Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal This is so far from being a Nicity that it is no less than a Demonstration if we confess Three Persons and One God for if there be Three Persons then the Person of the Father the Person of the Son the Person of the Holy Ghost must be distinct Persons or they cannot be Three if there be but One God then the Godhead of all the Three Persons is but One for if the Godhead were more than One there must be more than One God for the Godhead makes the God and there must be as many Gods as there are Godheads as there must be as many Men as there are particular Humane Natures And if the Godhead be but One then with respect to the same One Godhead all Three Persons must have the same Glory and Majesty for there cannot be Three different Glories and Majesties of the same One Godhead and therefore as it follows Such as the Father is such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost The Father Vncreate the Son Vncreate and the Holy Ghost Vncreate The Father Incomprehensible the Son Incomprehensible the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible The Father Eternal the Son Eternal and the Holy Ghost Eternal And yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal As also there are not Three Incomprehensibles nor Three Vncreated but One Vncreated and One Incomprehensible So likewise the Father is Almighty the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty And yet there are not Three Almighties but One Almighty So the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God And yet there are not Three Gods but One God So likewise the Father is Lord the Son Lord and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there are Three Gods or Three Lords This is the sum of all that as the Catholick Religion both Natural Mosaical and Christian requires us to believe that there is but One God so especially the Christian Religion teaches us that there are Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost who are this One God Now if each Person with respect to the same Divine Nature be God then all the essential Attributes and Perfections of a God must be allowed to each Person that he is Uncreated Infinite or Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty God and Lord unless we will say that there may be a Created Finite Temporal Impotent God that is a God who is not in truth either God or Lord and yet though we must acknowledge each Person to be God and Lord we must not assert Three distinct Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty Gods which is the true sence of the Article of which more anon for that is to make not One but Three Gods and Lords which overthrows the Unity of the Godhead Now whatever difficulty there may be in conceiving this which I do not now dispute if that be any fault it is no fault of the Athanasian Creed but of the Doctrine of the Trinity itself the Athanasian Creed only tells us what we must believe if we believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God And I challenge any Man who sincerely proffesses this Faith to tell me what he can leave out o◠this Exposition without destroying either the Divinity of some of the Three Persons or the Unity of the Godhead If each Person must be God and Lord must not each Person be Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty If there be but One God and One Lord can there be Three separated Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty Gods which must of necessity be Three Gods and Three Lords This Creed does not pretend to explain how there are Three Persons each of which is God and yet but one God of which more hereafter but only asserts the Thing that thus it is and thus it must be if we believe a Trinity in Unity which should make all Men who would be thought neither Arians nor Socinians more cautious how they express the least dislike of the Athanasian Creed which must either argue that they condemn it before they understand it or that they have some secret dislike to the Doctrine of the Trinity Nor is this to make any additions to the Christian Faith as some object no more than to explain what we mean by GOD is an addition to the Faith This was all the Christian Fathers aimed at in their Disputes against Arius and other Enemies of the Catholick Faith and in those Creeds they framed in opposition to these Heresies to assert the true Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit in such express terms as would admit of no evasion For this reason they insisted so immoveably upon the term Homo-ousios which signifies that the Son was of the same Nature with the Father as he must be if he be true and real God whereas had he been only like the Father as the Arians asserted he could not be One God with him for that which is only like something else is not the same Now though the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in Scripture yet this is no unscriptural addition to the Faith because all that is signified by it is there that is that Christ is the Eternal and Only Begotten Son of God a true and real not a made or created or nominal God And the Athanasian Creed as far as it relates to this matter is only a more particular explication of the Homo-ousios or in what sense the Son is of the same Nature with the Father and One God with him In the next place the Athanasian Creed having very explicitely declared the Unity of the Godhead in Three Persons it proceeds to the distinct Characters of each Person and their Unity among themselves and here also it teaches nothing but what seems essential to the Distinction and Unity of the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost The Father is made of none neither created nor begotten The Son is of the Father alone not made nor created but begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding So there is One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts The Distinction then between these Three Divine Persons if I may so speak is in the manner of their Subsistence That the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of Himself the Original Fountain of the Deity not made nor created for then he would be a Creature not a God nor begotten for then he would be a Son not the first Father and Origine of all The Son is of the Father alone which is essential to his being a Son not made nor created for there was no time when he was not as all things made or created must have a beginning but
he be but One Christ he must be God and Man in one Person for two Persons make two Christs and if the same One Christ be both God and Man then the Divine and Humane Nature continue distinct without any mixture or confusion he is perfect God and perfect Man in opposition to the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches the first of whom divided the Persons the second confounded the Natures the first made God and Man two distinct Persons and two Christs the second swallowed up the Humanity in God This may serve for a brief Vindication of the Athanasian Creed that it teaches nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God and I thought fit to premise this to let the World see that all the spight against Athanasius's Creed is not so much intended against that Creed as against the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation which are so fenced and guarded from all Heretical Senses and Expositions in that Creed that there is no place left for Tricks and Evasions And now I come to consider the Brief Notes and to expose the Venome and Blasphemy of them which deserves a sharper Confutation than this And that this Author may not complain of unfair usage I shall examine them Paragraph by Paragraph SECT III. Concerning the Necessity of the Catholick Faith to Salvation and a brief History of Athanasius WHosoever will be saved before all things 't is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith A good Life is of absolute necessity to Salvation but a right belief in these Points that have been always controverted in the Churches of God is in no degree necessary much less necessary before all things He that leads a profane and vicious Life sins against a plain acknowledged Rule and the plain and unquestioned Word and Letter of the Divine Law and the Dictates of Natural Conscience he wilfully refuses to advert to these Monitors and therefore can no way palliate or excuse his wickedness But he that errs in a Matter of Faith after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed is in no fault at all his Error is pure ignorance not a culpable Ignorance For how can it be culpable not to know that of which a Man is ignorant after a diligent and impartial Enquiry This I must confess is as artificial an Introduction to these Notes as could have been invented for it makes Faith a very useless and Heresie a very innocent and harmless thing and then Men need not be much concerned what they believe if they take care to live well The Creed affirms That the Catholick Faith is before all things necessary to Salvation if this be true then how vertuously soever Men live they may be damned for Heresie and this is a dangerous point and will make Men too much afraid of Heresie to trade in such Notes as these and therefore this must be confuted in the first place to take off the dread and fear of Heresie Now can we hope that any thing should escape the Censures of such a Critick who will not allow the Catholick Faith to be necessary to Salvation For if the Catholick Faith is not necessary no Faith is and then we may be saved without Faith and yet the Scripture tells us that we are justified and saved by Faith and if any Faith saves us I suppose it must be the Catholick Faith and then whoever does not hold this saving Catholick Faith must be damned So that at best he has placed this Note wrong he should only have opposed the necessity of Athanasius's Catholick Faith to Salvation not of the Catholick Faith in general and yet this seems not to be a mistake but design for his Arguments equally hold against all Faith as well as against Athanasius's Creed and will serve a Turk a Iew or a Pagan as well as a Heretick For if what he says is true He that errs in a Question of Faith after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed is in no fault at all How comes an Atheist or an Infidel a Turk or a Jew to be in any fault and if they be good Moral Men and many of them are or may be so why should they be damned for their Atheism or Infidelity for their not believing a God or not believing in Christ at all For are not these Questions of Faith whether there be a God and a Providence and whether Christ be that Messias who came from God Or does our Author think that no Atheist or Infidel no unbelieving Jew or Heathen ever used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed Whatever he can say against their reasonable diligence I doubt will be as easily said against the reasonable diligence of Socinians and other Hereticks If you say he confines this to such Points as have always been controverted in the Churches of God I desire to know a reason why he thus confines it For does not his Reason equally extend to the Christian Faith it self as to those Points which have been controverted in Christian Churches And why then should not Infidels as well have the benefit of this Principle as Hereticks But I desire to know what Articles of our Faith have not been controverted by some Hereticks or other And whether then this does not give sufficient scope to Infidelity to renounce all the Articles of our Creed which have been denied or corrupted by some professed Christians But what he would insinuate in this that these Points of the Athanasian Creed have always been matter of Controversie in the Christian Church is manifestly false as appears from all the Records of the Church The Anti Nicene Fathers were of the same Faith before the Definition of the Council of Nice as the Learned Dr. Ball has abundantly proved this was always the Faith of the Christian Church and those Hereticks who taught otherwise either separated themselves from the Church or were flung out of it and I hope the Disputes of Hereticks against the Catholick Faith shall not be called Controversies in the Churches of God And yet I desire to know why that may not be the Catholick Faith and necessary to Salvation which has always been matter of Controversie Has the Catholick Faith any such Priviledge as not to be controverted Or is it a sufficient proof that nothing is a point of the Catholick Faith which has been disputed and controverted by some or other in all Ages of the Church And if Men of perverse Minds may dispute the most necessary Articles of Faith then if any Faith be necessary it may be of dangerous consequence to err with our reasonable diligence in such necessary and Fundamental Points as are and have been disputed But before I dismiss this Point it may be convenient to instruct this Author if he can use any reasonable diligence to understand how necessary it is to Salvation and that before all other things to
