Salvation For if the Catholick Faith is not necessary no Faith is and then we may be saved without Faith and yet the Scripture tells us that we are justified and saved by Faith and if any Faith saves us I suppose it must be the Catholick Faith and then whoever does not hold this saving Catholick Faith must be damned So that at best he has placed this Note wrong he should only have opposed the necessity of Athanasius's Catholick Faith to Salvation not of the Catholick Faith in general and yet this seems not to be a mistake but design for his Arguments equally hold against all Faith as well as against Athanasius's Creed and will serve a Turk a Iew or a Pagan as well as a Heretick For if what he says is true He that errs in a Question of Faith after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed is in no fault at all How comes an Atheist or an Infidel a Turk or a Jew to be in any fault and if they be good Moral Men and many of them are or may be so why should they be damned for their Atheism or Infidelity for their not believing a God or not believing in Christ at all For are not these Questions of Faith whether there be a God and a Providence and whether Christ be that Messias who came from God Or does our Author think that no Atheist or Infidel no unbelieving Jew or Heathen ever used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed Whatever he can say against their reasonable diligence I doubt will be as easily said against the reasonable diligence of Socinians and other Hereticks If you say he confines this to such Points as have always been controverted in the Churches of God I desire to know a reason why he thus confines it For does not his Reason equally extend to the Christian Faith it self as to those Points which have been controverted in Christian Churches And why then should not Infidels as well have the benefit of this Principle as Hereticks But I desire to know what Articles of our Faith have not been controverted by some Hereticks or other And whether then this does not give sufficient scope to Infidelity to renounce all the Articles of our Creed which have been denied or corrupted by some professed Christians But what he would insinuate in this that these Points of the Athanasian Creed have always been matter of Controversie in the Christian Church is manifestly false as appears from all the Records of the Church The Anti Nicene Fathers were of the same Faith before the Definition of the Council of Nice as the Learned Dr. Ball has abundantly proved this was always the Faith of the Christian Church and those Hereticks who taught otherwise either separated themselves from the Church or were flung out of it and I hope the Disputes of Hereticks against the Catholick Faith shall not be called Controversies in the Churches of God And yet I desire to know why that may not be the Catholick Faith and necessary to Salvation which has always been matter of Controversie Has the Catholick Faith any such Priviledge as not to be controverted Or is it a sufficient proof that nothing is a point of the Catholick Faith which has been disputed and controverted by some or other in all Ages of the Church And if Men of perverse Minds may dispute the most necessary Articles of Faith then if any Faith be necessary it may be of dangerous consequence to err with our reasonable diligence in such necessary and Fundamental Points as are and have been disputed But before I dismiss this Point it may be convenient to instruct this Author if he can use any reasonable diligence to understand how necessary it is to Salvation and that before all other things to
Agreement of Counsels Identity of Authority Power Goodness I do not say Likeness but Identity The numerical Unity then of the Divine Essence resolves itself into those two Principles the Unity and Identity of Power and Energie and that which they call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or circumincession or in-being of the Three Divine Persons in each other which preserves the distinction of Persons but makes the Divine Essence numerically One and indeed these Two are but One and both of them nothing more than what I have explained I think a little more intelligibly by a mutual consciousness whereby all Three Divine Persons are mutually in each other and have but One Energy and Operation That the Fathers universally acknowledged That the Operation of the whole Trinity ad extra is but One Petavius has proved beyond all contradiction and hence they conclude the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence for every Nature has a vertue and energy of its own for Nature is a principle of Action and if the Energy and Operation be but One there can be but One Nature and if there be Two distinct and divided Operations if either of them can act alone without the other there must be two divided Natures This is certainly true but yet it gives no account how Three distinct Persons come to have but One Will One Energy Power and Operation and there is no account to be given of it that I know of but what I have now given viz. mutual consciousness and that is a very plain account of it for if all Three Persons be conscious to each other as every Man is to himself there can be but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Gregory Nazianzen speaks but One and the same motion and Will of the Deity they must move and act all together according to the order and subordination of the Divine Persons and it is impossible they should do so without this mutual consciousness as it is that Three Men who are not conscious to each other should have but one single motion of Will in One single and undivided Act The Fathers then and I agree in this that the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence consists in the singularity of Operation I only add how this Energy and