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
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
perfect equality and subordination of the Divine Persons ibid. And shows how each Person is God and all but one God 82 This gives an Account of the different modi subsistendi of which the Schools speak 83 And how the Operations of the Trinity ad extra are common to all Three Persons 85 An Answer to the Absurdities and Contradictions charged on the Doctrine of the Trinity by the Brief Notes 87 SECT V. The Doctrine of the Fathers and Schools about a Trinity in Unity reconciled to the foregoing Explication of it page 100 That the Fathers made the Three Divine Persons Three distinct infinite Minds 101 That Father Son and Holy Ghost are as distinct Persons as Peter James and John how to be understood 104 How the Fathers Explain the Unity of the Godhead 105 1. By the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or coessentiality of the Divine Persons 106 What they meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. How they proved the Unity of Essence from the sameness of Nature Gregory Nyssen's reasoning in this matter and vindicated from the Mesrepresentation of Petavius and Dr. Cudworth 109. c. 2. To this the Fathers added a Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence 121 Concerning the Unity of Energy and Power 123 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Circumincession is Self-consciousness 125 St. Austin explains the Unity of the Divine Persons by Examples of Self-consciousness 126 The Unity of the Godhead consists in the Unity of Principle 128 How the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are essential to the Notion of One God explained at large 129 c. SECT VI. Concerning expounding Scripture by Reason 140 The Arguments against a Trinity in the History of the Unitarians Letter 1. particularly answered 153 c. His first Argument 154 His second Argument 155 1 Coloss. 17. The first-born of every Creature explained 156 The Mediatory Kingdom of Christ explained at large 159 His third fourth and fifth Arguments answered 176 His sixth Argument 178 His seventh Argument 184 His eighth Argument from those Texts which declare that the Father only is God ibid. His ninth Argument That if Christ were God there was no need of giving the Holy Spirit to his Human Nature 187 His tenth and eleventh Arguments 188 His Arguments against the Godhead of the Holy Ghost ibid. Concerning the Personality of the Holy Ghost 189 That the Spirit is obtained of God by our Prayers therefore it self is not God Answered 193 Father Son and Holy Ghost the entire Object of Worship page 193 Those who do not worship the Trinity do not worship the true God if Father Son and Holy Ghost be God 194 No need of any new Cammand to worship the Holy Ghost when it is revealed that he is One God with the Father and Son ibid. That the Scripture speaks of God as One Person Answered 196 Whether the Socinian Faith be a reasonable and accountable Faith 198 The Socinian Faith ridicules the Scriptures 199 This is particularly shown in the Expositions of Scripture contained in the History of the Unitarians ibid. The Form of Baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost explained 209 1 John 1 2. In the beginning was the Word c. explained and vindicated 215 How this Historian has represented Grotius 220 Socinianism makes the Iewish oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable 231 Socinianism ridicules the Christian Religion 238 SECT VII An Answer to what remains in the Brief Notes 256 Concerning the Generation of the Son ibid. The equality and coeternity of the Persons in the Trinity 259 Concerning the Incarnation 262 How an infinite and finite Being may be united into one Person 263 What makes a Personal Union 266 A VINDICATION Of the DOCTRINE OF THE Holy and Ever Blessed TRINITY AND OF THE Incarnation of the SON of GOD In ANSWER to the Brief NOTES on the Greed of St. Athanasius SECT I. Concerning the Nature of a Contradiction and how to know it BEFORE I particularly Examine the Brief Notes on Athanasius 's Creed which under a pretence of exposing that Creed charge the Christian Faith itself of Three Persons and One God with the most monstrous Absurdities and Contradictions I shall 1. Shew what a Contradiction is and in what cases we can judge of a Contradiction 2. I shall take a brief view of the Athanasian Creed and shew that it signifies no more than that there are Three Persons and One God or a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and that if we own this we must own the particular Explications of the Athanasian Creed First As for the first A Contradiction is to deny and affirm the same thing in the same sense as to say that a thing is and is not at the same time that there is but One God and that there is Three Gods that is that there is and that there is not but One God for if there be Three Gods then it is not true that there is only One God Things which are so contrary as to contradict each other can never be both true for all Contradictions finally resolve into this It is and It is not which is absolutely impossible But when we come to apply this to the nature of Things we may easily fancy Contradictions where there are none For a Contradiction in the nature of Things is such a Notion or Idea of any thing as implies a Contradiction and then it is impossible any such thing can be as it is impossible that such a Proposition whose terms contradict each other should be true but then before we can pronounce that such a Notion or Idea is contradictions we must be sure that we perfectly understand and comprehend the nature of that Being otherwise the Contradiction may not be in the thing but in our manner of conceiving it It is not enough in this case to say we cannot understand it and know not how to reconcile it but we must say that we do perfectly understand it and know that it cannot be reconciled As for instance Some new Philosophers will tell you that the Notion of a Spirit or an immaterial Substance is a Contradiction for by Substance they understand nothing but Matter and then an immaterial Substance is immaterial Matter that is Matter and no Matter which is a Contradiction but yet this does not prove an immaterial Substance to be a Contradiction unless they could first prove that there is no Substance but Matter and that they cannot conceive any other Substance but Matter does not prove that there is no other Thus the Atheist discovers a great many Contradictions or Absurdities in the very Notion and Idea of a God or of an Eternal Omnipresent Omnipotent Omniscient Being For to be without a cause and without a beginning without time and without succession to be present every-where and to fill all Places and yet to have no parts no extension to be able to create a World and to annihilate it
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
neither wise nor powerful But this acute Father discovered a great inconvenience in this argument for it forces us to say that the Father is not wise but by that Wisdom which he begot not being himself Wisdom as the Father and then we must consider whether the Son himself as he is God of God and Light of Light may be said to be Wisdom of Wisdom if God the Father be not Wisdom but only begets Wisdom and by the same reason we may say that he begets his own Greatness and Goodness and Eternity and Omnipotency and is not himself his own Greatness or Goodness or Eternity or Omnipotency but is Great and Good Eternal and Omnipotent by the Greatness Goodness Eternity Omnipotency which is born of him as he is not his own Wisdom but is wise with that Wisdom which he begets The Master of the Sentences follows St. Austin exactly in this Point and urges this unanswerable Argument for it which he grounds upon St. Austin's Principle That in God to be and to be wise is the same thing and if it be he cannot be wise with the Wisdom he begets for then he would receive his Being from this begotten Wisdom not Wisdom from him for if the Wisdom he begets be the Cause of his being wise it is the Cause also that he is which must be either by begetting or by making him but no man will say that Wisdom is any way the Begetter or Maker of the Father which is the heighth of madness And in the next Chapter he teaches That the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten Wisdom so that according to St. Austin and the Master of the Sentences who is the Oracle of the Schools the Father is Eternal Wisdom or an Eternal Mind and the Son Eternal Wisdom and Mind though both are united into One Eternal Wisdom and if we confess this of Father and Son there can be no Dispute about the Holy Ghost who is Eternal Mind and Wisdom distinct both from Father and Son Nothing is more familiar with the Ancient Fathers than to represent Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Three as distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn are as every one knows who is at all versed in this Controversie and this is charged on them by some men as little better than Polytheism or a Trinity of Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are a Trinity of men but this must be true with reference to distinction of Persons if we will acknowledge a real distinction between them for if the distinction be real and not meerly nominal which was the Heresie of Sabellius their Persons must be as distinct as three humane Persons or three men are The Father is no more the Son or the Holy Ghost than Peter is Iames or Iohn but then they are not separated or divided from each other as Peter Iames and Iohn are for that indeed would make them three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are three men There is no Example in Nature of such a distinction and unity as is between the Three Persons in the Godhead and therefore the ancient Fathers made use of several Comparisons to different purposes which must carefully be confined to what they applied them for if we extend them farther we make Nonsense or Heresie of them There are three things to be considered in the ever blessed Trinity the Distinction of Persons the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature and their Essential Unity and the Fathers make use of different Comparisons to represent each of these by because no one can represent them all but inconsidering Persons seek for all in One and because they cannot find it they reject them all as impertinent dangerous or heretical and reproach the Fathers sometimes as ignorant of this great Mystery sometimes as bordering upon Heresie which I am sure does little service to the Doctrine it self and gives great countenance to false and corrupt Notions of it whence the Fathers themselves even those who were the most zealous Opposers of Arianism are thought Favourites of such Opinions I shall have occasion to take notice of several Instances of this as I go on at present I shall confine my self to the Distinction of Persons which cannot be more truly and aptly represented than by the distinction between three men for Father Son and Holy Ghost are as really distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn but whoever shall hence conclude That these Fathers thought that Father Son and Holy Ghost are no otherwise One also than Peter Iames and Iohn are greatly abuse them without any colourable pretence for it as will appear more presently but this Comparison of theirs shows what their sense was that these Three Divine Persons are Three Eternal and Infinite Minds as really distinct from each other as Three men are though essentially united into One Infinite and Eternal Mind or One God But I need not insist on this for the real distinction of Persons is so plainly taught by the ancient Fathers especially after the rise of the Sabellian Heresie that there is more difficulty to understand how they unite them into One God then that they make them distinct Persons and what they say about the unity of the Godhead abundantly proves this distinction of Persons Secondly Let us therefore in the second place consider How they explain this great Mystery of a Trinity in Unity they all agree That there are Three distinct Persons and that these Three Persons are but One God and they seem to me to agree very well in that account they give of it though some late Writers are very free and I think very unjust in their Censures of some of them as scarcely Orthodox in this Point I shall only remind you that this being so great a Mystery of which we have no Example in Nature it is no wonder if it cannot be explained by any one kind of Natural Union and therefore it was necessary to use several Examples and to allude to several kinds of Union to form an adequate Notion of the Unity of the Godhead and we must carefully apply what they say to those Ends and Purposes for which they said it and not extend it beyond their Intension as I observed before and there are several steps they take towards the Explication of this great Mystery which I shall represent in short and show that taking them altogether they give a plain and intelligible Notion of this Unity in Trinity and indeed no other than what I have already given of it 1. The first thing then to be considered is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orCo-essentiallity of the Divine Persons That all Three Persons in the God-head have the same Nature which they signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now whereas the same Nature may signifie the same Numerical or the same Specifick Nature Petavius and after him Dr. Cudworth have abundantly proved that the Nicene Fathers did not understand this word of a
Numerical but Specifick Sameness of Nature or the agreement of things numerically differing from one another in the same common Nature As Maximus very plainly tell us that that is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has the same Notion or Definition of its Essence as a man differs nothing from a man as he is a man nor an Angel from an Angel as he is an Angel and therefore this word did equally overthrow the Sabellian and the Arian Heresie as it affirms both a distinction of Persons and the sameness of Nature as St. Ambrose and others observe for nothing is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it self but to something else distinct from it self but of the same common Nature and therefore some who owned the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as savouring of Sabellianism and implying such a numerical Unity of Essence in the Godhead as destroyed all distinction of Persons for which reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self was rejected by some as abused by the Sabellians till the signification of that word was fixt and declared by the Fathers at Nice as Petavius observes This is One thing wherein the Fathers place the Unity of the Godhead that all three Persons have the same Nature and to be sure this is absolutely necessary to make Three Persons One God for it is impossible they should be One God if they have not the same Nature unless Three distinct and separate Beings of divers Natures can be One God that is unless the Divine Nature be not One pure and simple Act but a compound Being and that of different Natures too But some of the Fathers went farther than this and placed the Essential Unity of the Divine Nature in the sameness of Essence that there is but One God because all the Three Divine Persons have the same Nature And it will be necessary briefly to examine what they meant by it to vindicate these Fathers from the Mis-representations and hard Censures of Petavius and Dr. Cudworth who as I hope to make appear have greatly mistaken their Sense The Charge is that they make the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God only upon account of the same Specifical Divine Nature common to them all just as Three men are One by having the same common Nature or the same Humanity and being asked Why they may not then be called Three Gods as well as we say Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men they answer That this is owing to an ill Custom for they ought not to be called Three men neither which is like saying there are Three Human Natures and though in inferiour Matters we may bear with the abuse of Words and improper forms of Speech yet this is of dangerous Consequence when we speak of God and therefore though there is no great hurt in saying there are Three men though there is but one Humanity common to them all yet we must not say there are Three Gods since there is but One Divine Nature and Essence common to all Three Persons This Petavius says is to deny the true and real Unity of the Divine Substance and Essence and to make God only collectively One as a multitude of men are said to be One People and a multitude of Believers One Church which was the Error of Abbot Ioachim for which he was Condemned in the Council of Lateran Dr. Cudworth represents it thus These Theologers supposed the Three Persons of their Trinity to have really no other than a Specifick Vnity and Identity and because it seems plainly to follow from hence that therefore they must needs be as much Three Gods as Three men are Three men these Learned Fathers endeavoured with their Logick to prove that Three men are but abusively and improperly so called Three they being really and truly but One because there is but One and the same Specifick Essence or Substance of Human Nature in them all He adds It seems plain that this Trinity is no other than a kind of Tritheism and that of Gods Independent and Co-ordinate too This is a very high Charge and yet these Theologers are no less men than Gregory Nyssen and Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus and Damascen men of Note in their Generation and never charged with Heresie before But whatever the meaning of these Fathers was it is plain that Petavius