neither wise nor powerful But this acute Father discovered a great inconvenience in this argument for it forces us to say that the Father is not wise but by that Wisdom which he begot not being himself Wisdom as the Father and then we must consider whether the Son himself as he is God of God and Light of Light may be said to be Wisdom of Wisdom if God the Father be not Wisdom but only begets Wisdom and by the same reason we may say that he begets his own Greatness and Goodness and Eternity and Omnipotency and is not himself his own Greatness or Goodness or Eternity or Omnipotency but is Great and Good Eternal and Omnipotent by the Greatness Goodness Eternity Omnipotency which is born of him as he is not his own Wisdom but is wise with that Wisdom which he begets The Master of the Sentences follows St. Austin exactly in this Point and urges this unanswerable Argument for it which he grounds upon St. Austin's Principle That in God to be and to be wise is the same thing and if it be he cannot be wise with the Wisdom he begets for then he would receive his Being from this begotten Wisdom not Wisdom from him for if the Wisdom he begets be the Cause of his being wise it is the Cause also that he is which must be either by begetting or by making him but no man will say that Wisdom is any way the Begetter or Maker of the Father which is the heighth of madness And in the next Chapter he teaches That the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten Wisdom so that according to St. Austin and the Master of the Sentences who is the Oracle of the Schools the Father is Eternal Wisdom or an Eternal Mind and the Son Eternal Wisdom and Mind though both are united into One Eternal Wisdom and if we confess this of Father and Son there can be no Dispute about the Holy Ghost who is Eternal Mind and Wisdom distinct both from Father and Son Nothing is more familiar with the Ancient Fathers than to represent Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Three as distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn are as every one knows who is at all versed in this Controversie and this is charged on them by some men as little better than Polytheism or a Trinity of Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are a Trinity of men but this must be true with reference to distinction of Persons if we will acknowledge a real distinction between them for if the distinction be real and not meerly nominal which was the Heresie of Sabellius their Persons must be as distinct as three humane Persons or three men are The Father is no more the Son or the Holy Ghost than Peter is Iames or Iohn but then they are not separated or divided from each other as Peter Iames and Iohn are for that indeed would make them three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are three men There is no Example in Nature of such a distinction and unity as is between the Three Persons in the Godhead and therefore the ancient Fathers made use of several Comparisons to different purposes which must carefully be confined to what they applied them for if we extend them farther we make Nonsense or Heresie of them There are three things to be considered in the ever blessed Trinity the Distinction of Persons the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature and their Essential Unity and the Fathers make use of different Comparisons to represent each of these by because no one can represent them all but inconsidering Persons seek for all in One and because they cannot find it they reject them all as impertinent dangerous or heretical and reproach the Fathers sometimes as ignorant of this great Mystery sometimes as bordering upon Heresie which I am sure does little service to the Doctrine it self and gives great countenance to false and corrupt Notions of it whence the Fathers themselves even those who were the most zealous Opposers of Arianism are thought Favourites of such Opinions I shall have occasion to take notice of several Instances of this as I go on at present I shall confine my self to the Distinction of Persons which cannot be more truly and aptly represented than by the distinction between three men for Father Son and Holy Ghost are as really distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn but whoever shall hence conclude That these Fathers thought that Father Son and Holy Ghost are no otherwise One also than Peter Iames and Iohn are greatly abuse them without any colourable pretence for it as will appear more presently but this Comparison of theirs shows what their sense was that these Three Divine Persons are Three Eternal and Infinite Minds as really distinct from each other as Three men are though essentially united into One Infinite and Eternal Mind or One God But I need not insist on this for the real distinction of Persons is so plainly taught by the ancient Fathers especially after the rise of the Sabellian Heresie that there is more difficulty to understand how they unite them into One God then that they make them distinct Persons and what they say about the unity of the Godhead abundantly proves this distinction of Persons Secondly Let us therefore in the second place consider How they explain this great Mystery of a Trinity in Unity they all agree That there are Three distinct Persons and that these Three Persons are but One God and they seem to me to agree very well in that account they give of it though some late Writers are very free and I think very unjust in their Censures of some of them as scarcely Orthodox in this Point I shall only remind you that this being so great a Mystery of which we have no Example in Nature it is no wonder if it cannot be explained by any one kind of Natural Union and therefore it was necessary to use several Examples and to allude to several kinds of Union to form an adequate Notion of the Unity of the Godhead and we must carefully apply what they say to those Ends and Purposes for which they said it and not extend it beyond their Intension as I observed before and there are several steps they take towards the Explication of this great Mystery which I shall represent in short and show that taking them altogether they give a plain and intelligible Notion of this Unity in Trinity and indeed no other than what I have already given of it 1. The first thing then to be considered is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orCo-essentiallity of the Divine Persons That all Three Persons in the God-head have the same Nature which they signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now whereas the same Nature may signifie the same Numerical or the same Specifick Nature Petavius and after him Dr. Cudworth have abundantly proved that the Nicene Fathers did not understand this word of a
only in the superior and governing Nature as it ought to be because in that the Natures are united into One Person and that must govern and take care of the whole Thus the Mind in man is conscious to the whole man and to all that is in man to all the motions of Reason and Sense but Sense is not conscious to all the Actings of Reason which is the superior Faculty though it is conscious as far as is necessary to receive the Commands and Directions of Reason for the Body moves at the command of the Will and it is so far conscious to its Commands Thus in the Person of Christ who is God-man the Divine Word is conscious to his whole Person not only to himself as the Divine Word but to his whole Humane Nature not by such Knowledge as God knows all men and all things but by such a Consciousness as every Person has of himself But it does not hence follow that the Humane Nature is conscious to all that is in the Word for that destroys Humane Nature by making it Omniscient which Humane Nature cannot be and its being united to the Person of the Word does not require it should be for an inferior Nature is not conscious to all that is in the superior Nature in the same Person This Union of Natures does require that the inferior Nature be conscious to the superior as far as its Nature is capable and as far as the Personal Union requires for so Sense is in some degree conscious to Reason and it cannot be one Person without it And therefore the Human Nature in Christ is in some measure in such a degree as Human Nature can be conscious to the Word feels its Union to God and knows the Mind of the Word not by External Revelations as Prophets do but by an Inward Sensation as every man feels his own Thoughts and Reason but yet the Human Nature of Christ may be ignorant of some things notwithstanding its Personal Union to the Divine Word because it is an inferior and subject Nature And this I take to be the true account of what our Saviour speaks about the Day of Judgment Of that day and hour knoweth no man no not the Angels in Heaven but my Father only where our Saviour speaks of himself as a man and as a man he did not at that time know the Day of Judgment though personally united to the Divine Word who did know it for as he is the Divine Word so our Saviour tells us That he seeth all that the Father doth and therefore what the Father knows the Eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father must know also But yet the Human Nature of Christ was conscious to all the actings of the Divine Word in it as we may see in the Story of the Woman having an Issue of Blood twelve years who in the midst of a great Crowd of People came behind him and touched his Garment and was immediately healed our Saviour presently asked who touched him and when all denied it and Peter wondered he should ask that Question when the Multitude thronged him and pressed him Iesus said some body hath touched me for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me he felt the miraculous Power of the Divine Word working in him as a man feels what is done in himself This I think gives some account how God and Man may be united into One Person which though it be a great Mystery which we cannot fully comprehend yet is not wholly unintelligible much less so absurd and contradictious as this Author pretends As for what he adds about believing and professing this Faith let him apply it to Christ's being the Messias or any other Article of the Creed and see what Answer he will give to it for what if men can't believe it are we obliged under the penalty of the loss of Salvation to believe it whether we can or no doth God require of any man an impossible Condition in order to Salvation No! but if it be credible and what a wise man may believe and what he has sufficient Evidence to believe he shall be damned not because he can't but won't believe it But what if it be against a mans Conscience to profess it if he profess against his Conscience he sins and if notwithstanding this a man must either profess or be damned then God requires some men to sin in order to their Salvation God requires no man to profess against his Conscience but he shall be damned for not believing it not for not professing what he does not believe it looks like a Judgment upon these men that while they can talk of nothing less than the severest Reason they impose upon themselves or hope to impose upon the World by the most Childish Sophistry and Nonsense And now I shall leave our Note-maker to harangue by himself and perswade Fools if he can that the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation is nothing but Popery or must be parted with for the sake of Iews or be made a Complement to the Morocco Ambassador and his admired Mahomet or must be sacrificed to Peace and Unity and to secure men from damnation who will not believe I will not envy him the satisfaction of such Harangues it being all the Comfort he has for I am pretty confident he will never be able to Reason to any purpose in this Cause again Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be World without end Amen THE END ADVERTISEMENT A Preservative against Popery in two Parts with a Vindication in Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran a Jesuit 4 o. A Discourse concerning the Nature Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church 4 o. A Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor Novemb. 4. 1688. 4 o. A Practical Discourse concerning Death The Fifth Edition 8 o. The Case of the Allegiance due to Soveraign Powers stated and resolved according Scripture and Reason and the Principles of the Church of England with a more particular Respect to the Oath lately enjoyned of Allegiance to Their Present Majesties K. William and Q. Mary The Fifth Edition 4 o. By William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Printed for W. Rogers The Creed Brief Notes Answer Notes Answer Notes Answer Notes Answer Vossius de tribus Symbel dissert 3 Cap. 29 30. Cap. 31. Ibid. Cap. 48. Ibid. Ibid. Cap. 44. Dissert 2. c. 1. Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Answer Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Aug. lib. contra Serm. Arrian c. 16. Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Creed Notes Answer Creed Notes Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. Cont. Arium Disput. Tom. 1. p. 116. Paris 1627. Quae ratiocinatio ad id cogit ut dicamus Deum Patrem non esse sapientem nisi habendo sapientiam quam genuit non existendo per se pater sapientia Deinde si ita est filius quoque ipse