Operation is and must be one by a mutual consciousness and if this be a reasonable and intelligible account I hope it is no fault And there is no other account to be given of that mutual In-being of the Divine Persons in each other which they call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Christ tells us I am in the Father and the Father in me the necessity of this they saw from what our Saviour says and because it is impossible they should be One without such an inseparable and intimate Union and Presence and Inhabitation in each other and therefore Damascen tells us that they cannot go out of each other nor be separated but are united and mutually penetrate each other without confusion Such an Union as this they all agreed in as Petavius largely shews but how to explain it they know not sometimes they are thus intimately united by the sameness of Nature but this might be the cause of this Union but does not explain what this intimate Union is sometimes they represent it by corporeal similitudes which raise gross and material Images in the mind unworthy of the pure and simple Essence of God as the mixture and union of the Light of several Candles in the same Room and of the Colours of the Rainbow c. which is owing to a material conception of the Divine Substance and the Union of Substances which we know nothing of but had they contemplated God as a pure Mind it had been easie to explain this Perichoresis or In-dwelling of the Divine Persons in each other for there is and can be no other Union of Minds but consciousness and by a mutual consciousness they are as intimate to each other as they are to themselves and are whatever each other is as I have explained it at large and I hope this is no fault neither to give an intelligible Explication of that which all the Fathers taught but were not always equally happy in their Explications of it But to do St. Austin right though he do not name this consciousness yet he explains this Trinity in Unity by examples of mutual consciousness I named one of his Similitudes before of the Unity of our Understanding Memory and Will which are all conscious to each other that we remember what we understand and will we understand what we remember and will and what we will we remember and understand and therefore all these Three Faculties do penetrate and comprehend each other But his Ninth Book De Trinitate is spent wholly upon this Argument It is very familiar with the Ancient Fathers to represent the Father as the infinite Original Mind the Son the Wisdom of the Father his Image or reflex knowledge of himself and the Holy Spirit that Divine Love wherewith Father and Son love each other St. Austin takes this similitude of a Mind its knowledge of itsself and love of itsself and shews how these are Three and One which he makes a faint Image of and resemblance of a Trinity in Unity Now the Mind when it knows its whole self its knowledge comprehends its whole self and when it perfectly loves itself it loves its whole self and its love comprehends its whole self and this proves them to be of the same Substance for the Mind knows itself and loves itself and these are so Three that the Mind is known and loved by nothing else and therefore it is necessary that these Three have One Nature and Essence He proceeds to shew that this Unity is without all manner of confusion and mixture as it is in the Sacred Trinity where the Persons are united but distinct for mixture of Persons destroys the Trinity and shews how each of them are distinct and then how they are alternately in each other for the Mind that loves is in the love and love in the knowledge of the Lover and knowledge in the knowing Mind and how each of them is in the other two for the Mind which knows and loves itself is in its own knowledge and love and the love of the Mind which knows and loves itself is in its own knowledge and the knowledge of the Mind which knows and loves itself is in the Mind and in its love because it loves itself knowing and knows itself loving and thus also two are in each for the Mind which knows and loves itself with its knowledge is in love and with its love is in knowledge for love and knowledge are together in the Mind which loves and knows itself and the whole is in the whole for the whole Mind loves itself and knows its whole self and knows its whole love and loves its whole knowledge I need not tell
Concerning Expounding Scripture by Reason FOR like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there be Three Gods and Three Lords By the Christian Verity I suppose is meant the Sacred Books which contain the Christian Religion that is the Books of the Old and New Testament But do these Books and does this Verity compel us to the acknowledgment of Three Persons each of which is by himself Supreme God and Lord and yet all of them together but One God Doth I say the Holy Scripture compel us to this contradictory acknowledgment Is there any Text alleadged from Scripture which all the Vnitarians and some or other of the most learned Trinitarians do not easily interpret in such Sense that the Vnity of God is preserved and no more than One Person even the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ acknowledged to be God See the History of the Vnitarians But if there is no Text of Scripture but what is in the Opinion of some or other of their own Learned Men fairly capable of a Sense contrary to the Faith delivered in this Creed then we are not compelled to acknowledge this Faith And the truth is the Contest between the Vnitarians and Trinitarians is not as is commonly thought a Clash of Reason with Scripture but it layeth here whether when the Holy Scripture may be understood as teaching only One God or but One who is God which agrees with the rest of Scripture and with Natural Reason we must notwithstanding prefer