and Dr. Cudworth have mistaken their meaning For they did not think that Father Son and Holy Ghost were one God only as Peter Iames and Iohn are one man or that Peter Iames and Iohn are One man as Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God they neither dreamt of a Collective nor Specifick Unity of the Godhead but asserted a real subsisting numerical Unity of Essence as is obvious to every impartial Reader and therefore if they had not understood how they explained this yet they ought not to have put such a sense upon their Words as is directly contrary to what they affirm I shall not need to transcribe much out of these Fathers to justifie them in this Point but will only represent their Argument as plainly as I can and that will be their Justification whatever become of their Argument They affirm then That Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One God because there is and can be but One numerical Divinity or one Divine Nature and Essence though it subsist in Three distinct Persons against this it was objected that Peter Iames and Iohn though they have the same Human Nature yet are called Three men and there is no absurdity in it when there are more than One who have the same Nature to speak of them in the Plural Number to call Two Two and Three Three how then comes it to pass that Religion forbids this that when we acknowledge Three Persons who have the same Nature without any imaginable difference we must in a manner contradict our selves confessing the Divinity of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One and the same and denying that they are Three Gods This Gregory Nyssen answers at large and I shall chiefly confine my self to the Answers he gives which will abundantly show how much these two Learned Men have mis-represented his Sense And first he takes notice of the common Form of Speech of calling Three who partake of the same Human Nature Three Men which inclines us to call the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost who have all the same Divine Nature Three Gods and that naturally betrays men into the Opinion of a Trinity of Gods as well as of a Trinity of Persons who are as much Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men and therefore he tells us that this is an improper way of speaking even when applied to men to say that there are Three men For man is the name of Nature not of the Person to
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
Faculties and Powers more but these being only Faculties and Powers neither of them is a whole entire Mind the Understanding alone is not the whole entire Mind nor Reflexion nor Love but the Mind is whole and entire by the union of them all in One but these being Persons in the Godhead each Person has the whole Divine Nature The Son has all that the Father has being his perfect and natural Image and the Holy Spirit is all that Father and Son is comprehending all their infinite Perfections in Eternal Love and they are all the same and all united into One God as the several Faculties and Powers are in One Mind 7. For this proves that these Divine Persons are intimately conscious to each other which as I before showed makes them One numerical God for as the same Mind is conscious to all its own Faculties and Powers and by that unites them into One so where there are Divine and Infinite Persons instead of Faculties and Powers they must be mutually conscious to each other to make them all One God 8. This proves also that though there are Three distinct Persons there can be but One Energie and Operation Father Son and Holy Ghost is the Maker and Governour of the World by one inseparable and undivided Energie neither of them do nor can act apart as the several Powers of the Mind all concur to the same individual Action Knowledge Self-reflection and Will do the same thing which is the Effect of Knowledge brought into act by Reflection and Will and yet the Effect may be ascribed to Knowledge and ascribed to Will as the making of the World is to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost not separately to either but as they act in Conjunction and produce the same Effect by One individual Energie and Power 9. This proves also that Father Son and Holy Ghost must be co-eternal as the several Powers and Faculties must be co-temporary and co-exist in the same Mind Understanding cannot be without a Power of Reflection nor that without Will and Love And I suppose no man will say that there could be any imaginable instant wherein God did not know and love himself This Account is very agreeable to what St. Austin has given us who represents the Father to be Original Mind the Son his Knowledge of himself and the Holy-Spirit Divine Love as I have done and gives the very same Account of their Union Cùm itaque se mens novit amat jungitur ei amore verbum ejus quoniam amat notitiam novit amorem verbum in amore est amor in verbo utrumque in amante dicente When the Mind knows and loves it self its Word is united to it by Love and because it loves its Knowledge and knows its Love its Word is in Love and Love in its Word and both in the loving and speaking or knowing Mind This is the Eternal Generation of the Son Itaque mens cùm seipsam cognoscit sola parens est notitioe suoe cognitum enim cognitor ipsa est when the Mind knows it self it is the sole Parent of its own Knowledge for its self is both the Knower and the Thing known that is the Son is begotten of the Father by a reflex Knowledge of himself and he gives us the same Account of the Difference between Generation and Procession that One is a new Production if I may so express it inventum partum repertum that is the Production of its own Image of its own Wisdom and Knowledge by Self-reflexion the other comes out of the Mind as Love does and therefore the Mind is the Principle of it but not its Parent Cur itaque amando se non genuisse dicatur amorem suum sicut cognoscendo se genuit notitiam suam in eo quidem manifeste ostenditur hoc amoris esse principium undè procedit ab ipsa quidem mente procedit quae sibi est amabilis antequam se amet atque ita principium est amoris sui quo se amat sed ideo non rectè dicitur genitus ab ea sicut notitia sui quâ se novit quia notitia jam inventum est quod partum vel repertum dicitur quod saepe praecedit inquisitio eo fine quietura This I hope is sufficient both to explain and justifie this Doctrine which is the great Fundamental of the Christian Religion of a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and that Account I have given of it It must be confessed that the ancient Fathers did not express their Sense in the same terms that I have done but I will leave any indifferent and impartial Reader to judge whether they do not seem to have intended the very same Explication which I have now given of this venerable Mystery As for the Schoolmen they generally pretend to follow the Fathers and have no Authority where they leave them Sometimes they seem to mistake their Sense or to clog it with some peculiar Niceties and Distinctions of their own The truth is that which has confounded this Mystery has been the vain endeavour of reducing it to terms of Art such as Nature Essence Substance Subsistence Hypostasis Person and the like which some of the Fathers used in a very different Sense from each other which sometimes occasioned great Disputes among them not because they differed in the Faith but because they used words so differently as not to understand each others meaning as Petavius has shewn at large The more pure and simple Age of the Church contented themselves to profess the Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost that there was but One God and Three who were this One God which is all the Scripture teaches of it But when Sabellius had turned this Mystery only into a Trinity of Names they thought themselves concerned to say what these Three are who are One God and then they nicely distinguished between Person and Hypostasis and Nature and Essence and Substance that they were Three Persons but One Nature Essence and Substance but then when men curiously examined the signification of these words they found that upon some account or other they were very unapplicable to this Mystery for what is the Substance and Nature of God How can Three distinct Persons have but one Numerical Substance What is the distinction between Essence and Personality and Subsistence The Deity is above Nature and above terms of Art there is nothing like this mysterious Distinction and Unity and therefore no wonder if we want proper words to express it by at least that such Names as signifie the Distinction and Unity of Creatures should not reach it I do not think it impossible to give a tolerable Account of the School-terms and distinctions but that is a work of greater difficulty than use especially to ordinary Christians and I have drawn this Section to too great a length already to enter upon that now SECT VI.