the essences of things cannot be known but only their properties and qualities The World is divided into Matter and Spirit and we know no more what the substance of Matter than what the substance of a Spirit is though we think we know one much better than the other We know thus much of Matter that it is an extended substance which fills a space and has distinct parts which may be separated from each other that it is susceptible of very different qualities that it is hot or cold hard or soft c. but what the substance of Matter is we know not And thus we know the essential properties of a Spirit that it is a thinking substance with the Faculties of Understanding and Will and is capable of different Vertues or Vices as Matter is of sensible qualities but what the substance of a Spirit is we know no more than what the substance of matter is Thus as for the essential properties operations and powers of Matter Sense Experience and Observation will tell us what they are and what causes constantly produce such effects and this is all we do or can know of it and he who will not believe that Matter is extended that the Fire burns that Water may be condensed by Frost into a firm and solid Pavement that Seed sown in the Earth will produce its own kind again that a Body can move from one place to another that a Stone falls to the ground and Vapours ascend and thicken into Clouds and fall down again to the Earth in gentle Showers c. I say he who will not believe these things till he can give a Philosophical account of them must deny his Senses in complement to his Understanding and he who thinks that he does understand these matters would make a Man question whether he has any Sense Thus it is also with reference to a Spirit We feel within ourselves that we can think and reason that we can choose and refuse that we can love and hate and desire and fear but what these natural powers and passions are we know not how thoughts rise in our minds and how one thought begets another how a thought can move our Bodies or fix them in their Seat how the Body can raise thoughts and passions in the Soul or the thoughts and passions of the Soul can affect the Body The Properties and Operations both of Bodies and Spirits are great Secrets and Mysteries in Nature which we understand nothing of nor are concerned to understand them no more than it is our business to understand how to make either a Body or a Spirit which we have no power to do if we did understand it and therefore it would be an useless piece of Knowledge which would serve no end but Curiosity and that is reason enough why our wise Maker should not communicate this knowledge to us were we capable of it because it does not belong to our Natures as no Knowledge does which we can make no use of the perfect Notions and Idea's of Things are proper only to that Almighty Mind which can give being to them Now this plainly shews what the Natural Boundaries of Humane Knowledge are how far we may attain to a certain Knowledge and where we must give off our Enquiries unless we have a mind to impose upon our Understandings with some uncertain and fanciful Conjectures or to perplex our selves with inexplicable Difficulties 1. As first We have certain ways of discovering the being of Things which fall within the compass of our Knowledge this our Senses Reason or Revelation will acquaint us with and therefore we may know what Things there are in the World as far as they fall under the notice of Sense or are discovered by Reason or Revelation 2. We may know what Things are or what their essential Properties Qualities Operations and Powers are whereby we can distinguish one sort of Beings from another as suppose a Body from a Spirit Bread from Flesh and Wine from Blood and can Reason from Effects to Causes and from Causes to Effects with as great certainty as we understand what the Causes or Effects are 3. But the Essences of Things and the Philosophy of their Natures the Reasons of their Essential Properties and Powers which immediately result from their Natures the manner of their Production and the manner of their Operations are Mysteries to us and will be so do what we can and therefore here our Enquiries must cease if we enquire wisely for it is vain and absurd to perplex ourselves with such Questions which we can no more answer than we can make a World The sum is this when we charge any Doctrine with Absurdities and Contradictions we must be sure that we understand the thing for if it be such a thing as we do not and cannot understand the Nature of we may imagine a thousand Absurdities and Contradictions which are owing wholly to our Ignorance of Things SECT II. The Athanasian Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of the Trinity and Incarnation II. LET us now take a view of the Athanasian Creed which this prophane Author makes the Subject of his Drollery and Ridicule and examine whether there be any thing in it which a good Catholick Christian can reject without rejecting the Catholick Doctrines of the Holy and Ever Blessed TRINITY and the Mysterious Incarnation of the SON of GOD for if this Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to this belief and what every Christian who believes these Doctrines must profess then all these Scoffs which are cast upon the Athanasian Creed do indeed belong to the Christian Faith itself if the Trinity and Incarnation be Christian Doctrines As to begin with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity The Athanasian Creed tells us The Catholick Faith is this that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity that is that we worship One God and Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost and this all Christians grant to be the Catholick Faith except Arians Macedonians and Socinians and such like Hereticks And how we must worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity is explained in the next Paragraph Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance Which must be acknowledged if there be Three Persons and One God for if we confound the Persons by saying that they are all but One Person under Three different Names and Titles or Denominations then we destroy the Distinction of Persons if we divide the Substance by saying that every Person has a separate Divine Nature of his own as every Man has a separate Humane Nature then we make Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men which is to overthrow the Doctrine of One God and therefore the Creed adds For there is One Person of the Father another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost But the God-head of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One the
go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind under a pretence of teaching them a Creed and Things Divine to despoil them of their Reason the Image of God and the Character of our Nature But let us in two words examine the Parts of this monstrous Proposition as 't is laid down in the Creed itself Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance But how can we not but confound the Persons that have say they but One numerical Substance and how can we but divide the Substance which we find in Three distinct divided Persons Our Author should have kept to Athanasius's Creed which he undertook to expose and then we had not heard of this Objection for the Creed does not say that there are Three Persons in One numerical Substance but in One undivided Substance nor does it say that there are Three divided Persons in this One undivided Substance but Three Persons which may be Three and yet not divided but intimately united to each other in one undivided Substance Now tho' we should grant it unconceivable how Three distinct Persons should have One numerical Essence that the Essence of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost should be numerically the same and yet their Persons distinct for it is not easie to distinguish the Essence or Substance from the Person and therefore not easie to tell how there should be but One Substance and Three Persons yet it is no Absurdity or Contradiction to say that Three real substantial Persons should subsist in One undivided Substance and then there is no necessity either to confound the Persons or divide the Substance We must allow the Divine Persons to be real substantial Beings if we allow each Person to be God unless we will call any thing a God which has no real Being as that has not which has not a real Nature and Essence whereas all Men grant there are no Accidents or Qualities or Modes in God but a pure and simple Essence or pure Act and therefore the Three Divine Persons are substantially distinct though in One undivided Substance which shews that to say That the One true God is Three distinct Persons and Three distinct Persons are the One true God is not plainly as if a Man should say That Peter James and John being Three Persons are One Man and One Man is Three distinct Persons Peter James and John Because Peter Iames and Iohn are not only distinct but divided and separate Persons which have Three divided and separate Substances which therefore cannot be One Man as Three distinct Persons in One undivided Substance are One God This is sufficient to vindicate the Athanasian Creed which only asserts Three distinct Persons in One undivided Substance which has nothing absurd or contradictious in it but because this Author founds his Objection upon One numerical Substance let us briefly consider that too for the Divine Essence or Substance is certainly numerically One as there is but One God and the difficulty is how Three distinct substantial Persons can subsist in One numerical Essence I will not pretend to fathom such a Mystery as this but only shew that there is nothing absurd in it and take down the confidence of this vain Pretender to Reason and Demonstration Let us then enquire what it is that makes any Substance numerically One that if there be any Absurdity in this we may find out where it lies Now in unorganiz'd Matter it is nothing else but the union of Parts which hang all together that makes such a Body One whether it be simple or compounded of different kinds of Matter that is One numerical Body whose Parts hang all together In Organical Bodies the Union of all Parts which constitute such an organized Body makes it One entire numerical Body though the Parts have very different Natures and Offices but this is of no use to explain the numerical Oneness of the Divine Essence because the Divine Substance has no Extension and no Parts and therefore cannot be One by an Union of Parts In finite created Spirits which have no Parts and no Extension neither that we know of no more than a Thought or an Idea or a Passion have Extension or Parts their numerical Oneness can be nothing else but every Spirit 's Unity with itself and distinct and separate subsistence from all other created Spirits Now this Self unity of the Spirit which has no Parts to be united can be nothing else but Self-consciousness That it is conscious to its own Thoughts Reasonings Passions which no other finite Spirit is conscious to but itself This makes a finite Spirit numerically One and seperates it from all other Spirits that every Spirit feels only its own Thoughts and Passions but is not conscious to the Thoughts and Passions of any other Spirit And therefore if there were Three created Spirits so united as to be conscious to each others Thoughts and Passions as they are to their own I cannot see any reason why we might not say that Three such Persons were numerically One for they are as much One with each other as every Spirit is One with itself unless we can find some other Unity for a Spirit than Self-consciousness and I think this does help us to understand in some measure this great and venerable Mystery of a Trinity in Vnity For God being present every-where without Parts and without Extension we must strip our Minds of all material Images and Figures when we contemplate the Unity of the Divine Nature Though we should suppose but One Person in the Godhead as well as One God as this Author does yet we must consider his Unity not as the Unity of an infinite Body but an infinite Mind which has no distinct Parts to be united and let any Man who can give me any other Notion of the numerical Oneness of an infinite Mind but Self-consciousness that though present every-where it is still intimate with itself and in the very same way and for the very same reason Three Divine Persons who are as intimate to each other and if I may so speak as mutually conscious to each other as any One Person can be to itself are truly and properly numerically One. This I suppose is what several Ancient Fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Circumincession which I confess is an ill word and apt to raise very material Imaginations in us as if the Divine Persons were united in One Substance as Three Bodies would be could they touch in every Point whereas we know not what the Substance of an infinite Mind is nor how such Substances as have no Parts or Extension can touch each other or be thus externally united but we know the Unity of a Mind or Spirit reaches as far as its Self-consciousness does for that is One Spirit which knows and feels itself and its own thoughts and motions and if we mean this by Circumincession Three Persons thus intimate to each other are numerically One And