an Interpretation of it that is absurd and contrary to it self to reason and to the rest of Scripture such as the Trinitarians Interpretation exprest in this Creed appears to be In a word the Question only is Whether we ought to Interpret Holy Scripture when it speaks of God according to Reason or not that is like fools or like wise men There is nothing in this long Paragraph to trouble an Answerers thoughts but a great deal to exercise his Patience if he be apt to be provoked by Arrogance and Folly His first Argument to prove that the Holy Scriptures do not compel us to confess each Person in the ever blessed Trinity to be God and Lord and yet that there is but one God is because it is a contradictory acknowledgment So he says and has endeavoured to prove it and how vainly and impertinently I leave the Reader to judge but if a Trinity in Unity imply no Contradiction as I am perswaded I have evidently proved then I hope the Scripture may teach this Doctrine and require the belief of it but this is an impudent Argument which brings Revelation down in such sublime Mysteries to the level of our Understandings to say such a Doctrine cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction whereas a modest man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not and if it be plainly contained there he would conclude how unintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture we must not indeed expound Scripture contrary to common Sense and to the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every man knows and every man can judge of but in Matters of pure Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of but what is revealed we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and express Authority of a Revelation for it is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Natures of Things whose Natures we do not understand as I shewed before His next Proof That the Scripture does not compel us to this Acknowledgment is that the Unitarians and some of the most Learned Trinitarians expound these Texts of Scripture which are alledged for a Trinity in Unity to another Sense and easily reconcile them with the Belief and Acknowledgment of One only who is God as well as of One God and for this he refers us to that Learned Piece the History of the Unitarians As for examining particular Texts which are alledged on both sides in this Controversie it is too voluminous a Work at present and besides my present Undertaking which is only to vindicate the Athanasian Creed and the true Christian Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity from the pretended Absurdities and Contradictions charged on it in these Notes and when that is done and I hope I have done it I dare trust any man of competent Understanding to judge which is most agreeable to the Scope and Language of Scripture But as for what he says that the Unitarians or Socinians can easily reconcile all the Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity to their Notion of One God in opposition to Three Divine Persons in the Godhead we must let him say so because he will say it as all other Hereticks pretend Scripture to be on their side but to say that they can easily do this is a little impudent when all Men who understand this Controversie see what Art they use and what forced and arbitrary Interpretations they put on Scripture to reconcile it to their Opinions especially when some of the most learned Socinians stick not to confess That they will expound Scripture to any sense rather than acknowledge such Doctrines as they think so contradictory to the Reason and Understanding of Mankind which no modest Man would own were he not sensible of the harshness and uncouthness of his own Expositions for things are come to a desperate pass when they shall resolve upon any sense or no sense rather than that which the words most aptly and properly signifie but lies cross to their Prejudices and pre-conceived Opinions But what thinks he of Socinus's Exposition of that Text where Christ says That he came down from Heaven which he could not do if he had no being before he was born of the Virgin Mary Did Socinus find it so easie a thing to reconcile this Text to his darling Opinion when he was fain to fast and to pray for it and to pretend Revelation because he wanted Reason to support it viz. That Christ before he entred on his Prophetick Office was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in the Gospel and then came down from Heaven again to publish it to the World Whereas our Saviour plainly speaks of his first coming into the World when he was born of the Virgin and the whole History of the Gospel takes no notice of his being taken up into Heaven before his Resurrection from the dead I think this was no easie Exposition but of this more presently That there are no Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity but what are rejected by one or other of the most learned Trinitarians is as true as the other There are many Texts which all hearty Trinitarians do and must agree in