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
when God vouchsafes to speak to us in our own Language we must understand his Words just as we do when they are spoke by men Indeed when I am sure that it is an inspired Writing I lay it down for a Principle that it contains nothing absurd and contradictious or repugnant to the received Principles of Natural Reason but this does not give me authority to Expound the Words of Scripture to any other sense than what they will naturally bear to reconcile them with such Notions as I call reason for if one man has this liberty another may take it and the Scripture will be tuned to every mans private Conceits and therefore in case the plain sense of Scripture contradicts those Notions I have of things if it be possible to be true I submit to the Authority of Scripture if it seems to include a Contradiction and Impossibility if that Contradiction be not plain and notorious and in such Matters as I am sure I perfectly understand there I submit again and conclude it is no Contradiction though I cannot comprehend how it is if I can by no means reconcile it I will confess I do not understand it and will not pretend to give any Sense of it much less to give such a Sense of it as the Words will not bear This shows that men may pretend to Expound Scripture according to Reason when the Dispute is nothing else but a Clash of Reason with Scripture as this Author phrases it for so it is when the usual signification of the Words and the Scope and Circumstances of the Place require one Sense and men force another Sense on it upon pretence of Expounding Scripture by Reason that is to reconcile Scripture to their pre-conceived Notions and Opinions of Things for what the Words signifie that is the Sense of Scripture and when they will not admit this Sense because they apprehend it contrary to Reason though most agreeable to the Words and Scope of the Place that is nothing else but a Controversie between Scripture and Reason My present Undertaking does not oblige me to examine all the Scriptures which are alleadged by the Socinians against the Doctrine of the Trinity or by others for it this is a voluminous Work and has often been done by others and if there were any just Occasion of doing it again it deserves a Treatise by it self but indeed it is the Doctrine it self which the Socinians dislike more then our Expositions which they cannot deny to be reasonable enough were the Doctrine so but they must not expound Scripture contrary to Reason and therefore must never allow that the Scripture teaches such a Doctrine which they think contradicts the plain and self-evident Reason of Mankind reconcile men to the Doctrine and the Scripture is plain without any farther Comment this I have now endeavoured and I believe our Adversaries will talk more sparingly of Absurdities and Contradictions for the future and then they will loose the best Argument they have against the Orthodox Expositions of Scripture but yet I am unwilling to dismiss this Argument without some few Observations about the Sense of Scripture This Author refers us to the History of the Vnitarians which though it be but a little Book in all Senses is too large to be particularly examined now but however I shall give some taste of it In the first Letter the Author marshals those Texts which he thinks overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity and because this may be most dangerous to unskilful Readers I shall more particularly examine that He reduces the Scriptures under several Topicks or Heads of Arguments 1. If our Lord Christ were himself God there could be no Person greater than he none that might be called his Head or God none that could in any respect command him Now this Argument is fallacious for though Christ be God himself yet if there be Three Persons in the Godhead the equality and sameness of Nature does not destroy the Subordination of Persons a Son is equal to his Father by Nature but inferiour to him as his Son if the Father as I have explained it be Original Mind and Wisdom the Son a personal subsisting but reflex Image of his Fathers Wisdom though their Eternal Wisdom be equal and the same yet the Original is superior to the Image the Father to the Son and therefore though I know such Texts as he alleadges My Father is greater than I. The Head of Christ is God I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God are both by Ancient and Modern Expositors applied to Christ's Human Nature yet I see no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to his Divine Person and his Relation to his Father For the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity and the Son is God of God and therefore the Father may be called his God As for Christ's receiving Commands from the Father though this relates to the Execution of his Mediatory Office and so concerns him as God Incarnate as by the Dispensation of the Gospel he is the Minister of God's Will and Pleasure yet I grant even as God he receives Commands from his Father but it is no otherwise than as he receives his Nature from him by Nature he is the Word the Wisdom the Command of the Father his reflex Image whereby he produces all the Designs of his own Wisdom and Counsel into act Thus St. Austin answered the Arrian Objection That Christ was but God's Instrument and made the World by God's Command Let them consider with what other words the Father commanded his only Word But they frame to themselves an Imagination of two near one another but separated by their distinct Places one commanding another obeying Nor do they understand that the Fathers Command it self that all things should be made is no other Word of the Father but that by which all things are made that is the substantial Word and Wisdom and Command of the Father his only begotten Son 2. If our Lord Christ were indeed God it could not without blasphemy be absolutely and without Restriction affirmed of him that he is the Creature the Possession the Servant and Subject of God It is well he added absolutely and without restriction but he had done better if he had remembred it in his Proofs that Christ is called a Creature he proves because he is the first-born of every Creature but here he should have remembred his absolutely and without restriction for he is so to the first-born of every Creature that he is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore no Creature so born before all Creatures as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies That by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him and he is before all
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
is not meerly as he is the Son of God the second Person in the Trinity for so he is worshipped as One God with the Father and the Holy Ghost but as he is a Mediator or a Mediatory King as he has a Kingdom distinct from the Natural Kingdom of the Father as I have already shown so there is a worship proper to him as Mediator but the Holy Spirit has no distinct Kingdom and therefore no distinct Worship but is worshipped in the Unity of the Godhead and this required no new Command for he who knows that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One Supreme God must worship Father Son and Holy Ghost as One Supreme God 4. His next Argument is against a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead which he says is contrary to the whole Scripture which speaks of God but as One Person and speaks of him and to him by singular Pronouns such as I Thou Me Him His Proofs that the Scripture speaks of God as but One Person are very wonderful His first is that of Iob Will ye speak wickedly for God and talk deceitfully for him Will ye accept his Person will ye contend for God But surely to accept God's Person no more signifies the Personality of the Godhead than to accept the Person of a Man