Numerical but Specifick Sameness of Nature or the agreement of things numerically differing from one another in the same common Nature As Maximus very plainly tell us that that is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has the same Notion or Definition of its Essence as a man differs nothing from a man as he is a man nor an Angel from an Angel as he is an Angel and therefore this word did equally overthrow the Sabellian and the Arian Heresie as it affirms both a distinction of Persons and the sameness of Nature as St. Ambrose and others observe for nothing is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it self but to something else distinct from it self but of the same common Nature and therefore some who owned the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as savouring of Sabellianism and implying such a numerical Unity of Essence in the Godhead as destroyed all distinction of Persons for which reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self was rejected by some as abused by the Sabellians till the signification of that word was fixt and declared by the Fathers at Nice as Petavius observes This is One thing wherein the Fathers place the Unity of the Godhead that all three Persons have the same Nature and to be sure this is absolutely necessary to make Three Persons One God for it is impossible they should be One God if they have not the same Nature unless Three distinct and separate Beings of divers Natures can be One God that is unless the Divine Nature be not One pure and simple Act but a compound Being and that of different Natures too But some of the Fathers went farther than this and placed the Essential Unity of the Divine Nature in the sameness of Essence that there is but One God because all the Three Divine Persons have the same Nature And it will be necessary briefly to examine what they meant by it to vindicate these Fathers from the Mis-representations and hard Censures of Petavius and Dr. Cudworth who as I hope to make appear have greatly mistaken their Sense The Charge is that they make the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God only upon account of the same Specifical Divine Nature common to them all just as Three men are One by having the same common Nature or the same Humanity and being asked Why they may not then be called Three Gods as well as we say Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men they answer That this is owing to an ill Custom for they ought not to be called Three men neither which is like saying there are Three Human Natures and though in inferiour Matters we may bear with the abuse of Words and improper forms of Speech yet this is of dangerous Consequence when we speak of God and therefore though there is no great hurt in saying there are Three men though there is but one Humanity common to them all yet we must not say there are Three Gods since there is but One Divine Nature and Essence common to all Three Persons This Petavius says is to deny the true and real Unity of the Divine Substance and Essence and to make God only collectively One as a multitude of men are said to be One People and a multitude of Believers One Church which was the Error of Abbot Ioachim for which he was Condemned in the Council of Lateran Dr. Cudworth represents it thus These Theologers supposed the Three Persons of their Trinity to have really no other than a Specifick Vnity and Identity and because it seems plainly to follow from hence that therefore they must needs be as much Three Gods as Three men are Three men these Learned Fathers endeavoured with their Logick to prove that Three men are but abusively and improperly so called Three they being really and truly but One because there is but One and the same Specifick Essence or Substance of Human Nature in them all He adds It seems plain that this Trinity is no other than a kind of Tritheism and that of Gods Independent and Co-ordinate too This is a very high Charge and yet these Theologers are no less men than Gregory Nyssen and Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus and Damascen men of Note in their Generation and never charged with Heresie before But whatever the meaning of these Fathers was it is plain that Petavius and Dr. Cudworth have mistaken their meaning For they did not think that Father Son and Holy Ghost were one God only as Peter Iames and Iohn are one man or that Peter Iames and Iohn are One man as Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God they neither dreamt of a Collective nor Specifick Unity of the Godhead but asserted a real subsisting numerical Unity of Essence as is obvious to every impartial Reader and therefore if they had not understood how they explained this yet they ought not to have put such a sense upon their Words as is directly contrary to what they affirm I shall not need to transcribe much out of these Fathers to justifie them in this Point but will only represent their Argument as plainly as I can and that will be their Justification whatever become of their Argument They affirm then That Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One God because there is and can be but One numerical Divinity or one Divine Nature and Essence though it subsist in Three distinct Persons against this it was objected that Peter Iames and Iohn though they have the same Human Nature yet are called Three men and there is no absurdity in it when there are more than One who have the same Nature to speak of them in the Plural Number to call Two Two and Three Three how then comes it to pass that Religion forbids this that when we acknowledge Three Persons who have the same Nature without any imaginable difference we must in a manner contradict our selves confessing the Divinity of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One and the same and denying that they are Three Gods This Gregory Nyssen answers at large and I shall chiefly confine my self to the Answers he gives which will abundantly show how much these two Learned Men have mis-represented his Sense And first he takes notice of the common Form of Speech of calling Three who partake of the same Human Nature Three Men which inclines us to call the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost who have all the same Divine Nature Three Gods and that naturally betrays men into the Opinion of a Trinity of Gods as well as of a Trinity of Persons who are as much Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men and therefore he tells us that this is an improper way of speaking even when applied to men to say that there are Three men For man is the name of Nature not of the Person to
say that there is but One man is no more than to say there is but One Humanity and to say there are Three men is to say there are Three Humanities or Three Human Natures and the Name of Nature cannot be a proper Name of distinction and therefore ought not to be multiplied for that which is the same in all cannot distinguish one Person from another This he observes all men are very sensible of for when they would call any particular Person out of a Crowd they do not call him by the Name of Nature that is they do not say you man come hither for this being a common Name as the Nature is common no man could tell who was meant but they call him by the Name of his Person Peter or Iames for though there are many who partake of the same Human Nature yet there is but One man or One Humanity in them all Persons are distinguished and divided and multiplied by peculiar personal properties and therefore may be numbred but Nature is One united with it self a perfect indivisible Unity which neither increases by addition nor is diminished by Substraction but though it be in a Multitude of Individuals is whole entire and undivided in all And therefore as a People an Army a Church are named in the single number though they consist of Multitudes so in exactness and propriety of Speech man may be said to be One though there are a Multitude who partake of the same Human Nature So that hitherto all that the Father hath said tends only to justifie this Form of Speech as having nothing absurd or incongruous in it to acknowledge that the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet that there is but One Divinity or Godhead not Three Gods for though this sounds as harsh as to own that Peter is a man and Iames a man and Iohn a man and yet there are not Three men but One man which Custom has made very absurd and contradictious to say which is the Objection he was to Answer yet he observes that according to strict propriety of speaking this is no absurdity to say there are not Three men but One man nay that it is an abuse of Speech to say otherwise because man is the Name of Nature not of a Person and therefore there is but One man as there is but One Human Nature in all those who partake of it for Human Nature is but One whole and indivisible in all and therefore cannot distinguish One Person from another and therefore not be a Name of Number But what makes St. Gregory dispute thus nicely about the use of words and oppose the common and ordinary Forms of Speech Did he in good earnest believe that there is but One man in the World No! No! he acknowledged as many men as we do a great Multitude who had the same Human Nature and that every One who had a Human Nature was an individual man distinguished and divided from all other Individuals of the same Nature what makes him so zealous then against saying that Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men Only this that lie says Man is the Name of Nature and therefore to say there are Three men is the same as to say there are Three Human Natures of a different kind for if there are Three Human Natures they must differ from each other or they can't be Three and so you deny Peter Iames and Iohn to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the same Nature and for the same reason we must say that though the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet there are not Three Gods but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Godhead and Divinity lest we destroy their Homoousiotes or the Sameness of their Nature and introduce Three Gods of a different Nature like the Pagan Polytheism which is the first reason he gives why we do not say there are Three Gods to avoid the suspicion of Polytheism in numbring and multiplying Gods as the Heathens did which he says is a sufficient Answer for ignorant and unskilful People But to say this in gross will not satisfie more inquisitive men and therefore he assigns the reason for it that Individuals in strict propriety of Speech ought not to be numbred by the name of their Nature because that argues a diversity in their Natures to say Three men is to say there are Three different Humanities whereas Humanity is One and the same in all and as men are not distinguished so they ought not to be numbred by the Name of Nature and that this is all his meaning appears from the reason he gives why this improper way of speaking may be tolerated without any inconvenience when we speak of men that we may say there are Three men but it is very dangerous to apply this to the Divinity and say there are Three Gods because there is no danger by this Form of Speech that that there are Three or more men that any one should be betrayed into that Conceit that we mean a Multitude of Humanities or many different Human Natures but there is danger lest our naming more Gods or saying that there are Three Gods men should imagine that there are divers and different Natures in the Divinity that is that the Three Persons in the Godhead are not all of the same Nature Here St. Gregory lays his Foundation That we must not say there are Three Gods because there is but One Divinity Father Son and Holy Ghost being all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Nature whereas God being the Name of Nature to say there are Three Gods is to say there are Three different Divinities or Divine Natures which destroys the Homoousiotes of the Godhead which is the Sum of his Argument against using the Name of Nature Plurally to say there are Three men or Three Gods There is nothing more plain than this in the Dialogues of Maximus who all along explains this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One Divinity and the One Humanity by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Sameness of Nature and therefore there can be but One Nature though it subsist in several Persons or Individuals Now indeed had they gone no farther in explaining the Unity of the Godhead than this Specifick Unity and Identity of Nature there had been some reason to quarrel with them but they do not stop here but proceed to show how this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature in all Three Persons of the ever blessed Trinity proves a true Numerical and Essential Unity of the Godhead which it does not and cannot do in created Natures without this it is evident there can be no Essential Unity unless we will allow of a Composition of different Natures in the Godhead where the Nature is the same it may be One not only by a Logical but by a Real and Essential Unity Gregory Nyssen