Reason tell us That Three Divine Persons cannot be One God if my Reason be like other Mens I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it does neither affirm nor deny it and therefore when the Scripture assures us that there is but One God as Natural Reason teaches and that this One God is Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost this contradicts nothing which Reason teaches but adds something which Natural Reason could not discover which is the proper use of Revelation Scripture teaches that there is but one God and that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God Reason teaches that there is but One God but does not teach that there are Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead nor does it teach that there are not and therefore though the Scripture teaches more then Natural Reason does which I suppose may be allowed by these Adorers of Reason yet it teaches nothing contrary to what Natural Reason teaches nay these men can not graft any Contradiction upon it without perverting the Faith of the ever blessed Trinity as it is taught in Scripture and has always been taught in the Catholick Church that is to find a Contradiction their business is to prove that these Three Divine Persons each of which is God must be Three distinct Gods and then Three distinct Gods cannot be One God this I grant and their Argument is unanswerable to those who own these Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Gods but what is that to us who teach that they are not Three distinct Gods but One God as the Scripture teaches and the Catholick Church always taught and as of necessity we must teach if we believe a Trinity in Unity so that there is no Contradiction is not our Faith for that which they make a Contradiction is not our Faith but a Contradiction to our Faith as well as to common Sense and Reason Well! but if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons each of which is God we must believe Three distinct Gods I hope not when we profess to believe but One God yes whatever we profess to believe Three such distinct Persons must be Three Gods now this we deny and challenge them to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that it must be so Natural Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of the Godhead it teaches One God but whether this One God be One or Three Persons it says not and therefore it may be either without contradicting the Natural Notions we have of One God and then here is free scope for Revelation and if Revelation teaches that there is but One God and that there are Three Divine Persons each of which in Scripture have not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to them then we must of necessity believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God for what the Scripture affirms and Reason does not deny is a proper Object of our Faith and then their Objection against this Faith that these Three Divine Persons must be Three distinct Gods if each of them be God is sensless and ridiculous for it is demonstrable that if there be Three Persons and One God each Person must be God and yet there cannot be Three distinct Gods but One. For if each Person be not God all Three cannot be God unless the Godhead have Persons in it which are not God and if all Three are but One God they cannot be Three distinct Gods so that whoever believes the Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Gods does not believe a Trinity in Unity and whoever believes a Trinity in Unity cannot believe Three distinct Gods and if there be a Trinity in Unity each Person must be God and yet there cannot be Three Gods but One God and now let him go look for his Contradiction in the belief of Three Persons and one God and when he has found it let me hear from him again So that all his Absurdities and Contradictions are vanished only into Nicodemus his Question How can these things be and if I could give him no other Answer I should think it a very good one to say God knows Must we deny every thing that we can't conceive and comprehend though it be expresly taught by God himself Must we deny what we read in the Bible to be there because Reason does not teach it and cannot frame an Adequate Idea of it But I have not done with our Author thus but must give him a little more about expounding Scripture according to Reason For I affirm that Natural Reason is not the Rule and Measure of Expounding Scripture no more than it is of Expounding any other Writing The true and only way to interpret any Writing even the Scriptures themselves is to examine the use and propriety of Words and Phrases the Connexion Scope and Design of the Text its Allusion to ancient Customs and Usages or Disputes c. for there is no other good Reason to be given for any Exposition but that the Words signifie so and the Circumstances of the Place and the apparent Scope of the Writer requires it But our Author as many others do seems to confound the Reasons of believing any Doctrine with the Rules of Expounding a Writing We must believe nothing that contradicts the plain and express Dictates of Natural Reason which all Mankind agree in whatever pretence of Revelation there be for it well say they then you must expound Scripture so as to make it agree with the necessary Principles and Dictates of Reason No say I that does not follow I must expound Scripture according to the use and signification of the Words and must not force my own Sense on it if it will not bear it But suppose then that the Natural Construction of the Words import such a Sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason then I won't believe it How not believe Scripture no no I will believe no pretended Revelation which contradicts the plain Dictates of Reason which all Mankind agree in and were I perswaded that those Books which we call the Holy Scriptures did so I would not believe them and this is a fairer and honester way than to force them to speak what they never intended and what every impartial man who reads them must think was never intended that we may believe them to put our own sense on Scripture without respect to the use of Words and to the Reason and Scope of the Text is not to believe Scripture but to make it is not to learn from Scripture but to teach it to speak our Language is not to submit to the Authority of Scripture but to make Scripture submit to our Reason even in such Matters as are confessedly above Reason as the infinite Nature and Essence of God is Though I am never so well assured of the Divine Authority of any Book yet I must expound it as I do other Writings for