signifies his Human Person the Hebrew is his Face which is far from signifying a Person in the sense we say there are Three Persons in the Godhead To respect the Person of a Man is to do something for him which neither Law nor Justice nor Equity required not because he is a Person which every Man is but from some partial respect we have to his particular Person and therefore to accept the Person of God here signifies to speak wickedly for God which is an absurd and sensless thing as Iob represents it whether the Supreme God be One Person or Three for in this sense of Person One God can be but One Person The other Text that Christ is the express Image of God's Person is as little to the purpose for it is plain the Person of whom the Son is the express Image is the Person of God the Father and the Father indeed is but One Person As for his singular Pronouns they prove indeed that there is but One God as we all own not that there are not Three Persons in the Godhead For when the Scripture speaks of God without any particular respect to the distinction of the Persons it must speak but of One God because God is but One and singular Pronouns are most properly applied to One God As for what he objects That no Instance can be given in any Language of Three Persons whoever spoke of themselves or were spoken to by the singular Pronouns I Thou Me Him Thee it were sufficient to answer That there is no other Example in Nature neither of Three Persons who are essentially One and if the manner of speaking must be conformed to the Nature of Things there can be no other Instance of this way of speaking because there is no other Example of this Unity but all Languages speak of One in the singular Number and so the Scripture uses singular Pronouns of One God But this is not the Case for when God speaks of himself he does not speak of himself as Three Persons but as One God and therefore may say I and Me and when the Prophets speak of God or pray to him they pray to him as One God and therefore may say Thou and Him and Thee When Three Persons are One God God may speak of himself or we may speak of or to God either considered as Three Persons or as One God and though Three Persons require the Plural Number yet One God may speak of himself or be spoken to by singular Pronouns 5. He says Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed And I say Had not the Son been God and the Holy Ghost God they would not have been put into the Apostles Creed no more than into the form of Baptism which is the original of the Apostles Creed That the Primitive Christians did believe the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost we are sufficiently assured from all the ancient Records of their Faith but there was no reason to express this in so short a Creed before the Arian and Socinian Heresies had disturbed the Church and indeed there was no need of it for the only Son of God must be by Nature God and the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man He concludes That theirs the Socinians is an accountable and reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible The Faith of a Trinity in Unity I hope I have sufficiently vindicated already from Absurdity and Contradiction But it will be worth the while briefly to consider how accountable and reasonable the Socinian Faith is The Socinian Doctrine is That Christ who is called the Son the only begotten Son of God the Brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Person is no more than a meer Man who had no Being till he was Conceived in the Womb of the Virgin Mary and is called the Son of God because God formed him by an immediate Power in the Virgins Womb and raised him from the Dead and exalted him to his own right hand in Heaven and that the Holy Spirit is only the Power and Inspiration of God that is is either God himself or the Operation of his Power in Creatures This is their accountable and reasonable Doctrine and to show how very accountable and reasonable it is I come now to draw up my charge against it 1. That it ridicules the Scriptures 2. That it ridicules the whole Jewish oeconomy 3. That it ridicules the Christian Religion 4. That it justifies or at least excuses both Pagan and Popish Idolatries The Charge is full enough and I am contented it should pass only for big huffing words till I have proved it and then I hope it may pass for a just Return to the ridiculous Blasphemies of the Brief Notes and Brief History 1. That it ridicules the Scripture by putting either an absurd or a very mean trifling sense on it unworthy of the Wisdom of God by whom it was inspired and this I shall give some Instances of in their Expositions of Scripture which I find in the Brief History of the Vnitarians In the second Letter he takes notice of some Texts in the Old Testament which speak of God and in the New Testament are applied to Christ which we think a very good Argument to prove That Christ is that God to whom those Texts belong in the Old Testament for though possibly without such an Application we could not certainly have known that these Texts were
next place let us consider the first Chapter of St. Iohn's Gospel which gives a glorious Testimony to the Divinity of Christ and a plain demonstration of the incurable perverseness of Hereticks In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God the same was in the beginning with God Our Historian tells us The Trinitarian Exposition of this Chapter is absurd and contradictory 'T is this In the beginning i. e. from all Eternity Answ. From all Eternity is before the beginning or without beginning not in the beginning Reply This is false No man expounds in the beginning of Eternity but when St. Iohn tells us In the Beginning was the Word we say this proves the Eternity of the Word for that which was when all things began which had a beginning was it self before the beginning and without beginning especially when it was so in the beginning that it gave beginning to every thing else that all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made Was the Word i. e. was God the Son Answ. But where in Scripture is the Word called God the Son Reply This Word indeed is God the Son but we do not Paraphrase it so in this place In the beginning was God the Son but in the beginning was that Divine Person who is called the Word The Word was with God i. e. The Son was with the Father Answ. It seems then that God in this Clause is the Father But was not the Son also with the Holy Ghost and is not he too according to the Trinitarians God or a God If he is why doth St. John only say The Son was with the Father and how comes the Father to engross here the Title of God to the Exclusion of the Holy Ghost Rep. This is true also the God with whom the Word was is the Father but that is not his Character here neither no more than the Character of the Word is the Son But by God the Apostle here means that Original mind and Wisdom that Supreme and Soveraign Being whom all men called God without making a distinction of Persons in the God-head And therefore whereas he thinks that he has got the Trinitarians at an Advantage when the Apostle adds and the Word was God his triumph is vain What says he shall we do here was the Word the Father for so they interpreted God in the foregoing Clause No! no! neither so nor so The Word was God signifies the Word was a Divine Person in the Godhead and the Verse is very plain In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God intimately and inseparably united to him and that not as a Faculty or Power as Reason is in Human Minds but as a Divine subsisting Person for the Word was God God is the Name of a Being absolutely Perfect and the Light of Nature teaches us that there is but One such Supreme Being or but One God but Nature does not teach us that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God