has two ways of doing this 1. He observes that the Name God and so those other Names which are ascribed to the Divinity do not so properly signifie the Divine Nature as declare something relating to it for the Divine Nature is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which has no Name and which no words can express and signifie as the Scripture teaches but the Names given to God only teach us either what we ought not to attribute to the Divine Nature or what we ought but not what the Divine Nature it self is This is a fair Introduction such as becomes a wise man who considers how unknown the Essences of all Things are to us much more the Substance and Essence of God and how it confounds our Minds when we talk of the Numerical Unity of the Godhead to have the least conception or thought about the distinction and union of Natures and Essences and therefore he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Inspector and Governour of the World that is it is a Name of Energie Operation and Power and if this Vertue Energie Operation be the very same in all the Persons of the Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost then they are but One God but One Power and Energie and thus he proves it is and that not as it is among men who have the same Power and Skill do the very same Things profess the same Art are Philosophers or Orators alike and yet are not all One Philosopher or One Orator because though they do the same thing yet they act apart every one by himself and have no Communion nor share in what each other do but their Operations are proper to themselves alone but in the Divine Nature it is not so the Father does nothing by himself nor the Son by himself nor the Holy Ghost by himself but the whole Energie and Operation of the Deity relating to Creatures begins with the Father passes to the Son and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit The Holy Trinity does not act any thing separately there are not Three distinct Operations as there are Three Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but one motion and disposition of the good Will which passes through the whole Trinity from Father to Son and to the Holy Ghost and this is done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any distance of Time or propagating the Motion from one to t'other but by One thought as it is in One numerical Mind and Spirit and therefore though they are Three Persons they are but one numerical Power and Energie By this time I hope the Reader is satisfied That this Father does not make the Persons of the Trinity Three Independent and Coordinate Gods who are no otherwise One than Three men are by a Specifick Unity and Identity of Nature but has found out such an Unity for them as he confesses cannot be between Three men even such an Unity as there is in a Spirit which is numerically One with it self and conscious to all its own Motions for I leave any man to judge whether this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this one single Motion of Will which is in the same instant in Father Son and Holy Ghost can signifie any thing else but a mutual consciousness which makes them numerically One and as intimate to each other as every man is to himself as I have already explained it Petavius was aware of this and therefore will not allow this to belong to the same Argument but to be a new and distinct Argument by it self Now suppose this yet methinks he should have suspected he had mistaken the Fathers Sense when he found him contradict what he apprehended to be his Sense within the compass of two Pages but indeed the mistake is his own for the Father pursues his intended Argument to prove that though the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet we ought not to say that there are Three Gods but One God This he proves first because God is the Name of Nature and the Name of Nature must not be expressed in the Plural number when the Nature is the same without any the least conceivable difference for to say there are Three Gods is to say that there are Three different Divine Natures which introduces Polytheism as to say there are Three men is to say there are Three different Human Natures for if they be the same they are not Three and therefore the Name of the Nature must not be expressed plurally how many Persons soever there are who have the same Nature This was to secure the Homoousiotes of the Divine Nature and if he had stopped here Petavius and Dr. Cudworth might have said what they pleased of him but having secured the Homoousiotes or Sameness of Nature which was the great Dispute of those days between the Orthodox and the Arians he proceeds to show how this same Nature in Three distinct Persons is united into one numerical Essence and Godhead and this he does first by showing that God signifies Power and Energie and that all the Three Persons in the Trinity have but One numerical Energie and Operation and therefore are but One God which is only the improvement of his former Argument for the Sameness of Nature is necessary to the Sameness of Operation for Nature is the Principle of Action especially in God whose Nature is a pure and simple Act and an unity and singularity of Energie and Operation is a demonstration of One numerical Essence for the same single individual Act cannot be done by Two separate Beings who must act separately also Secondly As for those who are not contended to contemplate God as a pure and simple Act or Energie which easily solves this difficulty how Three Persons are One God they having but One numerical Energie and Operation I say as for those who not contented with this inquire after the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence he asserts that this perfect Homoousiotes or Sameness of Nature without the least difference or alteration makes them numerically One and returns to what he had first said That the Name of Nature should not be expressed Plurally it being One entire undivided Unity which is neither encreased nor diminished by subsisting in more or fewer Persons I confess I do not understand his reasoning in this matter he seems to destroy all Principles of Individuation whereby One thing is distinguished from another where there is no difference or diversity of Nature for Things he says must be distinguished by Magnitude Place Figure Colour or some other diversity in Nature before we can number them and call them Two or Three and therefore since the Divine simple unalterable Nature admits of no Essential diversity that it may be One it will not admit of any number in it self but is but One God Whereas I confess to my understanding if the same pure unmixt
Nature as suppose Humanity should subsist in Twenty several Persons without the least variation I should not doubt notwithstanding the Specifick Unity of Nature to say there are Twenty subsisting Human Natures and Three Minds and Spirits which have no other difference are yet distinguished by self-consciousness and are Three distinct Spirits and therefore to help this out he sometimes adds that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no difference either of Nature or Energie in the Deity and at other times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Nature is invariable and undivided which all the ancient Fathers added to explain the Unity of the Trinity that inseparate Union of Nature which is between the Divine Persons that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inseparable from each other But however he might be mistaken in his Philosophy he was not in his Divinity for he asserts a numerical Unity of the Divine Nature not a meer Specifick Unity which is nothing but a Logical Notion nor a Collective Unity which is nothing but a Company who are naturally many but a true subsisting numerical Unity of Nature and if the difficulty of explaining this and his zeal to defend it forced him upon some unintelligible Niceties to prove that the same numerical Human Nature too is but one in all men it is hard to charge him with teaching that there are Three Independant and Coordinate Gods because we think he has not proved that Peter Iames and Iohn are but One man This will make very foul work with the Fathers if we charge them with all those Erronious Conceits about the Trinity which we can fancy in their inconvenient ways of explaining that venerable Mystery especially when they compare that mysterious Unity with any Natural Unions I am sure St. Gregory was so far from suspecting that he should be charged with Tritheism upon this Account that he fences against another Charge of mixing and confounding the Hypostases or Persons by denying any difference or diversity of Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which argues that he thought he had so fully asserted the Unity of the Divine Essence that some might suspect he had left but One Person as well as One Nature in God But though the Homoousiotes or Coessentiality of the Divine Persons is not sufficient alone to prove this Unity of the Godhead yet as I before observed this is necessary to an essential Unity for they must all have the same Nature or they cannot be One and therefore this was the first thing to be considered in the Unity of the Godhead Secondly To this Homo-ousiotes the Fathers added a numerical Unity of the Divine Essence This Petavius has proved at large by numerous Testimonies even from those very Fathers whom he before accused for making God only collectively One as Three Men are One Man such as Gregory Nyssen St. Cyril Maximus Damascen which is a demonstration that however he might mistake their explication of it from the Unity of human Nature they were far enough from Tritheism or One collective God For we must observe though all the Fathers assert the singularity of the Godhead or the numerical Unity of the Divine Essence yet they do not assert such a numerical Unity as there is where there is but One Person as well as One Essence but such a numerical Unity as there is between Three who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the very same nature but are not meerly united by a specifick Unity but by an essential Union and therefore are Three and One This as Maximus truly says is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both a wonderful distinction and union but though several Fathers attempt several ways of explaining it they all agree in the thing that Father Son and Holy Ghost Three distinct Divine Persons are united in one numerical Nature and Essence And I cannot but observe that Petavius greatly commends Boethius's explication of this Mystery which is the very same he had before condemned in Gregory Nyssen and those other Fathers That Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God not Three Gods Cujus conjunctionis ratio est indifferentia the reason or manner of which Union and Conjunction is their indifference that is such a sameness of Nature as admits of no difference or variety or an exact Homo-ousiotes as he explains it Eos enim differentia comitatur qui vel augent vel minuunt ut Ariani qui gradibus meritorum Trinitatem variantes distrahunt atque in pluralitatem deducunt Those make a difference who augment and diminish as the Arians do who distinguish the Trinity into different Natures as well as Persons of different worth and excellency and thus divide and multiply the Trinity into a plurality of Gods Principium enim pluralitatis alteritas est Proeter alteritatem enim nec pluralitas quid sit intelligi potest For the beginning of plurality is alterity for we know not what plurality is but alterity that is there must be some difference in the Nature of Things to make them Two or Three but when the Nature is exactly the same they are but One which is exactly the same account which Gregory gave of it as I have already shewn and why this should be little better than Heresie in him and very good Divinity in Boethius is a little mysterious for after all this numerical Unity of Essence is nothing else but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where there are no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Maximus speaks such an invariable sameness of Nature as has no differences to distinguish it and therefore must be One For these Fathers apprehended that where there was such an exact sameness of Nature they did mutually exist in each other and were but One Power and Energie Will and Counsel and therefore but One Godhead and Monarchy This Gregory Nyssen insists on as I shewed before and Petavius has quoted a remarkable Testimony from Damascen to this purpose which shews also that though they asserted but One Humanity yet they were far enough from thinking that the Three Divine Persons are One God only as Peter Iames and Iohn are one Man where he tells us That the distinction and separation between Peter and Paul is real and visible their union and community of Nature only Notional for we conceive in our minds that Peter and Paul are of the same kind and have but One common Nature thus common Nature is discerned by Reason but yet it subsists by Parts and separately by itself and is distinguished from itself as it subsists in individuals by many things some peculiar marks and properties but especially that they do not subsist in each other but separately and therefore may be called Two or Three or many Men and Gregory Nyssen says the same as Petavius himself owns but in the most sacred Trinity it is otherwise for there the community of Nature is not a Logical Notion but is real from the same Eternity Identity of Substance Action Will
Agreement of Counsels Identity of Authority Power Goodness I do not say Likeness but Identity The numerical Unity then of the Divine Essence resolves itself into those two Principles the Unity and Identity of Power and Energie and that which they call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or circumincession or in-being of the Three Divine Persons in each other which preserves the distinction of Persons but makes the Divine Essence numerically One and indeed these Two are but One and both of them nothing more than what I have explained I think a little more intelligibly by a mutual consciousness whereby all Three Divine Persons are mutually in each other and have but One Energy and Operation That the Fathers universally acknowledged That the Operation of the whole Trinity ad extra is but One Petavius has proved beyond all contradiction and hence they conclude the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence for every Nature has a vertue and energy of its own for Nature is a principle of Action and if the Energy and Operation be but One there can be but One Nature and if there be Two distinct and divided Operations if either of them can act alone without the other there must be two divided Natures This is certainly true but yet it gives no account how Three distinct Persons come to have but One Will One Energy Power and Operation and there is no account to be given of it that I know of but what I have now given viz. mutual consciousness and that is a very plain account of it for if all Three Persons be conscious to each other as every Man is to himself there can be but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Gregory Nazianzen speaks but One and the same motion and Will of the Deity they must move and act all together according to the order and subordination of the Divine Persons and it is impossible they should do so without this mutual consciousness as it is that Three Men who are not conscious to each other should have but one single motion of Will in One single and undivided Act The Fathers then and I agree in this that the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence consists in the singularity of Operation I only add how this Energy and Operation is and must be one by a mutual consciousness and if this be a reasonable and intelligible account I hope it is no fault And there is no other account to be given of that mutual In-being of the Divine Persons in each other which they call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Christ tells us I am in the Father and the Father in me the necessity of this they saw from what our Saviour says and because it is impossible they should be One without such an inseparable and intimate Union and Presence and Inhabitation in each other and therefore Damascen tells us that they cannot go out of each other nor be separated but are united and mutually penetrate each other without confusion Such an Union as this they all agreed in as Petavius largely shews but how to explain it they know not sometimes they are thus intimately united by the sameness of Nature but this might be the cause of this Union but does not explain what this intimate Union is sometimes they represent it by corporeal similitudes which raise gross and material Images in the mind unworthy of the pure and simple Essence of God as the mixture and union of the Light of several Candles in the same Room and of the Colours of the Rainbow c. which is owing to a material conception of the Divine Substance and the Union of Substances which we know nothing of but had they contemplated God as a pure Mind it had been easie to explain this Perichoresis or In-dwelling of the Divine Persons in each other for there is and can be no other Union of Minds but consciousness and by a mutual consciousness they are as intimate to each other as they are to themselves and are whatever each other is as I have explained it at large and I hope this is no fault neither to give an intelligible Explication of that which all the Fathers taught but were not always equally happy in their Explications of it But to do St. Austin right though he do not name this consciousness yet he explains this Trinity in Unity by examples of mutual consciousness I named one of his Similitudes before of the Unity of our Understanding Memory and Will which are all conscious to each other that we remember what we understand and will we understand what we remember and will and what we will we remember and understand and therefore all these Three Faculties do penetrate and comprehend each other But his Ninth Book De Trinitate is spent wholly upon this Argument It is very familiar with the Ancient Fathers to represent the Father as the infinite Original Mind the Son the Wisdom of the Father his Image or reflex knowledge of himself and the Holy Spirit that Divine Love wherewith Father and Son love each other St. Austin takes this similitude of a Mind its knowledge of itsself and love of itsself and shews how these are Three and One which he makes a faint Image of and resemblance of a Trinity in Unity Now the Mind when it knows its whole self its knowledge comprehends its whole self and when it perfectly loves itself it loves its whole self and its love comprehends its whole self and this proves them to be of the same Substance for the Mind knows itself and loves itself and these are so Three that the Mind is known and loved by nothing else and therefore it is necessary that these Three have One Nature and Essence He proceeds to shew that this Unity is without all manner of confusion and mixture as it is in the Sacred Trinity where the Persons are united but distinct for mixture of Persons destroys the Trinity and shews how each of them are distinct and then how they are alternately in each other for the Mind that loves is in the love and love in the knowledge of the Lover and knowledge in the knowing Mind and how each of them is in the other two for the Mind which knows and loves itself is in its own knowledge and love and the love of the Mind which knows and loves itself is in its own knowledge and the knowledge of the Mind which knows and loves itself is in the Mind and in its love because it loves itself knowing and knows itself loving and thus also two are in each for the Mind which knows and loves itself with its knowledge is in love and with its love is in knowledge for love and knowledge are together in the Mind which loves and knows itself and the whole is in the whole for the whole Mind loves itself and knows its whole self and knows its whole love and loves its whole knowledge I need not tell
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
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
And adds The very truth is they cannot otherwise defend the Incarnation or Personal Vnion of an infinite God to a finite Man This is Gibberish which I do not understand but this I do understand which I suppose is the meaning of it if it have any meaning That an Eternal Being who has no beginning and no succession of Being may Coexist with time and that an infinite Mind who has no parts or extension is present every where without extension This I have sufficiently discoursed already and refer my Reader to it But he has a thundring Argument against this But withal it must be owned that then the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation do infer imply and suppose all the Contradictions that Mr. Johnson has objected to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation I hope not all for that is a very good Discourse and I only wish for the Author's sake si sic omnia but pray what is the matter His whole Book and all his Demonstrations are founded upon these two Suppositions That a longer time doth not all of it coexist in a shorter nor is a greater extension constipated or contained in a less Suppose this for I have forgot what his Demonstrations are and have not the Book now by me what is this to the Trinity and Incarnation though a longer time cannot all of it coexist in a shorter which I hope is not so loosly expressed by Mr. Iohnson because it is not sense for time is in a perpetual flux and nothing of it exists but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what is this to an Eternal Being's coexisting with time without time or succession Though a greater Extension cannot be contained in a less what is this to an infinite Mind's being present every where without Extension for here is no Comparison between a longer and shorter time but between Time and Eternity which is not Time nor Succession nor between a greater and less Extension but between a finite and infinite Mind neither of which have any Extension But suppose the worst how does this concern the Doctrine of the Incarnation If he could tell how to apply all the Demonstrations of Mr. Iohnson which he tells us in Print he forbears to do because the Press is not open to them these Absurdities and Contradictions would not fall upon the Doctrine of the Incarnation but upon the Notion of an Omnipresent God who has no Parts nor Extension which was not invented to salve the Difficulties of the Incarnation but is the true Notion of God and his Omnipresence who is not Omnipresent by Parts but is every where a perfect and infinite Mind and if he can ridicule God out of the World we will quarrel no more about the Incarnation I do not at all wonder that he boasts so much what Follies and Contradictions he could discover in the Athanasian Creed for a man who cannot understand common Sense can never fail of finding Follies and Contradictions 2. He proves That the Vnion between God and Man cannot make one Person as the Vnion of Body and Soul does because the Vnion of Soul and Body is not the Vnion of Two Persons but only of One Person the Soul to a thing otherways without Life Reason Memory or Free-will But in the pretended Vnion of God with Man there are Two distinct and very different Lives Memories Reasons and Free-wills which utterly destroys a Personal Vnion for that supposes but One Life One Reason One Memory One Free-will Now this is false as to matter of Fact for though we will allow the Soul to be the Person yet by its Union to the Body it has two sorts of different Lives Wills Affections Appetites Reasons the Animal and Sensual and the Rational Life Will Appetites a Carnal and a Spiritual Reason that is two different Principles of Flesh and Spirit as much as if every Man had two Souls So that there may be two Lives two Wills c. in the same Person and it makes no difference in this Case whether these two Wills be seated in two different Subjects or the same Soul by its vital Union to Matter have two distinct Wills and Reasons and therefore we must find out some other Notion of a Personal Union than this that one Person can have but one Will one Reason c. for it is plain one Person may have two Wills and Reasons and if he may have two he may have three according to the number and diversity of Natures which are united into One Person Now when I inquire what it is that unites different Natures into One Person I do not mean what it is that naturally unites them neither what the natural Union is between Soul and Body in the Person of Man nor of God and Man in the Person of Christ for this we know nothing of and therefore no pretended Contradictions and Impossibilities in this shall hinder my belief of it as I discoursed in the first Section But how two different Natures may be so united as to make but One Agent for One Agent is One Person Now there are but two things necessary to this 1. That these different Natures be so united that the superior Nature have the Government of the whole Person unless there be One governing Principle there cannot be One Agent and therefore not One Person and the superior Nature must be the Governour and the Person as this Author tells us the Soul is the Person in man as being the superior governing Principle and in the Soul Reason has the natural government of Sense as being the superior Faculty proper to a Spirit whereas Sense results from its Union to Matter And thus in Christ the Divine Word is the Person and in this Personal Union of God and Man has such a government of Humane Nature as Reason has over Sense in Man and therefore St. Iohn tells us That the Word was made Flesh or was Incarnate for the Person of the Word took Humane Nature into a Personal Union with himself And this is the Reason why all the Actions and Passions of Humane Nature are attributed to Christ as the Son of God because the Word is the Person to whom Humane Nature is united and who has the sole government of it as all the Sufferings and Actions of the Body are attributed to the Man though the Soul is the Person because it is the superior and governing Power and constitutes the Person 2. To compleat a Personal Union it is necessary there be One Consciousness in the whole As a Man has a conscious Sensation of every thing which is done or suffered either by Body or Soul feels its own Reasonings and Passions and all the Pains and Pleasures of the Body and in this Sense there must be but one Life in one Person and this own Consciousness to the whole is the One Life But then we must observe That where different Natures are united into One Person this universal Consciousness to the whole Person is seated