though when Revelation has discovered this Mystery natural Reason is able in some measure to understand it and see the necessity of it as I have already shewn and if there be Three Divine Persons in the Godhead Reason will tell us that each Person is God though all Three Persons are but One God This is the Trinitarian Hypothesis and if the words of the Evangelist do easily and naturally agree with this Hypothesis and cannot reasonably signifie any thing else that is a sufficient Argument to me that this is the true Interpretation of the Text In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God That is In the beginning of all things was the Divine Person whose Name and Character is The Word this Word was inseparably united to that Supreme Being whom we call God and was himself God a Divine Person subsisting in the Vnity of the Godhead not a Power and Faculty as Reason is in Man Can any thing be more easie and obvious and more agreeable to the Doctrine of the Trinity Or if you change the Subject and the Praedicate as others will have it and read God was the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it makes no difference at all for this Supreme Being whom we call God was and is the Word though not Only the Word for God is the Father and God is the Son and God is the Holy Ghost though God is not only the Father nor only the Son nor only the Holy Ghost but the Supreme God is Father Son and Holy Ghost Now when the Evangelist had said That the Word was God or God was the Word there was great reason to repeat the same was in the beginning with God which our Historian thinks a meer Tautology for the intention of it is plain to inculcate more expresly on us that though the Word be God yet the Word is not all that God is as Grotius well observes for the Word was with God and therefore a distinct Person from some other Person who is callâ—d God that is that Eternal and Original Mind and Wisdom who is the Father of the Word And why the Name of God should peculiarly be appropriated to the Father as the Fountain of the Deity I have often observed But yet the Evangelist does in this Verse say something more than he said before and therefore this is no Tautology He had said That the Word was in the beginning that it was with God that it was God now he adds The same Word was in the beginning with God that is was always with him never separated from him and this is added for the sake of what follows That the Word was so with God in the beginning that God made the World by his Word For all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made which was made which is another very mysterious Repetition which nothing can give so plain an Account of as our Hypothesis All things were made by him this is full enough without the following addition nay indeed signifies more than what follows in strictness and propriety of Speech seems to do for that nothing was made without him of it self does not signifie that he made all things but that he had something to do in it as he may have who is not the principal Actor But our Doctrine gives a plain account of this Addition when the Evangelist had said That this Word who was with God in the beginning made all things there was an obvious Objection viz. then it seems that God with whom the Word was did not make the World if all things were made by the Word to have attributed the Creation of the World to the Word so as to have excluded God from making the World had been very absurd and contrary to the sense of Mankind God made the World by his Word the Word made all
again to make all things of nothing and to reduce all things to nothing again to know all things past present and to come especially the most contingent Futurities the freest Thoughts and Counsels of Men before they think them or some Ages before they themselves are in being without imposing a Fatal Necessity on Humane Actions I say the Notion of such a Being is very much above our conception and to an Atheist who is for believing nothing but what he can fully comprehend seems very absurd and contradictious This shews that Men may easily mistake in charging the Nature and Notions of Things with Contradictions and therefore we must enquire how we may discover when such an appearing Contradiction is not real but is wholly owing to our imperfect conception of things I. Now in the first place we have great reason to suspect this when it relates to such things as all Mankind agree we do not and cannot fully understand or comprehend for it is a vain and arrogant presumption to say what is or what is not a Contradiction when we confess we do not understand or comprehend the thing we speak of A Contradiction in the Nature of Things is what is contrary to the Nature of that Being of which we speak Now so far as we understand the Nature of any Being we can certainly tell what is contrary and contradictions to its Nature As that Accidents should subsist without their subject that a Body should be without extension or an organized Body without any distinction of parts that the same individual Body should be in Heaven and on Earth and in a thousand distant places at the same time that Flesh and Blood should lie invisible under the Species of Bread and Wine that a Body suppose of five or six foot long should be concealed under the least crum of Bread these and such like are the manifest Absurdities and Contradictions of Transubstantiation and we know that they are so because we know the Nature of a Body and know that such things are a contradiction to the essential Properties of a Body But now all Men must confess that they have not a clear and comprehensive Notion of the Nature and Essential Properties of a Spirit especially of an infinite Spirit as God is and it is impossible to know what is contrary to the Nature of a Spirit if we know not what the Nature of a Spirit is and that Man who shall pretend to comprehend all that is possible in an infinite Nature is as contemptibly ridiculous as if he should challenge to himself infinite Knowledge for without that no Man can comprehend what is infinite II. It is a sufficient proof that such seeming Contradictions are not in the nature of things but in our imperfect manner of conceiving them when we have other evident proofs that the thing is though we cannot comprehend it for nothing can be which involves a Contradiction in its nature and therefore if it is the contradiction is not real but imaginary As for instance As unconceivable as the Notion of Eternity is yet all Mankind even Atheists themselves must confess that something was from Eternity for if ever there was nothing it is impossible there ever should have been any thing for that which once was not can never be without a cause and therefore whatever Difficulties there may be in the Notion of an Eternal Being we must acknowledge something Eternal and that is proof enough that there is nothing absurd or contradictious in the Notion though we cannot comprehend it and I am sure the Notion of a first Eternal Cause is much more easie and natural than to make either Matter or the World and all the Creatures in it Eternal Whatever we can certainly prove to be either by Sense Reason or Revelation if there be any difficulty in conceiving it we must attribute that to the imperfection of our own Knowledge not to any Absurdity or Contradiction in the thing itself This shews how unreasonable that Method is which is taken by Atheists Infidels and Hereticks to dispute against the being of any thing from the difficulty of conceiving it and some pretended Absurdities and Contradictions in it when there are very plain proofs that the thing is and such as it is impossible for them fairly to answer this is the fundamental miscarriage which is not owing to a prudent caution as is pretended but to wilfulness and obstinacy and pride of Understanding or to a fixed prejudice