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
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
begotten which is the proper term whereby we express Generation and whereby the eternal Generation of the Son is expressed in Scripture What it signifies we know not any further than this that it is the Eternal communication of the Nature and Image of the Father to him as an earthly Parent communicates his own Nature and Likeness to his Son The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son not made nor created for no Creature not begotten for no Son but proceeding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner of which we understand no more than the manner of the Eternal Generation but there is this plain difference between being begotten and proceeding that though the Holy Spirit have the same Nature with the Father and the Son yet he represents the Person of neither as the Son does the Person of the Father as being the brightness of his Father's Glory and the express Image of his Person and therefore is said not to be begotten but to proceed But the difficulty of this is with reference to the Dispute between the Greek and Latin Church about the Filioque or the Spirits proceeding from the Father and from the Son the reason why the Latin Church insists on this is to preserve the Unity and Subordination of the Divine Persons to each other The Son is united and subordinate to the Father as begotten by him The Holy Ghost is united and subordinate to Father and Son as proceeding both from the Father and from the Son but if the Holy Spirit proceeded only from the Father not from the Son there would be no Union and Subordination between the Son and the Spirit and yet the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son as well as of the Father and that these Three Persons be One God it is necessary there should be an Union of Persons as well as One Nature But then the Greek Church confesses That the Spirit proceedeth from the Father by the Son though not from the Son and by and from are such Niceties when we confess we understand not the manner of this Procession of the Holy Spirit as ought to have made no Dispute much less a Schism between the two Churches The Greek Church acknowledges the Distinction of Persons and their Unity and Subordination That there is One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts that the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped which is all this Creed requires as necessary to Salvation He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity that is must acknowledge and worship a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity which the Greek Church does and therefore are not excluded from Salvation in this Creed upon the nice Dispute of the Spirit 's proceeding from or by the Son That which seems to sound harshest in this Creed is what follows And in this Trinity none is afore or after other none is greater or less than another But the whole Three Persons are co-eternal and co-equal And yet this we must acknowledge to be true if we acknowledge all Three Persons to be Eternal for in Eternity there can be no afore or after other and that we cannot conceive an Eternal Generation or Procession is no great wonder when we cannot conceive an Eternal being without any beginning or any cause As for greater or less and the equality of Three Persons this we must confess also if we believe all Three Persons to be one Supream and Soveraign God for in one Supream Deity there cannot be greater or less but then we must distinguish between Subordination and Equality Persons who are equal may be subordinate to each other and though there be not a greater or less yet there is Order in the Trinity Equality is owing to Nature Subordination to Relation and Order which is indeed a greater and less in Relation and Order without an inequality of Nature and it is the Equality of Persons with respect to their Nature not to their Order and Subordination of which the Creed speaks for in this sense the Father is greater than the Son and the Father and the Son than the Holy Spirit as being first in Order but their Nature is the same and their Persons with respect to this same Nature co-equal And now I see no reason to make such Exclamations as some Men do against that damnatory Sentence That except every One do keep this Faith whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly and that he that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity which refers to no more than the belief of Three Persons and One God or a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity which I take to be the true Christian Faith and as necessary to Salvation as any part of the Christian Faith is but of this more anon Thus much for the Doctrine of the Trinity as for the Doctrine of the Incarnation no Man can reasonably except against that Explication which is given of it in the Athanasian Creed without rejecting the Doctrine it self and then we may as well part with the Doctrine of the Incarnation as with the Athanasian Creed As to shew this particularly For the right Faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God is God and Man for otherwise the Son of God is not Incarnate has not taken Humane Nature upon him God of the Substance of the Father begotten before the Worlds as he must be if he be God Man of the Substance of his Mother born in the World for he could not be true Man if he did not partake of Humane Flesh and Blood Perfect God and perfect Man for otherwise he were neither God nor Man of a reasonable Soul and humane Flesh subsisting for a perfect Man consists of Soul and Body and unless he have both he is not a Man in opposition to those Hereticks who thought that the Divine Nature animated a Humane Body instead of a Soul but that Christ had no humane reasonable Soul though he had a humane Body and therefore was no more a Man than a humane Body without a Soul is a Man but a God cloathed with Flesh and Blood Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead for he is perfect God of the same Substance with the Father and inferiour to his Father as touching his Manhood for a Man is inferiour to God and therefore inferiour to the Father though united in one Person to the Son Who although he be God and Man yet he is not Two but One Christ. One not by the Conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking the Manhood into God One altogether not by Confusion of Substance but by Vnity of Person For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is One Man so God and Man is One Christ. All this is necessary to the belief of the Incarnation that the same Jesus Christ is both God and Man for if
As thou Father art in me and I in Thee Not that they may be One in the very same manner but with such a kind of Unity as does most nearly resemble the Unity between the Father and the Son that is which produces the like consent and harmony in Will and Affections For we must observe that As very often signifies only some likeness and resemblance not a sameness for kind or degree and thus it must of necessity signifie in all comparisons between God and Creatures for though there is something in Creatures like to what is in God some faint shadows and images of it yet nothing in Creatures is the same that is in God St. Peter exhorts Christians As he which hath called you is holy so be ye holy in all manner of Conversation 1 Pet. 1.15 And Christ commands us to be perfect as our Father which is in Heaven is perfect 5 Matth. 48. But can any Creature be holy and perfect as God is Will you hence conclude that Holiness is not the immutable Nature of God but the free choice of his Will not his Nature which is One pure simple Act but an Habit of Virtue because so it is in us and yet we must be holy and perfect as God is which cannot be according to this way of Reasoning unless holiness in God be the same holiness which is in Creatures and indeed we may as well conclude this as that the Oneness between the Father and the Son is only a Moral Union in Will and Affection because there can be no other Union between Christians and yet Christ prays that they may be One as He and his Father are One Since this phrase As thou Father art in me and I in thee does evidently signifie a great deal more than such a Moral Union of Will and Affections why should they not as well conclude that Christ prays for such an essential Oneness between Christians as there is between him and his Father as that the Father and the Son are One in no higher and more perfect sense than what is applicable to the Unity of Christians with each other There may be such a likeness and resemblance between natural and moral Unions between the Acts and Perfections of Nature and the Vertues of the Will and Choice as may be a just foundation for a comparison but he is a very absurd Reasoner who from such a comparison will conclude they are the same we are required to love our Neighbour as our selves but will any Man hence conclude that the love of our selves and the love of our Neighbour are of the same kind Which is manifestly false Self-love being a natural and necessary Passion the love of our Neighbour a Christian Vertue the first the effect of Nature the second of Grace but the effects so like each other that they may well be compared and the natural principle which acts most equally and necessarily and perfectly may be made the Rule and Measure of Brotherly love Thus this essential Unity between the Father and the Son produces the most perfect harmony and Union of Will and Affections and therefore is the most perfect Pattern of that Moral Union which ought to be among Christians For we may observe that this Oneness between the Father and the Son is not the only natural and essential Unity which is made the Pattern of Unity among Christians the unity of the natural Body and the vital sympathy and fellow-feeling which all the Members of the same natural Body have for each other is proposed as a pattern also of that mutual love and affection between Christians 1 Cor. 12.12 27. And yet no man will be so absurd as to say That either Christians are as naturally and vitally united to each other as the Members of a natural Body are or that the Members of the natural Body are united only by mutual Love and Affection as Christians are This is sufficient to shew how Father and Son are One by a mutual consciousness whereby they are as intimate to each other as every man is to himself who knows all that is in himself and feels all the motions and workings of his own mind and we need not doubt but the Holy Spirit is in the same manner One with Father and Son But I must not expect that the Adversaries I have to deal with will grant any thing which is not proved and therefore I shall not stand to their Courtesie but briefly prove this also St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 2.10 That the Spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God So that the Holy Spirit knows all that is in God even his most deep and secret Counsels which is an argument that he is very intimate with him but this is not all it is the manner of knowing which must prove this consciousness of which I speak and that the Apostle adds in the next Verse that the Spirit of God knows all that is in God just as the Spirit of a Man knows all that is in Man that is not by external revelation or communication of this knowledge but by Self-consciousness by an internal Sensation which is owing to an essential Unity v. 11. For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is in him even so the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God So that the Spirit of God is as much within God and as intimate to him as the Spirit of Man is in Man that is by an essential Oneness and Self-consciousness And as the Spirit knoweth the deep things of God so God who searcheth the hearts knoweth the mind of the spirit too 8 Rom. 27. So that the Father and the Holy Ghost are mutually conscious to each other as a Man and his own Spirit are and then we need not doubt but the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of the Son as well as of the Father Is as intimate to the Son also And therefore Christ tells us of the Spirit He shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you all things that the Father hath are mine therefore said I he shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you 16 John 14 15. So that the Holy Spirit receives the things of Christ But how does he receive them Just as Christ receives them of the Father the same things and the same way not by an external communication but by an essential Oneness and Consciousness of all that is in the Father and in the Son This seems to me to be the true Scripture-account of the numerical Unity of the Divine Essence and to make a Trinity in Unity as intelligible as the Notion of One God is but because all that I have to say turns upon this I shall more particularly explain this Notion 1. By shewing that this contains the true Orthodox Faith of the Holy Trinity 2. That it gives a plain and intelligible Solution of all the Difficulties and
Concerning Expounding Scripture by Reason FOR like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there be Three Gods and Three Lords By the Christian Verity I suppose is meant the Sacred Books which contain the Christian Religion that is the Books of the Old and New Testament But do these Books and does this Verity compel us to the acknowledgment of Three Persons each of which is by himself Supreme God and Lord and yet all of them together but One God Doth I say the Holy Scripture compel us to this contradictory acknowledgment Is there any Text alleadged from Scripture which all the Vnitarians and some or other of the most learned Trinitarians do not easily interpret in such Sense that the Vnity of God is preserved and no more than One Person even the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ acknowledged to be God See the History of the Vnitarians But if there is no Text of Scripture but what is in the Opinion of some or other of their own Learned Men fairly capable of a Sense contrary to the Faith delivered in this Creed then we are not compelled to acknowledge this Faith And the truth is the Contest between the Vnitarians and Trinitarians is not as is commonly thought a Clash of Reason with Scripture but it layeth here whether when the Holy Scripture may be understood as teaching only One God or but One who is God which agrees with the rest of Scripture and with Natural Reason we must notwithstanding prefer an Interpretation of it that is absurd and contrary to it self to reason and to the rest of Scripture such as the Trinitarians Interpretation exprest in this Creed appears to be In a word the Question only is Whether we ought to Interpret Holy Scripture when it speaks of God according to Reason or not that is like fools or like wise men There is nothing in this long Paragraph to trouble an Answerers thoughts but a great deal to exercise his Patience if he be apt to be provoked by Arrogance and Folly His first Argument to prove that the Holy Scriptures do not compel us to confess each Person in the ever blessed Trinity to be God and Lord and yet that there is but one God is because it is a contradictory acknowledgment So he says and has endeavoured to prove it and how vainly and impertinently I leave the Reader to judge but if a Trinity in Unity imply no Contradiction as I am perswaded I have evidently proved then I hope the Scripture may teach this Doctrine and require the belief of it but this is an impudent Argument which brings Revelation down in such sublime Mysteries to the level of our Understandings to say such a Doctrine cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction whereas a modest man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not and if it be plainly contained there he would conclude how unintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture we must not indeed expound Scripture contrary to common Sense and to the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every man knows and every man can judge of but in Matters of pure Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of but what is revealed we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and express Authority of a Revelation for it is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Natures of Things whose Natures we do not understand as I shewed before His next Proof That the Scripture does not compel us to this Acknowledgment is that the Unitarians and some of the most Learned Trinitarians expound these Texts of Scripture which are alledged for a Trinity in Unity to another Sense and easily reconcile them with the Belief and Acknowledgment of One only who is God as well as of One God and for this he refers us to that Learned Piece the History of the Unitarians As for examining particular Texts which are alledged on both sides in this Controversie it is too voluminous a Work at present and besides my present Undertaking which is only to vindicate the Athanasian Creed and the true Christian Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity from the pretended Absurdities and Contradictions charged on it in these Notes and when that is done and I hope I have done it I dare trust any man of competent Understanding to judge which is most agreeable to the Scope and Language of Scripture But as for what he says that the Unitarians or Socinians can easily reconcile all the Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity to their Notion of One God in opposition to Three Divine Persons in the Godhead we must let him say so because he will say it as all other Hereticks pretend Scripture to be on their side but to say that they can easily do this is a little impudent when all Men who understand this Controversie see what Art they use and what forced and arbitrary Interpretations they put on Scripture to reconcile it to their Opinions especially when some of the most learned Socinians stick not to confess That they will expound Scripture to any sense rather than acknowledge such Doctrines as they think so contradictory to the Reason and Understanding of Mankind which no modest Man would own were he not sensible of the harshness and uncouthness of his own Expositions for things are come to a desperate pass when they shall resolve upon any sense or no sense rather than that which the words most aptly and properly signifie but lies cross to their Prejudices and pre-conceived Opinions But what thinks he of Socinus's Exposition of that Text where Christ says That he came down from Heaven which he could not do if he had no being before he was born of the Virgin Mary Did Socinus find it so easie a thing to reconcile this Text to his darling Opinion when he was fain to fast and to pray for it and to pretend Revelation because he wanted Reason to support it viz. That Christ before he entred on his Prophetick Office was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in the Gospel and then came down from Heaven again to publish it to the World Whereas our Saviour plainly speaks of his first coming into the World when he was born of the Virgin and the whole History of the Gospel takes no notice of his being taken up into Heaven before his Resurrection from the dead I think this was no easie Exposition but of this more presently That there are no Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity but what are rejected by one or other of the most learned Trinitarians is as true as the other There are many Texts which all hearty Trinitarians do and must agree in
to God as our Historian will have it by a communication of power over Diseases Devils the Grave the Winds the Seas c. which dwindles the form of God into just nothing for according to them he had no inherent Power to do this but God did it at his word as he did for other Prophets and therefore this is no form no likeness of God at all for he did not work Miracles as God does by an inherent Power but God wrought Miracles for him yet suppose this how is it an Argument of his humility that he committed not robbery by equalling himself to God as he renders the words which our Translators render and which the ancient Fathers expound to the same sense he thought it not robbery to be equal to God that is says he did not rob God of his honour by arrogating to himself to be God or equal to God though if this were robbery both Christ and his Apostles were guilty of it for Christ declared I and my Father are One which the Jews understood and they did not mistake him in it was to make himself God and the Apostles do this frequently in express terms as I have already shown but to allow his Interpretation I only ask whether Christ if he would could have committed this Robbery whether upon their supposition of his being a meer Man if he had arrogated to himself to be God God would have permitted this and suffered him to have wrought Miracles to cheat the world into this belief if he could not it is ridiculous to talk of his humility in not doing it and I am sure it is ridiculous upon their Hypothesis to say that he could But he took upon him the form of a Servant i. e. became like a Servant possessing nothing of his own and suffering injuries and reproaches c. But how did he take this form upon him which must signifie his own free and voluntary choice when he did not take it but was made so This was the Condition which he did not choose but was made for and what humility was this for a meer Man to be a Minister and Servant of God and so great a Minister as to be in the form of God as he says to be glorious for Miracles and admired as the great power of God especially when he was to be exalted into Heaven for it and advanced above all Principalites and Powers This is such Humility as would have been Pride and Ambition in the most glorious Angel But he was made in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man humbled himself c. that is says this Historian being made like other men in the common similitude of man and I pray how should a man be made but like a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto death i. e. notwithstanding that he could have delivered himself from them yet was he obedient even to evil Magistrates and without resistance under-went that death which their wickedness and malice prepared for him or rather which God had decred for him which his hand and counsel determined before to be done and therefore which he could not which he ought not to avoid The plain Case is this All the Circumstances of our Saviour's Birth and Life and Death were so punctually foretold by the Prophets and so peremtorily decreed by God that after he was come into the world there was no place for his choice and election he could not shew either his love or his humility in choosing Poverty or Death and therefore if it were matter of his free choice and a demonstration of his great Humility and Love as the Apostles says it was he chose it before he came into the world He was in the form of God equal to God rich before and chose to become Man a Minister a Servant and to submit to a mean Life and an infamous Death for our sakes and this indeed was a mighty Love and stupendious Humility in the Son of God This we can all understand it is a venerable Mystery and a powerful Argument of our Religion but Socinianism makes Nonsense of it The Faith and Worship of Christ is the distinguishing Character of the Christian Religion and if Christ be no more than a Man as the Socinians teach it is a direct Contradiction both to Natural and to the Mosaical Religion which condemn the worship of any Creature and all Religious Trust and Affiance in them It is a Religion without a Priest and without a Sacrifice or which is much the same retains the Name of a Priest and a Sacrifice without any proper Atonement or Expiation which is a very unfit Religion for sinners But that which is most to my present purpose is that it makes a God of a meer Creature and makes a Mediator and King without any inherent Power to save Sinners to protect his Church to govern or to judge the World which is a meer Pageant and Shadow of a King To make a Mediator or Mediatory King who shall be a fit Object of Religious Hope and Trust and Worship as I have already explained it at large he must have a Personal Knowledge of all our particular Wants and an Inherent Power to help us and though his Humane Nature is confined to Heaven his Knowledge and Power must extend to all the world as he himself tells us after his Resurrection All Power is given unto me both in Heaven and in Earth particularly he must have Power to protect his Church on Earth from all her Enemies to restrain and govern the malice of Men and Devils to forgive sins to give the fresh Supplies of Grace to raise the Dead to judge the World to condemn bad men to Hell and to bestow Heaven upon his sincere Disciples Let us then consider what account our Socinian Historian gives of this matter and what a kind of Mediator and King he makes of Christ. Sometimes to abuse the World he tells us the Socinians generally not only grant but earnestly contend that Christ is to be worshipped and prayed to because God hath they say by his inhabiting Word or Power given to the Lord Christ a faculty of knowing all things and an ability to relieve all our wants Now if they mean honestly that Christ has an inherent Personal Knowledge and Power whereby he knows and can do all things this is to ascribe true Divine Perfections to him for such are infinite Knowledge and infinite Power and that is to make him a true and real God and I think there is not greater Nonsense in the World than a Made-God than a Creature-God as I showed before But it is plain our Historian is none of these Socinians for all his Expositions lean another way and in the same place he disputes earnestly against praying to Christ and says that those Gentlemen he must mean the Socinian Gentlemen who are for praying to Christ especially the Polonian Zealots say that Christ's Mediation