and aversion to the belief of such matters and therefore I shall not only observe but particularly prove the unreasonableness of it The proof of this comes to this one point that we may have sufficient evidence of the being of a thing whose nature we cannot conceive and comprehend he who will not own this contradicts the sense and experience of Mankind and he who confesses this and yet rejects the belief of that which he has good evidence for meerly because he cannot conceive it is a very absurd and senseless Infidel And the reason of this is very plain because all the ways whereby the being of any thing can be proved are obvious and intelligible to all Mankind but the nature of most things are very dark and obscure and such as the wisest Men know little or nothing of And therefore we may certainly know that a great many things are whose nature and essential properties we cannot conceive As to shew this particularly 1. The proofs that any thing is are either from Sense from Reason or from Revelation What is evident to Sense is evident to all Men who have their Senses what is plainly proved by Reason and it is not a sufficient proof if it be not plain is plain to all Men who can use their Reason and what is plainly revealed every Man may know who can read and understand the Scriptures the being and nature of things are known very different ways and the being of things not only may but most commonly is known without knowing their natures Any Man may know the first but few Men in any measure can know the second Whoever has his Senses about him knows that there are such things as he sees hears or feels but the Philosophy of Nature is not learnt by Sense Reason will convince us by some visible and sensible effects that there are some invisible causes without informing us distinctly what the nature and powers of such causes are and God may and does reveal many things to us which we either are not capable of fully comprehending or the nature of which he does not think fit particularly to explain to us and in all these cases we may certainly know that things are without understanding the Nature and Philosophy of them 2. It is so far from being a wonder to meet with any thing whose nature we do not perfectly understand that I know nothing in the World which we do perfectly understand It is agreed by all Men whoever considered this matter that
the essences of things cannot be known but only their properties and qualities The World is divided into Matter and Spirit and we know no more what the substance of Matter than what the substance of a Spirit is though we think we know one much better than the other We know thus much of Matter that it is an extended substance which fills a space and has distinct parts which may be separated from each other that it is susceptible of very different qualities that it is hot or cold hard or soft c. but what the substance of Matter is we know not And thus we know the essential properties of a Spirit that it is a thinking substance with the Faculties of Understanding and Will and is capable of different Vertues or Vices as Matter is of sensible qualities but what the substance of a Spirit is we know no more than what the substance of matter is Thus as for the essential properties operations and powers of Matter Sense Experience and Observation will tell us what they are and what causes constantly produce such effects and this is all we do or can know of it and he who will not believe that Matter is extended that the Fire burns that Water may be condensed by Frost into a firm and solid Pavement that Seed sown in the Earth will produce its own kind again that a Body can move from one place to another that a Stone falls to the ground and Vapours ascend and thicken into Clouds and fall down again to the Earth in gentle Showers c. I say he who will not believe these things till he can give a Philosophical account of them must deny his Senses in complement to his Understanding and he who thinks that he does understand these matters would make a Man question whether he has any Sense Thus it is also with reference to a Spirit We feel within ourselves that we can think and reason that we can choose and refuse that we can love and hate and desire and fear but what these natural powers and passions are we know not how thoughts rise in our minds and how one thought begets another how a thought can move our Bodies or fix them in their Seat how the Body can raise thoughts and passions in the Soul or the thoughts and passions of the Soul can affect the Body The Properties and Operations both of Bodies and Spirits are great Secrets and Mysteries in Nature which we understand nothing of nor are concerned to understand them no more than it is our business to understand how to make either a Body or a Spirit which we have no power to do if we did understand it and therefore it would be an useless piece of Knowledge which would serve no end but Curiosity and that is reason enough why our wise Maker should not communicate this knowledge to us were we capable of it because it does not belong to our Natures as no Knowledge does which we can make no use of the perfect Notions and Idea's of Things are proper only to that Almighty Mind which can give being to them Now this plainly shews what the Natural Boundaries of Humane Knowledge are how far we may attain to a certain Knowledge and where we must give off our Enquiries unless we have a mind to impose upon our Understandings with some uncertain and fanciful Conjectures or to perplex our selves with inexplicable Difficulties 1. As first We have certain ways of discovering the being of Things which fall within the compass of our Knowledge this our Senses Reason or Revelation will acquaint us with and therefore we may know what Things there are in the World as far as they fall under the notice of Sense or are discovered by Reason or Revelation 2. We may know what Things are or what their essential Properties Qualities Operations and Powers are whereby we can distinguish one sort of Beings from another as suppose a Body from a Spirit Bread from Flesh and Wine from Blood and can Reason from Effects to Causes and from Causes to Effects with as great certainty as we understand what the Causes or Effects are 3. But the Essences of Things and the Philosophy of their Natures the Reasons of their Essential Properties and Powers which immediately result from their Natures the manner of their Production and the manner of their Operations are Mysteries to us and will be so do what we can and therefore here our Enquiries must cease if we enquire wisely for it is vain and absurd to perplex ourselves with such Questions which we can no more answer than we can make a World The sum is this when we charge any Doctrine with Absurdities and Contradictions we must be sure that we understand the thing for if it be such a thing as we do not and cannot understand the Nature of we may imagine a thousand Absurdities and Contradictions which are owing wholly to our Ignorance of Things SECT II. The Athanasian Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of the Trinity and Incarnation II. LET us now take a view of the Athanasian Creed which this prophane Author makes the Subject of his Drollery and Ridicule and examine whether there be any thing in it which a good Catholick Christian can reject without rejecting the Catholick Doctrines of the Holy and Ever Blessed TRINITY and the Mysterious Incarnation of the SON of GOD for if this Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to this belief and what every Christian who believes these Doctrines must profess then all these Scoffs which are cast upon the Athanasian Creed do indeed belong to the Christian Faith itself if the Trinity and Incarnation be Christian Doctrines As to begin with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity The Athanasian Creed tells us The Catholick Faith is this that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity that is that we worship One God and Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost and this all Christians grant to be the Catholick Faith except Arians Macedonians and Socinians and such like Hereticks And how we must worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity is explained in the next Paragraph Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance Which must be acknowledged if there be Three Persons and One God for if we confound the Persons by saying that they are all but One Person under Three different Names and Titles or Denominations then we destroy the Distinction of Persons if we divide the Substance by saying that every Person has a separate Divine Nature of his own as every Man has a separate Humane Nature then we make Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men which is to overthrow the Doctrine of One God and therefore the Creed adds For there is One Person of the Father another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost But the God-head of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One the
any Man that this is the mutual consciousness which I have described and by this St. Austin represents the Trinity in Unity and I hope his Authority will defend me from the charge of Innovation and I am sure the reason of the thing will defend itself But for the better understanding of this we must further observe that the Fathers resolve the Unity of the Godhead into the Unity of Principle that is though there be Three Divine Persons in the Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost yet the Father is the Original Fountain of the Deity who begets the Son of his own Substance and from whom and the Son the Holy Ghost eternally proceeds of the same Substance with Father and Son So that there is but one Principle and Fountain of the Deity and therefore but One God But this as Petavius well observes does not of itself prove the Unity of the Godhead but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sameness of Nature and therefore the Fathers add That God begets a Son not without but within himself for the Wisdom of God is within him and inseparable from him This they illustrated by the Sun its light and splendour which are coaeval and inseparable by the Fountain and its Streams by a Tree and its Branches which are united in One which Comparisons must not be strained farther than they were intended as if Father Son and Holy Ghost were one in the same manner as the Sun and its Light or the Tree and its Branches or the Fountain River and Streams but only that there is such a natural and essential Union between the Divine Persons as makes them One numerical God But there is something still to be added to this to compleat this Notion that as the Father is the Fountain of the Deity and the Son and Holy Ghost inseparably united to him so Father Son and Holy Ghost are essential to One God as St. Austin calls the Trinity Vnam quandam summam rem One Supreme Thing And as all acknowledge that the Three Persons are One God and since God is the most necessary Being all Three Persons are necessary and essential to One God That there must necessarily be Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead and there can be no more For the explication of this I shall proceed by these steps which are all plain and universally acknowledged 1. That there are no Accidents nor Qualities nor Faculties in God as there are in created Spirits but whatever is in God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence and Substance a pure and simple Act. This is universally acknowledged by all Christians St. Austin affirms That there are no Accidents in God Athanasius That there is no Composition in God as between Substance and Accident and it is much alike as to Mind and its different Faculties and Powers which is a Composition but that God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pure simple Act but there is no need of Testimonies to prove that which Natural Reason proves for nothing can be Eternal and Self-orginated but a pure and simple Act for what is compounded is made for it wants a Maker 2. That it is essential to an eternal Mind to know itself and to love itself for this is essential to a Mind no human Mind can be without it much less the most perfect and excellent Mind and therefore God does know himself and love himself and his own Image 3. That Original Mind and Wisdom and the Knowledge of it self and love of it self and its own Image are distinct Acts and never can be One simple individual Act. They are distinct Powers and Faculties in men Knowledge Self-reflexion and Love and are so distinct that they can never be the same Knowledge is not Self-reflection nor love either Knowledge or Self-reflection though they are inseparably united they are distinct 4. Therefore these three Acts which are so distinct that they can never be the same must be three substantial Acts in God that is three Divine subsisting Persons for there is nothing but Essence and Substance in God no Accident or Faculties as there are in Creatures 5. That these are the true and proper Characters of the distinct Persons in the ever blessed Trinity The Father is Original Mind and Wisdom the Son the Word and Wisdom of the Father that is the reflex knowledge of himself which is the perfect Image of his own Wisdom the Holy Ghost that Divine Love which Father and Son have for each other It would be very impertinent to confirm this by the Authority of the ancient Fathers because all men who know any thing of them know that this is their constant language I am sure this is very agreeable to the Language of Scripture and Answers all those Characters we find there of the Son and Holy Ghost The Son is expresly called the Word and the Wisdom of God That Word which was in the beginning which was with God and was God 1 Iohn 1. For God did certainly always know himself and therefore this Word was always with God intimately present with him not as our transient and vanishing Reflections are but as a permanent and substantial Word the subsisting and living Image of his Fathers Wisdom as he is called the Brightness of his Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Person 1 Heb. 2. His Fathers Glory and Person is Eternal and Original Wisdom He is his Fathers begotten Wisdom or the bright Reflexion of his Wisdom which is as perfect and exact as the Fathers Knowledge of himself And therefore St. Iohn might well say No man hath seen God at any time the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him 1 Iohn 18. And our Saviour might well tell us As the Father knoweth me even so know I the Father 10 Iohn 15. that he seeth all that the Father doth That he receiveth all his Commands from the Father that he that seeth him seeth the Father and many such like Expressions he uses to signifie his perfect knowledge of his Father for he is that Wisdom and Knowledge wherewith his Father knows himself and if the Father perfectly knows himself he is the perfect Image and Wisdom of the Father For this reason he is called the Son because he is the perfect Image of the Father begotten of his own Eternal Wisdom by a reflex Act upon himself for he begets his own Son in his own likeness by knowing himself and therefore the Son must be of the same Nature the very Wisdom of the Father unless the Father knows himself otherwise than he really is This is the Eternal Son and Word of God whereby he made the Worlds for it is this reflex Knowledge and Wisdom which makes all things The Eternal Ideas of Truth and Wisdom in the Divine Mind effect nothing no more than meer Speculation does in us till it is brought into Act by reflexion for it was this reflex
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